alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 405 appear at 76 FR 5961, Feb. 2, 2011.

§ 405.358 When waiver of adjustment or recovery may be applied. Section 1870(c) of the Act provides that there shall be no adjustment or recovery in any case where an incorrect payment under title XVIII (hospital and supplementary medical insurance benefits) has been made (including a payment under section 1814(e) of the Act with respect to an individual: ( a ) Who is without fault, and
( b ) Adjustment or recovery would either: ( 1 ) Defeat the purposes of title II or title XVIII of the Act, or
( 2 ) Be against equity and good conscience.
[61 FR 49271, Sept. 19, 1996]
**Exhibit 31.4****CFO CERTIFICATIONS**I, Derek J. Kerr, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of America West Airlines, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: February 28, 2007         /s/ Derek J. Kerr     Name: Derek J. Kerr    Title: Chief Financial Officer
# Timor-Leste

54 items

        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Timor-Leste	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Timor-Leste	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Timor-Leste	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Timor-Leste	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Timor-Leste	  June 28, 2018 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
§ 1008.18 Preliminary questions suggested for the requesting party. ( a ) The OIG may establish and maintain a set of questions corresponding to the categories of opinion subject matter as set forth in § 1008.5(a) of this part as appropriate. The questions will be designed to elicit specific information relevant to the advisory opinion being sought; however, answering the questions is voluntary.
( b ) Questions the OIG suggests that the requestor address may be obtained from the OIG. Requests should be made in writing, specify the subject matter, and be sent to the headquarter offices of the OIG.
( c ) When submitting a request for an advisory opinion, a requestor may answer the questions corresponding to the subject matter for which the opinion is requested. The extent to which any of the questions is not fully answered may effect the content of the advisory opinion.
[62 FR 7357, Feb. 19, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 38324, July 16, 1998]
# C_2005217EN.01001401.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 16 June 2005

in Case C-456/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/44/EC - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Admissibility - Failure to transpose - Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12)

(2005/C 217/26)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-456/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 October 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

1

---
SCIOS INC.
                                       AND SUBSIDIARIES
                              Computation of Net Loss Per Share

                              (Calculated in accordance with the
                                  guidelines of item 601 of
                                Regulation S-K. The effect of
                                  stock options on loss per
                                    share is anti-dilutive

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 Nine months ended
                                                                   September 30,
                                                            1996                    1995
                                                      -----------------       -----------------
                                                                    (Unaudited)
<S>                                                   <C>                     <C>    

PRIMARY:
Average common shares outstanding                           35,885,377              35,469,524
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
    based on treasury stock method                                   0                       0
                                                      -----------------       -----------------
Average common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding                                      35,885,377              35,469,524
                                                      -----------------       -----------------


Net loss                                                 $(19,943,000)           $(21,487,000)
                                                      -----------------       -----------------


Net loss per share                                             ($0.56)                 ($0.61)
                                                      -----------------       -----------------

FULLY DILUTED:
Average common shares outstanding                          35,885,377              35,469,524
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
    based on treasury stock method                                  0                       0
                                                     -----------------       -----------------
Average common and common equivalent -
    shares outstanding                                     35,885,377              35,469,524
                                                      -----------------       -----------------


Net loss                                                 $(19,943,000)           $(21,487,000)
                                                      -----------------       -----------------


Net loss per share                                             ($0.56)                 ($0.61)
                                                      -----------------       -----------------

</TABLE>


                        See notes to consolidated financial statements


                                         Exhibit 11.2
40833.

#### COCHRAN, by Next Friend v. SOUTHERN BUSINESS UNIVERSITY, INC.

Frankum, Judge.

1. When the defendant has made a motion for a summary judgment under the provisions of *Code Ann. Ch.*110-12, which motion is supported by affidavits, depositions, or other evidentiary matter showing a prima facie right on the part of the defendant to have a summary judgment rendered in his favor, the duty is cast upon the plaintiff to produce rebuttal evidence at the hearing thereof, by the introduction of depositions or affidavits, sufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine issue of fact to be decided by the jury. *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, 47 (118 SE2d 193).

2. In such a case the depositions or affidavits offered in support of the plaintiff’s case and in opposition to the defendant’s motion for a summary judgment must affirmatively show that the plaintiff’s case is provable by competent evidence. *Moore v. Atlanta Transit System,*105 Ga. App. 70, 72 (1) (123 SE2d 693). Section 5 of the Act approved March 17, 1959 (Ga. L. 1959, pp. 234, 235), provides in part: “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth Such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall *show affirmatively*that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated [t] herein.” *Code Ann.*§ 110-1205. (Emphasis ours). An affidavit which shows on its face that it is not made on the personal knowledge of the affiant is insufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine dispute for the jury to decide.

3. Where, as in this case, the defendant pleads in defense of the plaintiff’s action of debt and for money had and received that the sum which the plaintiff seeks to recover was paid *667under a written contract, a copy of which was attached as an exhibit to the defendant’s answer, which contract, apparently binding on its face, provides that the money consideration recited as having been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, would be refunded only on the happening of certain specified contingencies; and where plaintiff, by failing to ' answer the defendant’s request for admissions, admitted execution of the contract, the part performance by the defendant of the contract, and the nonoccurrence of any of the contingencies necessary to be shown in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to recover from the defendant the money paid thereon; and where the plaintiff, in opposition to the motion for a summary judgment, filed with the court only an affidavit, which sought to inject into the case for the first time fraud on the part of the defendant in procuring the contract, and stated therein, in support of that contention, facts which were clearly not within the personal knowledge of the affiant, the Judge of the Civil Court of Fulton County, wherein the case was pending, did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for a summary judgment.

Decided November 19, 1964.

*Phillips, Johnson &, Daniel, Wm. W. Daniel,*for plaintiff in error.

*Huie, Etheridge & Harland, Harry L. Cashin, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2



AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, C. Tim Cassels, state and attest that:



(1) I am the Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the
Registrant).



(2) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that



 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the periodic report) containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and



 the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods presented.



|      |  |                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name: |  | /s/ C. Tim Cassels                                  
|Title |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|Date: |  | May 16, 2005
#### § 8.70 Decision of the Secretary.

On appeal from or review of the intial decision of the Administrative Law Judge, the Secretary shall make the agency decision. In making this decision, the Secretary shall review the record or those portions of the records as may be cited by the parties in order to limit the issues. The Director of Prasctice shall transmit a copy of the Secretary's decision to the respondent.
693 A.2d 199

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Samuel F. RIZZO, Respondent.

No. 327 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 6, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 1997, there having been filed with this Court by Samuel F. Rizzo his verified State*20ment of Resignation dated April 1, 1997, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Samuel F. Rizzo be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
§ 405.2442 Notice to the public. ( a ) When the FQHC voluntarily terminates the agreement and an effective date is set for the termination, the FQHC must notify the public in the area serviced by the FQHC prior to a prospective effective date or on the actual day that business ceases, if no prospective date of termination has been set. The notice must include— ( 1 ) Effective date of termination of the provision of services; and
( 2 ) Effect of termination of the agreement.
( b ) When CMS terminates the agreement, CMS will notify the public in the area serviced by the FQHC.
[57 FR 24978, June 12, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 25476, May 2, 2014; 82 FR 38509, Aug. 14, 2017]
# C_2005280EN.01001201.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3905 — Tesco/Carrefour (Czech Republic and Slovakia))

(2005/C 280/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 4 November 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Tesco plc (‘Tesco’, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the Czech and Slovak businesses of the undertaking Carrefour (France) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 4 November 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Tesco plc (‘Tesco’, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the Czech and Slovak businesses of the undertaking Carrefour (France) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Tesco: food and non-food retailing; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Tesco: food and non-food retailing;

| — | for Carrefour: food and non-food retailing. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Carrefour: food and non-food retailing.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3905 — Tesco/Carrefour (Czech Republic and Slovakia), to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| BE-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3905 — Tesco/Carrefour (Czech Republic and Slovakia), to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

BE-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla for Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

January 17, 2024

The State Department is designating**Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla,** former president of Guatemala, as generally ineligible for entry into the United States due to his involvement in significant corruption. The State Department has credible information indicating that Giammattei accepted bribes in exchange for the performance of his public functions during his tenure as president of Guatemala, actions that undermined the rule of law and government transparency.

The United States has made clear that it stands with Guatemalans who seek accountability for corrupt actors.  Over the past three years, we have taken steps to impose visa restrictions or sanctions on nearly 400 individuals, including public officials, private sector representatives, and their family members for engaging in corrupt activities or undermining democracy or the rule of law in Guatemala. Corruption weakens the rule of law and democratic institutions, enables impunity, fuels irregular migration, hampers economic prosperity, and curtails the ability of governments to respond effectively to their people’s needs.

The United States remains committed to strengthening transparency and governance in Guatemala and throughout the Western Hemisphere and we will continue to use all available tools to promote accountability for those who undermine it.

*These public designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023, as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Act.  The Department is also designating his adult daughter, Ana Marcela Dinorah Giammattei Caceres, his adult son, Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Caceres, and his adult son, Stefano Giammattei Caceres, as generally ineligible for entry into the United States, in accordance with U.S. law.*

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionGuatemalaOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
§ 136.24 Authorization for contract health services. ( a ) No payment will be made for medical care and services obtained from non-Service providers or in non-Service facilities unless the applicable requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section have been met and a purchase order for the care and services has been issued by the appropriate ordering official to the medical care provider.
( b ) In nonemergency cases, a sick or disabled Indian, an individual or agency acting on behalf of the Indian, or the medical care provider shall, prior to the provision of medical care and services notify the appropriate ordering official of the need for services and supply information that the ordering official deems necessary to determine the relative medical need for the services and the individual's eligibility. The requirement for notice prior to providing medical care and services under this paragraph may be waived by the ordering official if: ( 1 ) Such notice and information are provided within 72 hours after the beginning of treatment or admission to a health care facility; and
( 2 ) The ordering official determines that giving of notice prior to obtaining the medical care and services was impracticable or that other good cause exists for the failure to provide prior notice.
( c ) In emergency cases, a sick or disabled Indian, or an individual or agency acting on behalf of the Indian, or the medical care provider shall within 72 hours after the beginning of treatment for the condition or after admission to a health care facility notify the appropriate ordering official of the fact of the admission or treatment, together with information necessary to determine the relative medical need for the services and the eligibility of the Indian for the services. The 72-hour period may be extended if the ordering official determines that notification within the prescribed period was impracticable or that other good cause exists for the failure to comply.