alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 000000 00 0
THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of BY FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES OF AMERICAN (Brooklyn, COUNTERSIGNED GLOBAL-E ONLINE LTD.New STOCK AND transferable
on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented COMMON hereby, are issued and shall be held subject to all of the
provisions of the Articles York) of Association, as amended, of the Corporation (copies of which are on file with the Corporation and with the Transfer Agent), to all of which each holder, by acceptance hereof, assents. This certificate is not valid
until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent TRANSFER & REGISTERED: and Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by facsimile signatures of its duly TRUST authorized officers.
Dated: AUTHORIZED AND COMPANY TRANSFER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIGNATURE REGISTRAR AGENT 












 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: UTMA – ____________ Custodian ____________ TEN COM – as tenants in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT – as tenants by entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors JT TEN
– as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act ____________________ ____________ and not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received _____ hereby sell, assign, and
transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated ________________ X X NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND
WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A
PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED.
GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130715 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130715 COA: 256983 Berrien CC: 2003-406255-FC CHARLES STEPHEN LEBLANC, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
# C_2005320EN.01001801.xml

| 15.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/18

---

Amendment to the notice of invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries

(2005/C 320/10)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union, C 166 of 7 July 2005
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union, C 166 of 7 July 2005

Page 54, the text of point 2, under heading I ‘Subject’, reads as follows:

‘The total quantity in respect of which there may be fixed a maximum export refund as provided in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 (1), is approximately 5 000 000 tonnes.’.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.330 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements section 1888(e) of the Act, which provides for the implementation of a prospective payment system for SNFs for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 1998.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the framework for the prospective payment system for SNFs, including the methodology used for the development of payment rates and associated adjustments, the application of a transition phase, and related rules.
#### James R. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. JJ-66.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 1, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Hall appeals a conviction for attempted burglary of a residence, alleging that a statement made by the prosecutor in closing argument constituted a comment on his constitutional right to silence. We agree and reverse.

*867Appellant presented no evidence or testimony at his trial. His counsel, however, subjected the state witnesses to cross-examination which revealed some discrepancies between the various accounts of the offense. Subsequently, in closing argument, the prosecutor walked over to appellant, pointed at him, and made the following comment:

> “Oh, Mr. Stokes [appellant’s counsel], he’s putting the spotlight on Lucille — asking questions about whether or not she had ever sold a beer to a minor before. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this case— not at all. But, you know, that’s a favorite defense tactic, because this man is sitting over here quietly. Mr. Stokes gets on to Lucille, and gets on to Dennis, and gets on to the other witnesses. You know why? Because he doesn’t want you to look at his defendant during the course of this trial. He wants to take the spotlight off of this defendant, James Hall. But let me remind you that James Hall is the one on trial today. No one else.”

Appellant’s counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court, after listening to a tape recording of the statement and hearing argument outside of the jury’s presence, concluded that the word “quietly” had been used only to describe appellant’s demeanor during the closing argument, and did not refer to his silence during the testimony.

On this record, we cannot agree that the statement was anything but a comment on appellant’s failure to present testimony on his own behalf. The comment by its very terms contrasts the state’s presentation of a case with appellant’s failure to make such a presentation. Furthermore, it appears obvious to us that the word “quietly” refers to appellant’s silence during the cross-examination portion of the testimony rather than during the closing argument.

The Supreme Court of Florida has recently reiterated that an improper comment on a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent, if properly preserved for appeal through objection, constitutes reversible error. *Clark v. State,*363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978), opinion filed July 28, 1978. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

BOYER, Acting C. J., dissents.

BOYER, Judge,

dissents.

I respectfully dissent. In my view there has been no comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. I would consider the quoted statement by the prosecutor in the same manner as did the learned trial judge and would affirm.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Spanish State Secretary for Foreign and Global Affairs Martínez Belío

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Spanish State Secretary for Foreign and Global Affairs Martínez Belío							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

April 5, 2024

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke today with Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs State Secretary for Foreign and Global Affairs Diego Martínez Belío.  The Deputy Secretary and the State Secretary emphasized the importance of engagement with regional leaders to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinian civilians.  They also reaffirmed steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war.  They discussed the upcoming NATO Summit in Washington and our crucial relationship as NATO Allies.  They also shared priorities on the Sahel and issues related to the People’s Republic of China.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsChinaIsraelOffice of the SpokespersonPalestinian TerritoriesRussiaSpainUkraine

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.37 Amount of Medicare recovery when a primary payment is made as a result of a judgment or settlement. ( a ) *Recovery against the party that received payment* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Medicare reduces its recovery to take account of the cost of procuring the judgment or settlement, as provided in this section, if— ( i ) Procurement costs are incurred because the claim is disputed; and
( ii ) Those costs are borne by the party against which CMS seeks to recover.
( 2 ) *Special rule.* If CMS must file suit because the party that received payment opposes CMS's recovery, the recovery amount is as set forth in paragraph (e) of this section.
( b ) *Recovery against the primary payer.* If CMS seeks recovery from the primary payer, in accordance with § 411.24(i), the recovery amount will be no greater than the amount determined under paragraph (c) or (d) or (e) of this section.
( c ) *Medicare payments are less than the judgment or settlement amount.* If Medicare payments are less than the judgment or settlement amount, the recovery is computed as follows: ( 1 ) Determine the ratio of the procurement costs to the total judgment or settlement payment.
( 2 ) Apply the ratio to the Medicare payment. The product is the Medicare share of procurement costs.
( 3 ) Subtract the Medicare share of procurement costs from the Medicare payments. The remainder is the Medicare recovery amount.
( d ) *Medicare payments equal or exceed the judgment or settlement amount.* If Medicare payments equal or exceed the judgment or settlement amount, the recovery amount is the total judgment or settlement payment minus the total procurement costs.
( e ) *CMS incurs procurement costs because of opposition to its recovery.* If CMS must bring suit against the party that received payment because that party opposes CMS's recovery, the recovery amount is the lower of the following: ( 1 ) Medicare payment.
( 2 ) The total judgment or settlement amount, minus the party's total procurement cost.
### INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT
IN SUPPORT OF MCAN J-10-2

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0994

JANUARY 31 2012
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with ROK First Vice Foreign Minister Kim

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with ROK First Vice Foreign Minister Kim							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

February 15, 2024

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hong-kyun.  Deputy Secretary Campbell and Vice Minister Kim said they looked forward to working together in their new roles and reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-ROK Alliance and the U.S.-ROK-JPN trilateral relationship to security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and the world.  The Deputy Secretary and Vice Minister condemned the DPRK’s provocative actions, its increasingly hostile rhetoric, and its transfer to Russia of ballistic missiles for use against the people of Ukraine. They committed to close cooperation on addressing the most serious regional and global challenges.  The Deputy Secretary thanked the ROK for hosting the upcoming third Summit for Democracy and for taking up a leadership role on the global stage.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonSouth Korea

Back to Top
# Maldives

64 items

        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Maldives	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Maldives	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Maldives	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Maldives	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Maldives	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Maldives	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Maldives	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Maldives	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Maldives	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Maldives	  March 13, 2019 

previous page1…34567next page

Back to Top
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10822

__________________

IN THE MATTER OF: JACK COLE,

 Debtor.

JACK COLE,

Appellant,

versus

RAY PAYNE; DIANE PAYNE,

Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-2013-R)

______________________________________________

April 9, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This Court accepts jurisdiction under the rationale of Matter

of Cajun Electric Power Coop., Inc., 69 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995),

but, after considering the briefs, arguments, and relevant portions

of the record, this Court affirms the district court’s judgment

essentially for the reasons given by that court.
2

AFFIRMED
§ 407.4 Basic requirements for entitlement. ( a ) An individual must meet the following requirements to be entitled to SMI: ( 1 ) *Eligibility.* The individual must meet the eligibility requirements specified in § 407.10(a).
( 2 ) *Enrollment.* The individual must enroll for SMI, or must be enrolled by a State under a buy-in agreement as specified in § 407.40.
( b ) SMI pays only for covered expenses incurred during an individual's period of entitlement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 413

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

#### § 413.316 Determining payment amounts: Ancillary services.

Ancillary services are paid on the basis of reasonable cost in accordance with section 1861(v)(1) of the Act and § 413.53.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            9695
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            8427
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 16020
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      16953
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             605
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               607
<LOANS>                                         172358
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  234705
<DEPOSITS>                                      201170
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2572
<LONG-TERM>                                       3257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         21102
<OTHER-SE>                                        6604
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  234705
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13709
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  980
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   450
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 15139
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                5789
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6010
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9129
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      403
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  53
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4249
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4249
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.31
<LOANS-NON>                                        380
<LOANS-PAST>                                       617
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1391
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      165
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1636
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1636
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006010EN.01002402.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/24

---

Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Di Bucci v Commission

(Case T-381/05)

(2006/C 10/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him only four Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the Director General's decision rejecting his internal appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him only four Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the Director General's decision rejecting his internal appeal;

| — | annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for work done in the interests of the institution’ special priority points (‘PPCPs’) for the 2004 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for work done in the interests of the institution’ special priority points (‘PPCPs’) for the 2004 promotion exercise;

| — | annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 20 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 40 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A4 during that exercise; the list of officials granted PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A5 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 20 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 40 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A4 during that exercise; the list of officials granted PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A5 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists;

| — | annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances pleas similar to those advanced in Case T-311/04 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 44

1

---