alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United Arab Emirates

250 items

        -    Report  		United Arab Emirates	  March 3, 2017 
        -    		2016 Final Communique Plenary Session Dubai	  November 17, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (13-1208) – Agreement on Air Transport Preclearance	  December 8, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (10-823) – Agreement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety and Security Matters	  August 23, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (09-1217) – Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy	  December 17, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (04-215) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  February 15, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (02-1211) – Air Transport Agreement	  December 11, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (13040) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  June 6, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (12906) – Agreement Regarding Taxation of Income Derived from the International Operation of Ships or Aircraft	  December 1, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (87-523) – Agreement Concerning Defense Security of Information	  May 23, 1987 

previous page1…232425

Back to Top
#### In re ESTATE of Sophie AGARDY, Deceased. Helen BERVID, Appellant, v. Richard DUNN, as Executor of the Estate of Sophie Agardy, Deceased, Appellee.

Nos. 73-908, 73-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 1974.

Julius H. Erstling, South Miami, for appellant.

*146Weintraub & Weintraub, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these cases consolidated for trial, appellant, the petitioner in the court below, appeals an order (1) denying her petition for revocation of probate of the will of the decedent, and (2) dismissing her complaint with prejudice to set aside a Quitclaim deed executed by appellant whereby she re-conveyed certain property to the decedent.

The judge found that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity on the date of the execution of the will and also found that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the beneficiaries under the will. The determination of these factual matters was within the domain of the trial judge and we find there was sufficient evidence to sustain his findings of fact. Jones v. Bernard, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 766.

Likewise as to the execution of the deed, the trial judge determined that the testimony was insufficient to prove fraud on the part of the decedent and this finding will not be disturbed on appeal for the record adequately supports this determination. See 14 Fla.Jur. Fraud and Deceit § 89 (1957).

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# C_2006074EN.01001302.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/13

---

Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-78/06)

(2006/C 74/26)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 20, 2017

d0919 

# Order

Clerk September 20, 2017

156280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 156280

COA: 339228

Jackson CC: 16

- 004958

- FC

TRACEY LEE LAWRENCE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2017 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7 .305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted. We further ORDER that trial court proceedings are

stayed pending the completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion,

the Court of Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears

that the appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.
#### FOX POOLS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellant, v. George C. FOX, Appellee.

No. 74-686.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 19, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION



Exhibit 32.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert M. Daugherty, state and attest that:

(1) I am the Chief Executive 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, to the
best of my knowledge,



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended September 30, 2006 (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/ Robert M. Daugherty              
|Title |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: |  | November 9, 2006
HomeCurrent Air Transport Agreements...Ecuador Diplomatic Note Extending Annex I to U.S.-Ecuador Air Transport Agreement of August 29, 2017

# 									Ecuador Diplomatic Note Extending Annex I to U.S.-Ecuador Air Transport Agreement of August 29, 2017							

Air Transport Agreement

August 29, 2017

		Division Home		
						Download Agreement												[194 KB]

**Republic of EcuadorMinistry of Foreign Relations and Human Mobility**

Embassy of the United States of AmericaQuito

Note No.: MREMH-SANE-2017-0033-NQuito, August 29, 2017

The Ministry of Foreign Relations and Human Mobility, Office of the Undersecretary for North America and Europe, presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America in Ecuador and reports, in reference to note verbale No. MREMH/MREMH/2017/0035/N, that on the recommendation of the Ministry of Transportation and Public Works, which is the lead agency for aviation policy in Ecuador, the Ministry of Foreign Relations has the honor to reiterate its proposal that Annex I of the Air Transport Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Ecuador and the Government of the United States be extended for a two-year period, that is, until June 30, 2019, under the terms currently in effect.

The Ministry of Foreign Relations and Human Mobility, Office of the Undersecretary for North America and Europe, further proposes that if this proposal is acceptable to the Government of the United States, this note and the U.S. Embassy’s affirmative reply shall constitute an agreement between the Governments of our two countries, which shall enter into force on the date of the Embassy’s reply and take effect as of June 30, 2017.

Tags

Air Transport AgreementsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for Transportation AffairsEcuador

Back to Top
# Uzbekistan

117 items

        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uzbekistan	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Pamela Spratlen Designated as Senior Advisor to Department Health Incident Response Task Force	  March 12, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Uzbekistan	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Uzbekistan	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Uzbekistan	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Uzbekistan	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uzbekistan	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Uzbekistan	  July 11, 2019 
        -    		Uzbekistan	  July 9, 2019 
        -    Report  		Uzbekistan	  June 21, 2019 

previous page1…789101112next page

Back to Top
#### GEORGE KELLETT & SONS, INC. v. Mrs. Laura Dickerson, wife of/and William DOBBS.

No. 11147.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1980.

*759Samuel W. Ethridge, Kenner, for defendants-appellees.

Frank P. Battard, Voelker & Jeffers, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.

SCHOTT, Judge.

Plaintiff supplied building materials to defendant’s contractor and brought this suit against the owners to assert a claim and a lien under LSA-R.S. 9:4812. Plaintiff alleged that the materials were delivered between September 12 and December 15, 1978, and that it recorded by its lien on February 22, 1979.

Defendants filed an exception of no right of action which was maintained by the trial court. From that judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit it has appealed.

Under C.C.P. Art. 927 the exception of no right of action is defined as “no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit.” From the pleadings as well as the evidence taken by the trial court on the exception plaintiff clearly has an interest in bringing the suit since it did in fact deliver the materials and is seeking payment for same. Consequently, the trial court was in error in dismissing plaintiff’s suit on the basis of the exception of no right of action.

On our own motion, pursuant to C.C.P. Art. 927, we have noticed the failure of plaintiff to state a cause of action in that the literal terms of the statute would preclude plaintiff from bringing this suit because the recordation of the lien was beyond the sixty day time limit prescribed by the statute in connection with an unrecorded building contract. However, the jurisprudence has interpreted the statute to provide a supplier with a cause of action even though recordation is made beyond sixty days if it occurs within sixty days after the last date on which any material was supplied or work was performed on the job by anyone. *National Homestead Association v. Graham,*176 La. 1062, 47 So. 348 (1933), also *First Wis. Nat. Bank of Milwaukee v. Novem,*349 So.2d 370 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977). Since plaintiff may be able to remove the grounds of our objection to the petition by alleging facts which would bring the case within the ambit of those cited above plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend its petition in order to state a cause of action in accordance with C.C.P. Art. 934.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed against defendants. All other costs are to await the outcome of the case.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
# C_2006059EN.01001201.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/12

---

Corrigendum to P-São Miguel: operation of scheduled air services — Invitation to tender issued by the Autonomous Region of the Azores under Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 in respect of the operation of scheduled air services within the Autonomous Region of the Azores

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 51 of 1 March 2006
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 51 of 1 March 2006

(2006/C 59/07)

On page 7, point 1, in the third paragraph:

for:

‘Assuming that, by 28 February 2006, no air carrier has applied to operate scheduled air services ...’,

read:

‘Assuming that, by 31 March 2006, no air carrier has applied to operate scheduled air services ...’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3194 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3194

   To provide that the property of innocent owners is not subject to 
            forfeiture under the laws of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 1996

 Mr. Pickett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that the property of innocent owners is not subject to 
            forfeiture under the laws of the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Innocent Owners' Forfeiture 
Protection Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS OF INNOCENT OWNERS IN 
              FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

    Unless the law specifically so provides, and by reference to this 
section overrides the rule of this section, no law of the United States 
shall be interpreted to permit or require the forfeiture of the 
property interest of an innocent owner by reason of the criminal 
conduct of another.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2005223EN.01000502.xml

| 10.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3906 — 3i Group/PIHL)

(2005/C 223/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3906. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3906. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005281EN.01000801.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Aldo Celozzi v Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-332/05)

(2005/C 281/15)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 5 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aldo Celozzi and Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

Is it compatible with the primary and/or secondary law of the European Community (in particular Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty), Articles 3(1) and 23(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68) (1) for a married migrant worker employed in Germany, whose spouse resides in another Member State, to receive sick pay always linked to net remuneration established on the basis of the wage tax class stated on his wage tax card without account being taken of a subsequent retroactive amendment, which is favourable to him, of the tax classification relating to his marital status?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 257 p. 2.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         371,348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,606
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,963
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     319,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,606
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,648
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,352
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.384 Disclosing advisory opinions and supporting information. ( a ) Advisory opinions that CMS issues and releases in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subpart are available to the public.
( b ) Promptly after CMS issues an advisory opinion and releases it to the requestor, CMS makes available a copy of the advisory opinion on the CMS Web site.
( c ) Any predecisional document, or part of such predecisional document, that is prepared by CMS, the Department of Justice, or any other Department or agency of the United States in connection with an advisory opinion request under the procedures set forth in this part is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552, and will not be made publicly available.
( d ) Documents submitted by the requestor to CMS in connection with a request for an advisory opinion are available to the public to the extent they are required to be made available by 5 U.S.C. 552, through procedures set forth in 45 CFR part 5.
( e ) Nothing in this section limits CMS's obligation, under applicable laws, to publicly disclose the identity of the requesting party or parties, and the nature of the action CMS has taken in response to the request.
[69 FR 57230, Sept. 24, 2004, as amended at 80 FR 71379, Nov. 16, 2015; 84 FR 63193, Nov. 15, 2019]