alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 578.507 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 578.201 is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to § 578.508, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States; via specific license; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 578.201, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 578.404.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 578.201 is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 578.507 .
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of such legal services where alternative funding sources are not available.
CITY COURT OF NEW YORK, GENERAL TERM,

AUGUST, 1898.

#### Mas Friedman, Respondent, *v.*The Consolidated Traction Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment' in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Jarvis N. Atkinson, for appellant.

Julius H. Kahn, for respondent.

Conlan, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict at the Trial Term of this court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The action was brought to recover for personal.injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while á passenger on one of the cars of the defendant, and to have been caused solely by the defendant’s negligence.

The theory of the plaintiff is that he signaled the conductor of the car to alight at a certain point on the route, and that in consequence thereof the car came to a full Stop, and when he attempted to get off, and with one foot upon the car - and the other upon the ground, and having hold of the handle upon the car with his right hand, the car was suddenly started, and afterwards he was thrown *765to the ground, and thus suffered the injuries for which recovery is sought.

There is some dispute as' to which side of the car the plaintiff got off.

He, himself, testified that it was the left side, and at least one of the defendant’s witnesses agrees with' him in this particular.

The evidence of the plaintiff is positive on the point that the car had fully stopped when he attempted to get off, and for this reason we think the motion for a nonsuit was properly denied at the close of - the plaintiff’s case.

Upon the question whether the car was fully stopped or not, there is a sharp conflict of evidence, but the trial judge submitted the whole case on all of the evidence to the jury in a well-considered charge, to which no exception was taken, and we should only be usurping the province of the jury if, upon the case as presented by the printed record before us, we were to disturb its finding.

We are unwilling to say that a verdict of $600 under all the circumstances of the case was excessive, and are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Schuchman, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
# C_2005217EN.01003302.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-396/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/71)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

---

(1)  OJ C 273 6.11.2004.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-93538, 33-41453, 33-48646, 33-77080, 333-4620, 333-31753, 333-59547 and
333-80071 on Forms S-8 of Somanetics Corporation of our report dated January 24,
2000 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to an uncertainty concerning the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Somanetics Corporation for the year ended November 30, 1999.



/S/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
February 23, 2000
#### Samuel Penniman, Appellant, *v.*Amelia J. LaGrange*,*Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1898.)

District courts of New York — Loss of jurisdiction, by a failure to render judgment in time.

Where the record shows that a trial justice, of a District Court in the city of New York, failed to render judgment within eight days after the trial and submission to him of the case, the judgment must be reversed, as he has lost jurisdiction. (Laws of 1882, chap. 410, § 1384.)

Appeal from aj judgment of the District Court of the City of Yew York for the eighth judicial district, rendered by the justice without a jury, in favor of -the defendant.

William L. Mathot, for appellant.

William J. Walsh, for respondent.

Beekman, P. J.

The record before us shows that the trial justice lost jurisdiction of the action by his failure to render judgment within eight days after the trial,- and the submission of the case to Mm for decision. Section 1384 of the Consolidation Act of the City of Yew York; Bloomer v. Merrill, 1 Daly, 485; Orvis v. Curtiss, 8 Misc. Rep. 681; 28 N. Y. Supp. 728. In the (case last cited, wMch was decided by the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas, it was held that, where tMs omission appears upon the face of the return, the judgment-should he reversed. Such must, therefore, he our disposition of tMs appeal.' The conclusion to which we have come precludes us from reviewing the judgment on the merits. Judgment reversed, with costs.

Gilderslbeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
#### JRB COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEMBERTON, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1313.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2001.

Before MICHEL, GAJARSA and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*921
      *Judgment*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0000727087
<NAME>     First Capital Institutional Real Estate - 2
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     3,090,800
<SECURITIES>                               7,695,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                 87,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          10,874,000
<PP&E>                                    46,161,400
<DEPRECIATION>                            13,497,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            49,284,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6,481,500
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                42,694,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              49,284,400
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5,312,700
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2,006,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             257,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2,382,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        2,382,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               2,382,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  24.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  24.07
        

</TABLE>
§ 11.24 When must clinical trial registration information be submitted? ( a ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the responsible party for an applicable clinical trial for which submission of clinical trial registration information is required must submit the clinical trial registration information specified in section 402(j)(2)(A)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(2)(A)(ii)) or § 11.28(a), as applicable, not later than December 26, 2007, or 21 calendar days after the first human subject is enrolled, whichever date is later.
( b ) *Exceptions:.* ( 1 ) The responsible party for an applicable clinical trial that is a clinical trial and for which the submission of clinical trial registration information is required and that is not for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition must submit clinical trial registration information as specified in section 402(j)(2)(A)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(2)(A)(ii)) or § 11.28(a), as applicable, not later than September 27, 2008, or 21 calendar days after the first human subject is enrolled, whichever date is later.
( 2 ) The responsible party for an applicable device clinical trial that is a pediatric postmarket surveillance of a device product and is not a clinical trial must submit clinical trial registration information, as specified in section 402(j)(2)(A)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(2)(A)(ii)) or § 11.28(b), not later than December 26, 2007, or 21 calendar days after FDA approves the postmarket surveillance plan, whichever date is later.
#### McINTIRE *v.*CARR.

Appeal and Error — Correction op Bill op Exceptions — Motions — Supreme Court — Practice—Mandamus.

The proper practice to review the action of the circuit court in refusing to include in a bill of exceptions matter desired by-appellant is by proposing an amendment to the bill as settled and reviewing by mandamus the refusal of the judge. It is not a correct method to move to remand the record for correction after the issuance of a writ of error.

Assumpsit by Arthur F. Mclntire against Henry W. Carr. On motion of appellant to remand the record for amendment and correction.

Submitted January 19,1912.

(Calendar No. 24,867.)

Motion denied February 10, 1912.

*John A. McKay,*for the motion.

*Beach, O'Keefe & Rockwith, contra.*

Brooke, J.

A motion is made in this case by the appellant to remand the record for correction and amendment in certain specified particulars

It appears that in settling the bill of exceptions the circuit judge omitted to include therein certain matter which counsel for appellant believed to be material. To this ac*463tion of the court appellant excepted, but took no steps to review such action. He caused the bill of exceptions, as settled and signed by the judge, to be printed and the record to be filed in this court. He now asks us to remand that record for amendment. We do not understand this to be proper practice. A party aggrieved by the action of the circuit judge in settling a bill of exceptions should make a motion in the court below that the bill be amended in the desired particulars. Upon the denial of such motion, the action of the circuit court may be reviewed in this court by mandamus. *Crane*v. *Wayne Circuit Judge,*24 Mich. 513, 3 Cyc. p. 52, and cases cited in note 48. If this course is followed, this court, upon consideration of the return to the order to show cause, is enabled to act intelligently, otherwise such action is not possible.

Touching the present application, from an examination of the proposed amendments in connection with the printed record now on file in this court, it would seem that the omitted matter, if it had been included in the bill of exceptions, would in no respect aid this court to a proper understanding of the questions involved.

The motion is denied, with costs.

Moobe, C. J., and Steebe, McAlvay, Blaib, Stone, and Osteandeb, JJ., concurred. Bibd, J., did not sit.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2853

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favorednation treatment) to the products of Bulgaria.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1996

Mr. CRANE (for himself and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of Bulgaria.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND SUPPLE4 MENTAL ACTION.

5 (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.—The Congress finds

6 that Bulgaria—

7 (1) has received most-favored-nation treatment

8 since 1991 and has been found to be in full compli9 ance with the freedom of emigration requirements

10 under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1993;
2

•HR 2853 IH

1 (2) has reversed many years of Communist dic2 tatorship and instituted a constitutional republic

3 ruled by a democratically elected government as well

4 as basic market-oriented reforms, including privat5 ization;

6 (3) is in the process of acceding to the General

7 Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the

8 World Trade Organization (WTO), and extension of

9 unconditional most-favored-nation treatment would

10 enable the United States to avail itself of all rights

11 under the GATT and the WTO with respect to Bul12 garia; and

13 (4) has demonstrated a strong desire to build

14 friendly relationships and to cooperate fully with the

15 United States on trade matters.

16 (b) SUPPLEMENTAL ACTION.—The Congress notes

17 that the United States Trade Representative intends to

18 negotiate with Bulgaria in order to preserve the commit19 ments of that country under the bilateral commercial

20 agreement in effect between that country and the United

21 States that are consistent with the GATT and the WTO.

22 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

23 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO BULGARIA.

24 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN25 SION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith-
3

•HR 2853 IH

1 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

2 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

3 (1) determine that such title should no longer

4 apply to Bulgaria; and

5 (2) after making a determination under para6 graph (1) with respect to Bulgaria, proclaim the ex7 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-fa8 vored-nation treatment) to the products of that

9 country.

10 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

11 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub12 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod13 ucts of Bulgaria, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

14 cease to apply to that country.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      5,806,400
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,834,200
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              5,850,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          57,300
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  5,793,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                5,850,400
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              327,400
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               82,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               234,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                      600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           233,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  233,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.72



</TABLE>
# C_2005193EN.01002901.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/29

---

Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin against Council of the European Union

(Case C-T-54/05)

(2005/C 193/48)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Marten, Albert Coolen, Etienne Marchal and Jean-Noël Louis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request to annul its decision not to award him the expatriation allowance and the associated rights; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request to annul its decision not to award him the expatriation allowance and the associated rights;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law put forward by the applicant are the same as those put forward by the same applicant in Case T-408/04 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 C 300 of 4.12.2004, p. 50.

1

---
694 A.2d 1098

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. L. Edward GLASS, Respondent.

No. 100 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 21, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April. 1,1997, it is hereby

ORDERED that:L. EDWARD GLASS be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two and one-half (2}é) years, retroactive to January 20, 1995, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
# Somalia

92 items

        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Somalia	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Welcome Progress Towards Elections in Somalia	  Ned PriceMay 1, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Return to Election Negotiations	  Ned PriceApril 28, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Violence in Mogadishu	  Ned PriceApril 26, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Somalia: The United States Opposes Federal Government Term Extensions	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 13, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Somalia	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Somalia Should Hold Elections Immediately	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 19, 2021 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Using Social Media To Protect Civilians from Landmines and Other Explosive Hazards	  March 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 9, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 9, 2021 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Somalia Summary	   

previous page1…5678910next page

Back to Top
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jerry JACKSON, Appellee.

No. 57942.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1981.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Miami, and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Janet Reno, State Atty., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. State Atty., Miami, for appellant.

Thomas G. Murray, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Jackson was charged by information with trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979). This appeal comes to us from an order of the trial court granting Jackson’s motion to dismiss one count of the information and declaring the statute unconstitutional.1 All of the issues presented by this appeal were resolved against Jackson in *State v. Yu,*400 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1981). The order of the trial court is thus reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1

. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. (1972).