alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,332,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,070,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (73,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    176,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               551,000
<PP&E>                                      14,038,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,152,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,356,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,629,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       672,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,791,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,356,000
<SALES>                                      3,574,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,774,000
<CGS>                                        2,274,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,302,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,144,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                693,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            693,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   693,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
§ 2a.7 Effect of Confidentiality Certificate. ( a ) A Confidentiality Certificate authorizes the withholding of the names and other identifying characteristics of individuals who participate as subjects in the research project specified in the Certificate while the Certificate is in effect. The authorization applies to all persons who, in the performance of their duties in connection with the research project, have access to information which would identify the subjects of the research. Persons so authorized may not, at any time, be compelled in any Federal, State, or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceedings to identify the research subjects encompassed by the Certificate, except in those circumstances specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) A Confidentiality Certificate granted under this part does not authorize any person to refuse to reveal the name or other identifying characteristics of any research subject in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The subject (or, if he or she is legally incompetent, his or her guardian) consents, in writing, to the disclosure of such information,
( 2 ) Authorized personnel of DHHS request such information for audit or program evaluation of a research project funded by DHHS or for investigation of DHHS grantees or contractors and their employees or agents carrying out such a project. (See 45 CFR 5.71 for confidentiality standards imposed on such DHHS personnel), or
( 3 ) Release of such information is required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301) or the regulations promulgated thereunder (title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).
( c ) Neither a Confidentiality Certificate nor the regulations of this part govern the voluntary disclosure of identifying characteristics of research subjects.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3554

___________

David Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Anthony Bradley, Correctional Officer, *

Jefferson County Jail/Correctional * [UNPUBLISHED]

Facility, ADC; Ronald Bailey, Lt., *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Tommy James, Assistant Warden, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Greg *

Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Marvin Evans, *

Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; Ray *

Hobbs, Chief Deputy Director, ADC; *

Max Mobley, Director of *

Health/Treatment, ADC; Robert Clark, *

ADC; James Gibson, Disciplinary *

Hearing Administrator, ADC; Keith *

Waddle, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, *

ADC; Larry Norris, Director, ADC; *

Sarah Speer, Infirmary Administrator, *

ADC; Rick Toney, Warden, Varner *

Unit, ADC; Tim Moncrief, Warden, *

Varner Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *
1

The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2009

Filed: November 18, 2009

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate David Williams appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the

record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in this

matter. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs.,Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009)

(standard of review); see also Reed v. Lear Corp., 556 F.3d 674, 678 (8th Cir. 2009)

(to defeat summary judgment, plaintiff must substantiate allegations with sufficient

probative evidence permitting finding in his favor). We also find that the district court

properly limited its consideration to those claims that Williams raised in his third

amended complaint, which he filed through appointed counsel. See In re Wireless

Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
#### § 35.32 Board of appraisers.

The officer in charge shall appoint, from the personnel of the station or hospital, a board of three persons to serve at his pleasure. The board shall provide for the sale of articles having commercial value and shall keep appropriate records of such articles and their disposition.
§ 417.424 Denial of enrollment. ( a ) *Basis for denial.* An HMO or CMP may deny enrollment to an individual who meets the criteria of § 417.422 if acceptance would— ( 1 ) Cause the number of enrollees who are Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries to exceed 50 percent of the HMO's or CMP's total enrollment;
( 2 ) Prevent the HMO or CMP from complying with any of the other contract qualifying conditions set forth in subpart J of this part;
( 3 ) Require the HMO or CMP to exceed its enrollment capacity; or
( 4 ) Cause the enrollment to become substantially nonrepresentative of the general population in the HMO's or CMP's geographic area.
( b ) *Selection policies.* ( 1 ) Denial under paragraph (a)(4) of this section must be in accordance with written selection policies approved by CMS.
( 2 ) Enrollment of individuals will not be considered to make the enrollment of the HMO or CMP substantially nonrepresentative of the general population in the HMO's or CMP's geographic area unless, as a result of the enrollment, the proportion of the subgroup of enrollees to which the enrollee belongs as compared to the HMO's or CMP's total enrollment exceeds by at least ten percent the subgroup's proportion of the general population in the geographic area of the HMO or CMP. (A subgroup is a class of Medicare enrollees of an HMO or CMP that CMS constructs on the basis of actuarial factors.)
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985; 50 FR 20570, May 17, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38078, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45677, Sept. 1, 1995]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRUZ NOLBERTO SUMETA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71995

Agency No. A070-212-971

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Cruz Nolberto Sumeta, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse

of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71995

960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s January 23, 2008, order because

Sumeta failed to timely petition this court for review of that order. See Singh v.

INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Sumeta’s motion to reconsider

because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s January

23, 2008, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d

1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Associates of an Al-Qa’ida Financial Facilitator

# 									Designating Associates of an Al-Qa’ida Financial Facilitator							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

November 9, 2022

The United States is taking action against two associates of U.S.-designated Al-Qa’ida facilitator Ahmed Luqman Talib, pursuant to a sanctions authority that targets terrorist groups and their supporters.

The Department of the Treasury is designating Mohamad Irshad Mohamad Haris Nizar, a Sri Lanka-based business partner of Talib, and Turkey-based Musab Turkmen, Talib’s brother-in-law and business partner.

Talib was designated in 2020 for materially assisting al-Qa’ida.  Australian authorities arrested Talib in March 2021 and charged him with preparing incursions into foreign states for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities.

The United States will continue to disrupt al-Qa’ida’s transnational financial facilitation network and its associates globally.  For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

AustraliaBureau of Near Eastern AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSri LankaTerrorist DesignationTurkey

Back to Top
# N FILED OCT 1 72011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA cClerk. 

## u.s. District &Bankruptcy ourts forthe DIStri4:t otColumbIa Joseph L. Gallardo, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States Federal Governnment 

### et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintiff's

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal ofa prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted). Plaintiffis a Californiaprisoner incarcerated in Imperial, California. He seeks a declarationthat the time limitation ofthe Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") for challenging criminal convictions is unconstitutional. The Court lacks jurisdictionto entertain a petition for a declaratoryjudgment where, as here, the remedy of 

### habeas corpus is available. 

### LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081,1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996); 

### see Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating that "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relieffrom his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory reliefJ") (citations omitted); 

### accordJackson v. Scalia, 780 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2011). Furthermore, this Courthas no authority to reviewthe decisions ofother courts, 

### see 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1332 (generaljurisdictional provisions); 

### Flemingv. UnitedStates, 847 F. Supp.

### 170, 172 (O.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), which this action would necessarily require. See Dogan v. Roe, 8 Fed. Appx. 612,613 (9th 

### Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that AEDPA's statute oflimitations violates the due process, equal protection, and suspension clauses ofthe United States Constitution); Compi. at 8-17 (recounting habeas litigation history in the California courts and in the Ninth Circuit). A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:

## October~, 2011

2
#### Joseph LEHMANN v. Whitney P. MUSGRAVE et al.

No. 65548.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1979.

In re Joseph Lehmann, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. 374 So.2d 1284. Parish of St. Bernard.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
§ 124.501 Applicability. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart apply to any recipient of Federal assistance under title VI or XVI of the Public Health Service Act that gave an assurance that it would make available, in the facility or portion of the facility constructed, modernized or converted with that assistance, a reasonable volume of services to persons unable to pay for the services.
( b ) The provisions of this subpart apply to facilities for the following periods: ( 1 ) *Facilities assisted under title VI.* Except as otherwise herein provided, a facility assisted under title VI of the Act shall provide uncompensated services at the annual compliance level required by § 124.503(a) for: ( i ) Twenty years after the completion of construction, in the case of a facility for which the Secretary provided grant assistance under section 606 of the Act; or
( ii ) The period from completion of construction until the amount of a direct loan under sections 610 and 623 of the Act, or the amount of a loan with respect to which the Secretary provided a guarantee and interest subsidy under section 623 of the Act, is repaid, in the case of a facility for which such a loan was made.
( iii ) “Completion of construction” means: ( A ) The date on which the Secretary determines the facility was opened for service;
( B ) If the opening date is not available, it means the date on which the Secretary approved the final part of the facility's application for assistance under title VI of the Act;
( C ) If the date of final approval is not available, it means whatever date the Secretary determines most reasonably approximates the date of final approval.
( 2 ) *Facilities assisted under title XVI.* The provisions of this subpart apply to a facility assisted under title XVI of the Act at all times following the Secretary's approval of the facility's application for assistance under title XVI, except that if the facility does not at the time of that approval provide health services, the assurance applies at all times following the facility's initial provision of health services to patients, as determined by the Secretary.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3010 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3010

  To assure that advertisements by States for participation in their 
   lotteries provide information to the consumer on the statistical 
            probability of winning, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1996

Mr. Geren of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To assure that advertisements by States for participation in their 
   lotteries provide information to the consumer on the statistical 
            probability of winning, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LOTTERY ADVERTISEMENTS.

    The advertisements by States to encourage participation in 
lotteries administered by the States shall--
            (1) in the case of written and television advertisements, 
        appear in conspicuous and prominent type,
            (2) in the case of broadcast radio and television 
        advertisements, be clearly audible,
            (3) state the statistical probability of winning in each 
        lottery, and
            (4) be subject to the regulations of the Federal Trade 
        Commission respecting unfair and deceptive acts or practices 
        under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wendell T. BELL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7061.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2001.

ORDER

DYK, Circuit Judge.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to remand this case to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for further proceedings consistent with the Veterans *754Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106^175,114 Stat. 2096.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Acting Secretary’s motion to remand is granted.
# Tunisia

		Subscribe		

101 items

        -    		Tunisia	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Tunisia Summary	   
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Civilian Security Sector Train-the-Trainer Evaluation [PDF]	  January 31, 2018 
        -    Other Release  		CT/INL Tunisia: Civilian Security Sector Train-the-Trainer Performance Evaluation	  January 31, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  August 15, 2017 

previous page1…7891011next page

Back to Top
§ 412.268 Subpoenas. ( a ) *In general.* When reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, and only after a pre-decision request for information or data has failed to produce the necessary evidence, either upon its own motion or upon the request of a party, the MGCRB may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses, for an oral hearing or the production of books, records, correspondence, papers, or other documents that are relevant and material to any matter at issue.
( b ) *Content of request.* The request must designate which witnesses or documents are to be produced, and describe addresses or locations with sufficient particularly to permit these witnesses or documents to be found. The request for a subpoena must state the pertinent facts that the party expects to establish by the requested witnesses or documents and whether these facts could be established by other evidence without the use of a subpoena.
( c ) *Issuance.* Subpoenas are issued as provided in section 205(d) of the Act.
( d ) *Payment for subpoena cost.* CMS pays for the cost of issuing subpoenas and the fees and mileage of any witness who is subpoenaed, as provided in section 205(d) of the Act.
##### 



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 In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Equity Properties, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken L.
Joines, Vice President, Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. Date: November 12, 2004
    /s/ Ken L. JoinesKen L. JoinesVice President, Secretary and Chief

Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2968 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2968

 To prohibit the use of credit cards by officers and employees of the 
                          Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1996

 Mr. Gekas (for himself and Mr. Royce) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of credit cards by officers and employees of the 
                          Federal Government.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USING CREDIT CARDS.

    (a) Prohibition.--An officer or employee of a Federal agency may 
not use for any purpose a credit card issued to such agency (or to such 
officer or employee in his or her official capacity).
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``credit card'' means any card, plate, coupon 
        book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of 
        obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit.
            (2) The term ``Federal agency'' means any department, 
        agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the Federal Government.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Osborn *v.*Holmes.

Under tlie provisions of the act of 1846, a person engaged in the sale of goods of his own manufacture, and who also sells articles of domestic manufacture to an amount less than one thousand dollars per annum, not manufactured by him or at his shop, is liable to the license duty.

In error from the Common Pleas of Crawford.

Case stated. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture *334and sale of hats and caps, and also sold articles of domestic ■manufactures to an amount less than $1,000 per annum; which articles were not manufactured by him or at his shop. Whether he was liable to pay for a license to sell such articles to an amount less than $1,000, was the question. If so, then judgment for plaintiff for $7.

Church, P. J., gave judgment for plaintiff for $7.

*Pearson,*for plaintiff in error,

argued, that by the proviso of the act of 1841, no one whose sales did not exceed $1,000 per annum, was liable to the tax.

*J. 8. Piddle,*contó.

*Oct.*9.

Burnside, J.

After a careful examination of the several acts of Assembly, we are satisfied the learned judge is - correct in Ms views. We adopt Ms opinion, and

Affirm the judgment.