alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
R-840 

October 17, 1947 

Hon. R. L. ~ZhitehGad, Opinion No. V-408 

Criminal District Attorney, 

Gregg County, Re: Construction of H.B. 

Longview, Texas 120, 50th Leg., with 

respect to authority 

of a court to enter 

a judgment assessing 

a Pine for drunken 

driving but probating 

the suspension of 

driver ‘9 license. 

Dear Sir: 

You request our opinion upon the above subject matter, in connection with which you advise as follows: 

*An individual is convicted of drunken 

dri.ving and ‘asse’ssed a fine of $75 .OO and 

costs, oan the Court under the provisions 

of Housebill No. 120 called the Adult Parole 

and Probation Law, fo\in8 on Page 1050 of the 

Vernon’s Texas Session Law Servioe effective 

September 6, 1947, enter a judgment causing 

the fine to be paid but probating the suspension of the driver’s license as provided for 

in Artiole 6687-B,,found fn Sec. 24, subparagraph 19, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes.” 

Houee BillNo. 120 of’ the 50th Legislature, 

p. 1049, oommonly known as’ the Adult Probation and Perole Law, wherein it deals with probation and parole of 

one convicted of an offense, does not apply to the suspension of a driver’s license a8 provided for in Artiole 6687-b of Vernon’s Civil Statutes. It is concerned 

wholly with the infliction of the punishment imposed upon one by conviction of an offense, and has nothin to 

do with suspending or superseding orders of the kind 

mentioned by you. Under that Act it is the 

on ‘probat ion or parole. Further, thi; Adult 

Law specifically deals with persons who -would otherwise 

be imprisoned, and it is the imprisonment which is SUSpended. Prom this it follows your question should be 

answered in the negative. 
Hon. R. L. Whitehead - Page 2 iV- k,d ) 

OS :wb 

House Bill No. 120 of the 50th Legislature confers no authority on the Court upon 

a oonviction of one for any of the offenses 

defined by Section 24 of Article 6687b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, to *probate” the automatia euepenaion of the driverpa license 

provided for in the latter article. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

O&et& I 

Assistant 

APPROVED : 

ATTORKEY GEUERAL
# C_2006048EN.01003602.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/36

---

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Bain and Others v Commission

(Case T-419/05)

(2006/C 48/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Neil Bain (Brussels, Belgium), Obhijit Chatterjee (Brussels, Belgium), Richard Fordham (Bergen, Netherlands) and Roger Hurst (Bergen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicants' pay slips for the months of February, March and April 2005, and all subsequent pay slips, to the extent that they apply the unlawful provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and of Regulation No 856/2004 fixing the new correction coefficients and Regulation No 31/2005 adjusting them; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants' pay slips for the months of February, March and April 2005, and all subsequent pay slips, to the extent that they apply the unlawful provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and of Regulation No 856/2004 fixing the new correction coefficients and Regulation No 31/2005 adjusting them;

| — | as far as is necessary, annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 29 July 2005, rejecting the applicants' complaints (R/458.14/05, R/458.5/05, R/458.12/05 and R/458.2/05); |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as is necessary, annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 29 July 2005, rejecting the applicants' complaints (R/458.14/05, R/458.5/05, R/458.12/05 and R/458.2/05);

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs in the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs in the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on by the applicant in Case T-393/05.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESIS J. PENA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00038-CR

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # F-0825108-H)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment adjudicating Appellant’s guilt, and render 

judgment denying the State’s motion to adjudicate, in accordance with the opinion of this Court, 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### Nathaniel FITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeCuba Restricted List...Frequently Asked Questions on the Cuba Restricted List

# 									Frequently Asked Questions on the Cuba Restricted List							

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

		Cuba Sanctions		

**Q. The entity with which I want to transact is not on the Cuba Restricted List, but its parent company is. Can I engage in a direct financial transaction with the subentity?**

A. Yes. Entities or subentities that are owned or controlled by another entity or subentity on the Cuba Restricted List are not treated as restricted unless also specified by name on the list.

**Q. Will there be updates to the Cuba Restricted List? If so, how will I know when there has been a change?**

A. The Department intends to update the Cuba Restricted List periodically. Updates to the list will be published in the Federal Register and will also be available here on the State Department’s website.

**Q. Are there any exceptions to the prohibition on direct financial transactions with an entity on the Cuba Restricted List?**

A. Yes, the National Security Presidential Memorandum  (NSPM) called for several exceptions to the prohibition on direct financial transactions with restricted entities, which the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury have incorporated into their regulations.

Please see the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security websites for additional FAQs on issues more closely related to their regulations:
        - Department of the Treasury Cuba Regulations & FAQ 
        - Department of Commerce Cuba Regulations & FAQ 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsCubaDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsSanctions

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,109,762
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,384,754
<PP&E>                                         278,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,702,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          825,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,548
<OTHER-SE>                                     740,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,702,080
<SALES>                                        240,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               240,299
<CGS>                                           78,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,908,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (47,249)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,699,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,699,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,699,491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Designations of Former Surinamese President Desiré Delano Bouterse and Six Former Surinamese Military Officials Due to Involvement in Gross Violations of Human Rights

# 											Designations of Former Surinamese President Desiré Delano Bouterse and Six Former Surinamese Military Officials Due to Involvement in Gross Violations of Human Rights									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

April 12, 2024

The United States is today announcing the designations of former Surinamese President Bouterse and six former Surinamese military officials: Benny Brondenstein, Stephanus Marinus Dendoe, Iwan Dijksteel, Ernst Gefferie, Kenneth Kempes, and Lucien Lewis pursuant to Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, due to their involvement in extrajudicial killings of political opponents during the “December Murders” of 1982.  These individuals and four family members are generally ineligible for entry into the United States.

The United States commends Suriname for its commitment to the rule of law, including its effort to maintain judicial independence and combat official impunity.  As Secretary Blinken has noted, ending impunity is one of the best ways to prevent future abuses.  The strength of Suriname’s judicial institutions demonstrates the value of the rule of law as a critical pillar in the preservation of democracy and protection of human rights.

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonSuriname

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUFENG TAO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71973

Agency No. A99-346-346

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 27, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,

Senior District Judge.** 

Petitioner Yufeng Tao seeks review of a decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”), denying her application for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and ordering her

removed from the United States. The Court reviews the Board’s factual findings

FILED

SEP 04 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
under the substantial evidence standard, treating the findings as “conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Tao’s eligibility for asylum and

withholding of removal due to persecution on account of “resistance to a coercive

population control program.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d

1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013). That part of her claim is therefore dismissed.

As to her remaining claims, the Court finds that substantial evidence, such as

discrepancies between Tao’s testimony before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and

her proffered medical record, supports the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s factual

adverse credibility determination. The failure of the respondent to produce the

author of an affidavit questioning the authenticity of the medical record is therefore

moot.

Tao’s petition for review is therefore dismissed in part and denied in part.

DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2
HomeTurkey

# Turkey

391 items

        -    TIAS  		Turkey (03-623.1) – Agreement Regarding Defense Articles, Related Training, and Other Defense Services	  June 23, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (02-810) – Supplement Under the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Framework for System Development and Demonstration of the Joint Strike Fighter	  August 10, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (02-410) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Earth Sciences	  April 10, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (13100) – Air Transport Agreement	  August 13, 2001 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (13072) – Agreement Relating to the Employment of Dependents of Official Government Employees	  February 3, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (97-1219.1) – Convention with Protocol Regarding Double Taxation	  December 19, 1997 
        -    		Burhan  Ferah	  June 7, 1997 
        -    DS Memorial  		Burhan Ferah	  June 7, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (12819) – Agreement Relating to the Reciprocal Granting of Authorizations to Permit Licensed Amateur Radio Operators of Either Country to Operate Their Station in the Other Country	  November 27, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Turkey (12818) – Agreement Relating to Radio Communications Between Amateur Stations on Behalf of Third Parties	  November 27, 1996 

previous page1…37383940next page

Back to Top
#### BOB’S BARRICADES, INC., Appellant, v. Albert J. TRAPANI, Appellee.

No. 73-1159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Betty STANFORD v. FRED’S DOLLAR STORE.

No. 51084.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 11, 1979.

Leslie D. King, Clell G. Ward, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall, Hunger & Thackston, E. Spivey Gault, Edwin W. Tindall, W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr., Greenville, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; B. B. Wilkes, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

COFER, J., took no part.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.124 Reduction to hospital outpatient operating costs. ( a ) Except for sole community hospitals, as defined in § 412.92 of this chapter, and critical access hospitals, the reasonable costs of outpatient hospital services (other than capital-related costs of these services) are reduced by 5.8 percent for services furnished during portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 1990 and until the first date that the prospective payment system under part 419 of this chapter is implemented.
( b ) For purposes of determining the blended payment amounts of ambulatory surgical center approved surgical procedures performed in the hospital outpatient setting under § 413.118 and hospital outpatient radiology services and other diagnostic procedures under § 413.122, the reduction is applicable only to the hospital-specific portion of the blended payment amounts.
[57 FR 36017, Aug. 12, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 26960, May 25, 1994; 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997; 65 FR 18542, Apr. 07, 2000]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of al-Qa’ida Network in Brazil

# 									Designation of al-Qa’ida Network in Brazil							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

December 22, 2021

Al-Qa’ida and its regional affiliates continue to pose a threat to countries around the world. The United States is taking action today to stem the funding of this terrorist group by designating members of a Brazil-based network of al-Qa’ida-affiliated individuals and their companies as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

The United States is designating Haytham Ahmad Shukri Ahmad Al-Maghrabi, who was one of the initial members of an al-Qa’ida support network in Brazil. Al-Maghrabi had frequent contact and business dealings, to include the purchase of foreign currency, with another al-Qa’ida-affiliated individual based in Brazil. Others being designated are Mohamed Sherif Mohamed Awadd, who had received bank transfers from other al-Qa’ida associates in Brazil and played a significant role in a Brazil-based al-Qa’ida-affiliated group; Ahmad Al-Khatib, who is based in Brazil; as well as Awadd and Al-Khatib’s companies. These designations are being taken pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended.

The continued activities of this Brazil-based network demonstrate that al-Qa’ida remains a global terrorist threat. The United States is committed to working with our partners, including Brazil, to disrupt al-Qa’ida’s financial support networks.

For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

BrazilBureau of CounterterrorismBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsThe Secretary of StateTerrorist Designation

Back to Top
40979.

#### SPARKS SPECIALTY COMPANY v. MOSS.

Decided November 3, 1964.

*586
      *Wendell C. Lindsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kennedy, Kennedy & Seay, Harvey J. Kennedy,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

It was not necessary for the plaintiff to cite authority for the propounding of the interrogatories in the instrument propounding them any more than it is necessary to expressly base any pleading, within the pleading itself, upon whatever statute or Code section or other law which authorizes it. The courts are presumed to know the law, theoretically, and generally speaking it is unnecessary to allege matters of local law. *Conney v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.,*81 Ga. App. 324 (1) (58 SE2d 559); 41 Am. Jur. 294, Pleading, § 11. Nor would the fact that the plaintiff incorrectly pleaded an unofficial Code section estop him from relying on the correct authority or law for at least two reasons; (1) the Code section cited correctly states what the true law is and cites its source, and (2) in matters of taking judicial knowledge of the law it is a matter of argument and citation of authorities by the attorneys for the respective parties. It is not a matter of having to allege and prove what the local law is. The rule that when a law is attacked as being unconstitutional the attack must be upon a law published as official by authority of law, *Tomlinson v. Sadler,*214 Ga. 671, 673 (107 SE2d 215), does not obtain under the circumstances of this case. What was done in this case amounts to no more than a citation of authority. If attorneys were prohibited from citing sections of the very valuable and almost indispensable Annotated Code they would be put to unnecessary time and trouble to cite the Acts of the General Assembly, etc., which are shown in the sections of the Annotated Code to be the source of the laws stated in the sections of the Code. To permit the citations of sections of the Annotated Code does not mean that the court to which the citations are offered is bound by them if perchance there has been a mistake on the part of the codifier. The court must endeavor to follow the law and it is the court’s responsibility to do so, but the chances of a difference between the true law and an Annotated Code Section *587which purports to state the true law are so remote that a refusal by the court to permit the Annotated Code citations would be carrying technicalities to a ridiculous absurdity.

The court erred in dismissing the interrogatories.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Fannell, JJ., concur.*
# C_2005229EN.01002702.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

---

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-258/05)

(2005/C 229/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt, residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | order the European Commission to accept his claim of 11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational disease; |
| --- | --- |

1.

order the European Commission to accept his claim of 11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational disease;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004;

| 3. | order the European Commission to answer his questions of 20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Discipline (IDOC); |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the European Commission to answer his questions of 20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Discipline (IDOC);

| 4. | order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings against an official (Mr C); |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings against an official (Mr C);

| 5. | order the payment of damages and interest in the amount of EUR 1 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the payment of damages and interest in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

| 6. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and emotional problems as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, transparency and legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.

---