alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certifications**I, Robert R. Jones, III, President and CEO, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc.;2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 4, 2005        /s/ Robert R. Jones, III   Robert R. Jones, III   President and CEO
#### Warren SUTTON, Appellant, v. Sally and Marshall SWEET, Appellees.

No. 78-1218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1979.

Stephen F. Bacen and Bryan S. Henry of Hunter, Atkinson & Golden, Hollywood, for appellant.

Ronald E. Solomon and James W. Flanagan of Dolan, Solomon & Gramling, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued appellees for injuries he sustained as a result of the alleged threatening actions of appellees’ dog. The trial court entered a summary judgment for ap-pellees, and this appeal ensued.

From our examination of the briefs and record, we conclude there are genuine issues of fact remaining which require resolution by a jury. Whether the door to the utility room was indeed ajar so that the dog could get out, and whether the dog’s “growling and lunging” was directed at appellant are questions of fact which the court was not at liberty to determine.

Accordingly, the summary judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Dominican National Sentenced for Identity Theft Charges

# 									Dominican National Sentenced for Identity Theft Charges							

DSS Releases

November 18, 2021

BOSTON – A Dominican national was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Boston in connection with using the identity of a U.S. citizen at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.

More info

Tags

Cyber IssuesCyber SecurityDiplomatic SecurityDominican RepublicDSS ReleasesMassachusetts

Back to Top
HomeSolomon Islands

# Solomon Islands

57 items

        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and Select Cabinet Members	  August 7, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Solomon Islands Opposition Leader Wale and Member of Parliament Kenilorea, Jr.	  August 7, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with New Zealand Defense Minister Peeni Henare	  August 7, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Remarks on the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Guadalcanal	  Wendy R. ShermanAugust 7, 2022Skyline RidgeHoniara, Solomon Islands 
        -    		Travel to Samoa, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Australia, and New Zealand, August 3-9, 2022	   
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman to Visit Samoa, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Australia, and New Zealand	  August 3, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman To Visit Solomon Islands To Commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Guadalcanal	  July 25, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Solomon Islands	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Solomon Islands	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 22, 2022	  Jalina PorterApril 22, 2022 

previous page123456next page

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         172,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  878,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,793,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,490,990
<PP&E>                                       3,051,184
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,044,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,595,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,857,355
<BONDS>                                      4,409,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,642
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,228,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,595,074
<SALES>                                      1,247,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,264,694
<CGS>                                          647,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,864,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (662,081)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (662,081)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (662,081)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION







I, Donald J. Torbert, Jr., certify that:








1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PAB Bankshares, Inc;2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a.)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a.)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: March 10, 2004

By:
/s/ Donald J. Torbert, Jr.Donald J. Torbert, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the registrant)
# Morocco

163 items

        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Morocco	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Morocco	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Morocco	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Morocco	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Morocco	  June 20, 2019 
        -    TIAS  		Morocco (19-515) – Education Agreement	  May 15, 2019 
        -    		Morocco	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Morocco	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		U.S. Consulate General Casablanca	  Casablanca, Morocco 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Morocco Summary	   

previous page1…121314151617next page

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.507 Payment for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, and §§ 414.508 and 414.522, the payment rate for a CDLT furnished on or after January 1, 2018, is equal to the weighted median for the test, as calculated under paragraph (b) of this section. Each payment rate will be in effect for a period of one calendar year for ADLTs and three calendar years for all other CDLTs, until the year following the next data collection period.
( b ) *Methodology.* For each test under paragraph (a) of this section for which applicable information is reported, the weighted median is calculated by arraying the distribution of all private payor rates, weighted by the volume for each payor and each laboratory.
( c ) The payment amounts established under this section are not subject to any adjustment, such as geographic, budget neutrality, annual update, or other adjustment.
( d ) *Phase-in of payment reductions.* For years 2018 through 2026, the payment rates established under this section for each CDLT that is not a new ADLT or new CDLT, may not be reduced by more than the following amounts for— ( 1 ) 2018—10 percent of the national limitation amount for the test in 2017.
( 2 ) 2019—10 percent of the payment rate established in 2018.
( 3 ) 2020—10 percent of the payment rate established in 2019.
( 4 ) 2021—0.0 percent of the payment rate established in 2020.
( 5 ) 2022—0.0 percent of the payment rate established in 2021.
( 6 ) 2023-0.0 percent of the payment rate established in 2022.
( 7 ) 2024—15 percent of the payment rate established in 2023.
( 8 ) 2025—15 percent of the payment rate established in 2024.
( 9 ) 2026—15 percent of the payment rate established in 2025.
( e ) There is no administrative or judicial review under sections 1869 and 1878 of the Social Security Act, or otherwise, of the payment rates established under this subpart.
( f ) For a CDLT for which CMS receives no applicable information, payment is made based on the crosswalking or gapfilling methods described in § 414.508(b)(1) and (2).
( g ) For ADLTs that are furnished between April 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017, payment is based on the crosswalking or gapfilling methods described in § 414.508(a).
[81 FR 41099, June 23, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 85028, Dec. 28, 2020; 87 FR 70225, Nov. 18, 2022; 88 FR 79531, Nov. 16, 2023]
# C_2005330EN.01002502.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/25

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2005 — Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ v Commission

(Case T-265/00) (1)

1

(2005/C 330/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.

1

---
#### Ex parte Terry Lewayne HOLT. (Re Terry Lewayne Holt v. State of Alabama).

79-525.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
§ 408.86 Responsibilities under group billing arrangement. ( a ) *Enrollee responsibilities.* ( 1 ) The enrollee is still responsible for premium payments; the group payer simply acts as his agent. If the agent fails to pay, or identifies the payment incorrectly, SSA notifies both the agent and the enrollee that the enrollee's account is delinquent. If an enrollee fails to take action on that notice, entitlement is terminated for nonpayment of premiums.
( 2 ) The enrollee must promptly notify both SSA and the group payer of any change of address.
( b ) *Group payer's responsibilities.* The group payer must— ( 1 ) Make premium payments promptly upon receipt of notices;
( 2 ) Promptly notify both CMS and the enrollee when it drops an enrollee from the group;
( 3 ) Make payments in a way that facilitates efficient and economical processing; and
( 4 ) Maintain the confidentiality of the personal information obtained from CMS for the group payment process.
( c ) *CMS responsibilities.* CMS— ( 1 ) Sends the bill to the group payer upon authorization from the enrollee;
( 2 ) Notifies both the payer and the enrollee if the payer fails to make timely payments; and
( 3 ) Refunds excess premiums in accordance with § 408.88.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Nominations of Philip A. Loomis, Jr., and Alan Greenspan

              																	United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 1970-					 and 	Ninety-Third Congress, 1973-1975. 						*Nominations of Philip A. Loomis, Jr., and Alan Greenspan : Hearing Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session, August 8, 1974*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										August 8, 1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/346,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# C_2005281EN.01002501.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/25

---

Action brought on 17 August 2005 — De Geest v Council

(Case T-318/05)

(2005/C 281/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Johan De Geest (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council of 3 January 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim to be recruited in grade A6 or A7, which have been renamed A*10 and A*8 since 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council of 3 January 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim to be recruited in grade A6 or A7, which have been renamed A*10 and A*8 since 1 May 2004;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-164/05 De Geest v Council. (1)

De Geest

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 28.

1

---
Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

§ 405.1809 Contractor hearing procedures. ( a ) *Hearings.* Each contractor must establish and maintain written procedures for contractor hearings, in accordance with the regulations in this subpart, for resolving issues that may arise between the contractor and a provider concerning the amount of reasonable cost reimbursement, or prospective payment due the provider (except as provided in § 405.1804) under the Medicare program. The procedures must provide for a hearing on the contractor determination contained in the notice of program reimbursement (§ 405.1803), if the provider files a timely request for a hearing.
( b ) *Amount in controversy.* In order for a contractor to grant a hearing, the following dates and amounts in controversy apply: ( 1 ) For cost reporting periods ending prior to June 30, 1973, the amount of program reimbursement in controversy must be at least $1000.
( 2 ) For cost reporting periods ending on or after June 30, 1973, the amount of program reimbursement in controversy must be at least $1000 but less than $10,000.
[48 FR 39835, Sept. 1, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 323, Jan. 1, 1984]
# C_2006096EN.01003501.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/35

---

Action brought on 23 January 2006 — B v Commission

(Case F-7/06)

(2006/C 96/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: B (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint taken in conjunction with the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2005 refusing to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint taken in conjunction with the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2005 refusing to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant an expatriation allowance, as from the date of taking up her post; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant an expatriation allowance, as from the date of taking up her post;

| — | order the defendant to pay interest for late payment, as from the decision to be taken; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay interest for late payment, as from the decision to be taken;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, challenges the decision which definitively establishes her rights by which the defendant refused her an expatriation allowance.

In support of her action, she pleads infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She also raises a plea of unlawfulness to the effect that application of the criterion of nationality, set out in the first indent of that provision, to officials who have both the nationality of the Member State where they are employed and that of another Member State, infringes the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.

Next, the applicant claims that, in any event, she fulfils the condition of residence under the second indent of the provision in question.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision does not take account of the fact that the applicant satisfies both the criterion of nationality and the criterion of residence cited in that provision.

In the further alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 4(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring an official with dual nationality to renounce that of the Member State where he is employed in order to be entitled to an expatriation allowance.

---