alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 802.303 Lending transactions. ( a ) The extension of a mortgage, loan, or similar financing arrangement by a foreign person to another person for the purpose of the purchase, lease, or concession of covered real estate, regardless of whether accompanied by the creation in favor of the foreign person of a secured interest in the covered real estate, shall not, by itself, constitute a covered real estate transaction. ( 1 ) The Committee will accept notices or declarations concerning a mortgage, loan, or similar financing arrangement that does not, by itself, constitute a covered real estate transaction only at the time that, because of imminent or actual default or other condition, there is a significant possibility that a purchase or lease by, concession to, or a change in rights involving a foreign person may result from the default or other condition and that would constitute a covered real estate transaction.
( 2 ) Where the Committee accepts a notice or declaration concerning a mortgage, loan, or similar financing arrangement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and a party to the transaction is a foreign person that makes mortgages or loans in the ordinary course of business, the Committee will take into account whether the foreign person has made any arrangements to transfer the ownership and property rights over the covered real estate to U.S. nationals or excepted real estate investors for purposes of determining whether such mortgage, loan, or financing arrangement constitutes a covered real estate transaction.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a mortgage, loan, or similar financing arrangement through which a foreign person acquires property rights over covered real estate may constitute a covered real estate transaction to the extent that the arrangement would constitute a purchase, lease, or concession under this part.
( c ) Example: Corporation A, a foreign bank, makes a secured loan to Corporation B in order for Corporation B to purchase a building that constitutes covered real estate. The collateral for the loan is the building that Corporation B is purchasing, and upon default, Corporation A would obtain an ownership interest and be afforded at least three property rights with respect to the building. Corporation B defaults on the loan. Assuming no other relevant facts, the Committee would accept a notice or declaration of the imminent default or default transferring ownership of the building to Corporation A, which would constitute a covered real estate transaction.
#### § 412.110 Total Medicare payment.

Under the prospective payment systems, Medicare's total payment for inpatient hospital services furnished to a Medicare beneficiary by a hospital will equal the sum of the payments listed in §§ 412.112 through 412.115, reduced by the amounts specified in § 412.120.

[50 FR 12741, Mar. 29, 1985, as amended at 57 FR 39824, Sept. 1, 1992]
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-20181, 33-35182,
2-90595, 33-23899, 33-58305, 33-44477, 33-65024, 33-65177, 333-10419, 333-28257, 333-42469,
33-45822, 33-63297, 333-49229 and 333-81794 and Form S-3 Nos. 33-43574 and 333-109045) of Chiron Corporation
and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, of our report dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements and schedule of Chiron Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo
Alto, California
March 1, 2004

---

QuickLinks
# C_2005296EN.01000801.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/8

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-70/04: Swiss Confederation v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(External relations - EC-Switzerland Agreement on air transport - Action for annulment brought by a non-member State - Swiss Confederation - Commission Decision 2004/12/EC - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice - Referral to the Court of First Instance)

(2005/C 296/15)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-70/04: Swiss Confederation, (lawyers: S. Hirsbrunner and U. Soltész) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Benyon, M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr), supported by: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, and by T. Masing, lawyer) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, read in conjunction with Article 20 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport, brought on 13 February 2004 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Swiss Confederation

Commission of the European Communities

Federal Republic of Germany

Case C-70/04 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004

1

---
#### Weidner *v.*Conner.

Where testimony is taken on depositions as to the genuineness of an instrument, the original must be exhibited to the witness; and where he is examined on interrogatories, they must be attached, so that the court may see his answers were pertinent.

Iküi error from the Common Pleas of Northumberland.

*Aug.*1.

Debt on a note. The defendant offered the deposition of a witness to prove it was-a forgery.' It appeared from the face of the paper, that he was examined on interrogatories, and they were not attached. In answer to the second interrogatory, he said, “ the *‘*3’ hundred dollar note, a copy of which is appended to this deposition, dated Aug. 5, 1845, payable to the bearer, was not signed by Daniel Weidner. Both the body of the note, and *the*signature, is *a*forgery, I know that fact. Joseph F;.. of.....got the note from me.” A copy was annexed of a note corresponding in date, amount, and time, with the one in suit, and concluding thus, “purporting to be signed by Daniel Weidner whether it corresponded in other particulars, the paper-book did not show.

The rejection of this, and the answers to similar interrogatories, was assigned for error.

*Jordan,*for plaintiff in error,

cited 3 Barr, 419 ; 7 W. & S. 392.

*MiLLer,*contra.

4 S. R. 298; 7 Ib. 171.

Per Curiam.

It was impossible for the witness to identify a note which was not before him. He had nothing to swear by but a copy, and even that was an imperfect one. The original ought to have been before him, and recognised by him. Besides, the interrogatories were not attached; and the court could not say whether the answers were pertinent to them.

Judgment affirmed.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 29, 2005 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Merrimac Industries, Inc.
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 1, 2005. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Merrimac Industries, Inc. on Forms S-8 (Registration No. 333-36795, dated
September 30, 1997, as amended February 23, 2001, Registration No. 333-36199,
dated September 23, 1997, as amended February 23, 2001, Registration No.
33-68862, dated September 15, 1993, as amended February 23, 2001, Registration
No. 333-09663, dated August 6, 1996, as amended February 23, 2001, Registration
No. 333-63434, dated June 20, 2001, Registration No. 333-63436, dated June 20,
2001 and Registration No. 333-63438, dated June 20, 2001).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Edison, New Jersey
March 29, 2005

                                       1
```
#### S. L. S., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. XX-310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 8, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1981.

Michael Allen, Public Defender, Melanie Hines Alford, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant was charged by delinquency petition with the offense of sexual battery upon a person eleven years of age or younger. § 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. Following presentation of the state’s case, appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was granted as to the offense of sexual battery, and the cause proceeded on the offense of attempted sexual battery. At the close of all the evidence, appellant was adjudicated delinquent for the offense of lewd, lascivious or indecent assault under § 800.04, Florida Statutes (1979), which offense the trial judge found, over objection, to be a lesser included offense. On appeal, appellant contends he was adjudicated delinquent for an offense not within the charge against him. We affirm.

*1106Although lewd assault is not a necessarily lesser included offense (category three)1 of attempted sexual battery,2 we find that the accusatory pleading herein sufficiently alleged all of the elements of lewd assault and that the facts supported such a charge so that lewd assault was properly found to be a *Brown*category four lesser included offense.

The fact that attempted sexual battery and lewd assault are both second degree felonies does not in our opinion preclude a determination that lewd assault was a lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery. The discussion in Ray, *supra,*of “permissible lesser included offenses” appears to be directed to fundamental error issues not involved in the present case. We do not view *Ray*as imposing an absolute requirement that in order to be a proper lesser included offense under category three or four of *Brown,*the offense must be one subject to a lesser penalty.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

1

. *See Brown v. State,*206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968).

2

. *Walker v. State,*351 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Ray v. State,*403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                 
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998                 
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998      
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998      
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1      
<CASH>                             853,827                
<SECURITIES>                             0              
<RECEIVABLES>                      889,636     
<ALLOWANCES>                        30,000     
<INVENTORY>                      1,007,948     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,777,648     
<PP&E>                           4,855,810     
<DEPRECIATION>                   3,771,659     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   4,536,280     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              731,769     
<BONDS>                                  0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            1,326,519     
<PREFERRED>                        375,000     
<COMMON>                           152,285     
<OTHER-SE>                       1,950,707     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     4,536,280     
<SALES>                          5,870,250     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 5,870,250     
<CGS>                            3,681,124     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,681,124     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 4,536,073     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,289,375)     
<INCOME-TAX>                             0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,289,375)     
<DISCONTINUED>                           0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0     
<CHANGES>                                0     
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,289,375)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.94)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.94)          
        


</TABLE>
P

P

P

N

0 Miles 1/2

0 Kilo 1/2

South Edisto

River

Dawhoo

River

Perimeter

Pond

Alexander

Pond

Goose

Pond

Entrance road

Walking trail

Railroad grade

Wildlife observation platform

Parking

Refuge office

Managed impoundment

Fields

Marsh

Private property

P

All photos: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

ACE Basin NWR

P.O. Box 848

Hollywood, SC 29449

Phone: 843/889 3084

Fax: 843/889 3282

E-mail: FW4_RW_ACE_Basin@fws.gov

ACE Basin National

Wildlife Refuge

The Grove Plantation

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
§ 405.1114 Dismissal of request for review. The Council dismisses a request for review if the party requesting review did not file the request within the stated period of time and the time for filing has not been extended. The Council also dismisses the request for review if— ( a ) The party asks to withdraw the request for review;
( b ) The party does not have a right to request Council review; or
( c ) The beneficiary whose claim is being appealed died while the request for review is pending and all of the following criteria apply: ( 1 ) The request for review was filed by the beneficiary or the beneficiary's representative, and the beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has no remaining financial interest in the case. In deciding this issue, the Council considers whether the surviving spouse or estate remains liable for the services that were denied or a Medicare contractor held the beneficiary liable for subsequent similar services under the limitation on liability provisions based on the denial of the services at issue;
( 2 ) No other individual or entity with a financial interest in the case wishes to pursue an appeal under § 405.1102;
( 3 ) No other party to the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action filed a valid and timely review request under §§ 405.1102 and 405.1112.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 82 FR 5123, Jan. 17, 2017; 84 FR 19871, May 7, 2019]
HomeLatest Stories...DSS Houston Field Office hosts dignitary protection training for state and local law enforcement partners

# 									DSS Houston Field Office hosts dignitary protection training for state and local law enforcement partners							

DSS Articles

By Supervisory Special Agent Troy Hively

May 23, 2024

Texas is home to 100 consulates and boasts a vibrant economy that attracts numerous foreign dignitaries each year. That number is expected to surge when additional dignitaries visit the state during the 2024 campaign season and the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Texas law enforcement agencies are preparing for the surge by training with the world leader in protective operations – the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).

In April, the DSS Houston Field Office partnered with the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) to provide a Law Enforcement Officer Training Program (LEOTP) to help Texas law enforcement partners prepare for increased protection responsibilities.

The week-long protection training instructed 26 students from seven Texas law enforcement agencies on how to build individual skills and organizational capacity for integrating federal, state, and local law enforcement operations. Police departments from Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Midland, Rice University, University of Texas Medical Branch, and Texas Department of Public Safety Executive Protection Unit sent officers to attend the training.

“Law enforcement partnerships are invaluable to successful protective operations and the overall DSS mission, and I couldn’t be prouder of my team for executing this training,” said Houston Field Office Special Agent in Charge John Keith.

The Rice University Police Department arranged for classroom space and the Houston Police Department SWAT unit opened its tactical village for participants to practice responding to scenarios such as shots fired on venues and deescalating protesters blocking motorcades. The training culminated with a final exercise where participants put their skills to the test, protecting VIPs in four mock motorcades that visited sites in Houston.

The unique training provided by DSS helps prepare local law enforcement partners for future protective details in Houston and the surrounding areas.

Tags

DSS ArticlesTexasTrainingUnited States

Back to Top
§ 136.320 Preparatory scholarship grants. Scholarship grants may be awarded under this subdivision and section 103 of the act for the period (not to exceed two academic years) necessary to complete a recipient's compensatory preprofessional education to enable the recipient to qualify for enrollment or re-enrollment in a health professions school. Examples of individuals eligible for such grants are the individual who: ( a ) Has completed high school equivalency and needs compensatory preprofessional education to enroll in a health professions school;
( b ) Has a baccalaureate degree and needs compensatory preprofessional education to qualify for enrollment in a health professions school; or
( c ) Has been enrolled in a health professions school but is no longer so enrolled and needs preprofessional education to qualify for readmission to a health professions school.
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, 2009, as filed with Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gene S. Bertcher, Vice President,
Treasurer, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Acting Principal Executive 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 as amended; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                                                                                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Gene S. Bertcher Vice
President, Treasurer, Acting Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
HomeStart Here – Steps to a Medical Clearance...DOD Active Duty Military – Medical Clearances

# 									DOD Active Duty Military – Medical Clearances							

We’ve restructured our guidance, check out our updated Start Here – Steps to a Medical Clearance page for the latest information.

Tags

Bureau of Medical ServicesHealth InformationUnder Secretary for Management

Back to Top
§ 551.701 Penalties. ( a ) Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) (IEEPA) is applicable to violations of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, directive, or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under IEEPA. ( 1 ) A civil penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in section 206 of IEEPA may be imposed on any person who violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under IEEPA.
( 2 ) IEEPA provides for a maximum civil penalty not to exceed the greater of $368,136 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
( 3 ) A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition may, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
( b ) ( 1 ) The civil penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
( 2 ) The criminal penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.
( c ) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned, or both.
( d ) Section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c(b)) (UNPA), provides that any person who willfully violates or evades or attempts to violate or evade any order, rule, or regulation issued by the President pursuant to the authority granted in that section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000 or, if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
( e ) Violations involving transactions described at section 203(b)(1) of IEEPA shall be subject only to the penalties set forth in paragraph (d) of this section.
( f ) Violations of this part may also be subject to other applicable laws.
[86 FR 22348, Apr. 28, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 7372, Feb. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2233, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 2142, Jan. 12, 2024]
#### Craig William NEILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-2342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 26, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1981.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Laura R. Morrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, C. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court imposing a sentence for a term of ten years and retaining jurisdiction over the sentence. We reverse and remand.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury as to the maximum and minimum penalties which may be imposed upon conviction. Since the defendant preserved this point on appeal, he is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue in *Tascano*v. *State,*393 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1980) and *Murray v. State,*403 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1981).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.