alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket No: FAA-2012-11-31 Directorate ID: 2012-NE-34-AD Disposition Comments
Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3368EN-E Next Step:**FRAN** 

## 0 SNPRM 

## D These comments are in response to an SNPRM



### [8'J 

### No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received

- 

## If this box i s checked , no signatures are required. No 

### Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM 

### was issued? If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes be yond the scope of the previously publis hed NPRM will require a ne w notice . Contac t th e Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together
. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received , explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference F AA-lR-M-8040.1 C Chapter 9. ISSUE 1: S e lect on e of thefollowing: other 

## If

other , e

xplain : No comments were received , but changes were made to this AD basea on EASA 's 2' "1 revision of the MC AI. Additional clarifications were also incorporated to the instructions
. Commenter( s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree ? lfYES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD : If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If NO , we don ' t agree because
ISSUE 2: Selec t on e of th e following: 

## If

other , ex plain : Commenter( s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

### Page 1 of3If 

### PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with Make the following changes to the AD : If NO , we don ' t agree because



### ISSUE : Select one ofthefollowing: 

### If

other. exp lain: Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested ? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If 

### YES , we agree because Make the following changes to the AD : If 

### PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with Make the following changes to the AD: If NO, we don't agree because
For additional issues, double-click here becaus e We disagree with



### Page 2 of3 because

becauseSignature Section Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3368EN-E 

### ) /

# &j~]i101~ Date

# oJ**/:2 1/** **13** ) 7 Date



### Page 3 of3
- Program Home
- Notes and Notices

HomeCircular Notes and Notices – Office of Foreign Missions...Banking

# 									Banking							

Circular Notes and Notices

**01/18/24:**Notice: Foreign Mission Bank Accounts – Request for Updated Information

**04/20/22:**Notice: Bank Fraud Warning

**04/21/21:**Notice: Banking Best Practices

**04/13/18:**Diplomatic Note 18-558: Banking Information and Best Practices

**05/07/15:**Notice: Video Available of Recent Foreign Mission Banking Seminar 

**07/17/14:**OAS Diplomatic Note No. 37-B: Banking Information and Best Practices 

**07/11/14:**Diplomatic Note 14-1235: Banking Information and Best Practices 

**04/19/12:**Notice: Pending Closure of Foreign Mission Accounts with Washington First Bank 

**12/09/10:**Notice: U.S. Banking Regulations & Foreign Mission Accounts 

Tags

Office of Foreign Missions

Back to Top
# C_2006010EN.01001401.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo by order of that court of 25 October 2005 in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio and Others

(Case C-395/05)

(2006/C 10/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy) of 25 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proccedings against Antonello D'Antonio and Others on the following question:

| — | whether Articles 4(1) and 4 bis of Law No 401/89, as amended, which at present allow only Italian public service concessionaires, and not foreign intermediaries (bookmakers), to engage in the business of betting are in breach of the principles of freedom of competition, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment, as provided for by Articles 31, 86, 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

whether Articles 4(1) and 4 bis of Law No 401/89, as amended, which at present allow only Italian public service concessionaires, and not foreign intermediaries (bookmakers), to engage in the business of betting are in breach of the principles of freedom of competition, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment, as provided for by Articles 31, 86, 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty.

---
# Federal Aviation Administration

RGL Home **Advisory Circular****Advisory Circular Information****Advisory Circular Information**** ****AC Number:**AC 25.795-1A**Date:**10/24/2008** ****Change Description:**** ****Subject:**FlightDeck Intrusion Resistance** ****Related Regulation(s):**Unknown Part**Section Number(s):**Unknown Section** ****Cancels:**AC 25.795-1**Initiating Office:**ANM-100** ****Advisory Circular in PDF Format:**** ****Comments****Comments**
Comments:
FAA.gov Home |			Privacy Policy |			Web Policies & Notices |			Contact Us |			Help

**Readers & Viewers:**PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | Zip
#### Volma OVERTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Ernesto Calderon, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v. CITY OF AUSTIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Black Citizen’s Task Force, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 85-1269.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 22, 1986.

Finkman, Van Os, Waterman, Dean & Moore, David Van Os, Austin, Tex., for Overton, et al.

Mexican Amer. Legal Defense *&*Ed. Fund, Jose Garza, Judith A. Sanders-Castro, San Antonio, Tex., Belinda Herrera, Austin, Tex., for Calderon, et al.

Steve Bickerstaff, Ann Clarke Snell, City Atty., Austin, Tex., for Austin, et al.

Terry Davis, Austin, Tex., for Black Citizen’s Task Force.

Before WISDOM, REAVLEY, and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the *151district court for reconsideration in the light of *Thornburg v. Gingles,*— U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986).
HomeUnited Kingdom

# United Kingdom

492 items

        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (British Virgin Islands) (06-310) – Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes	  March 10, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (05-901) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Combating Terrorism Research and Development	  September 1, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (05-209) – Agreement Amending Treaty of July 3, 1986 Relating to Mutual Legal Assistance	  February 9, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (04-1216) – Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Principles Governing Cooperation in Research and Development, Production, Procurement, and Logistics Support of Defense Capability	  December 16, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (04-1215) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Collaboration on Land Battlespace Systems	  December 15, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (04-1208.1) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Science and Technology for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Other Homeland/Civil Security Matters	  December 8, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (04-0929) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Exchange and Replacement or Reimbursement of Marine Aviation or Propulsion Fuels at Sea and at Military Installations Worldwide	  September 29, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (03-1001) – Agreement Concerning the Use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island by Civil Aircraft Not Engaged in Scheduled International Air Services	  October 1, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (Isle of Man) (03-605.1) – Agreement on the Application to the Isle of Man of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of January 6, 1994	  June 5, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (13161) – Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains	  March 31, 2003 

previous page1…454647484950next page

Back to Top
[673 NYS2d 811]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry D. Horner, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

January 14, 1998

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Finkelstein, Levine, Gittelsohn & Tetenbaum,*Newburgh *CTerry D. Homer*of counsel), for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

*94Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts, and summons dismissed. Fine, if paid, is remitted.

Defendant was charged with a standing parking violation in an instrument denominated, “Summons, Parking Ticket and Complaint.” As this court recently held in *People v Gabbay*(175 Misc 2d 421 [9th & 10th Jud Dists]): “The parking violation summons * * * issued to defendant are the functional equivalent of appearance tickets issued in accordance with CPL 150.10 and 150.20 *(see, People v Cooperman,*NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1989, at 26, col 4 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; *Matter of Reynolds v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles,*52 AD2d 1048). It is well settled that an appearance ticket is not an accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant *(see, People v Cooperman, supra; People v Gregory,*NYLJ, Dec. 5, 1991, at 30, col 2 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). There is no indication upon this record that the People ever filed the proper accusatory instrument * * * with the court *(see,*CPL 150.50). Accordingly, dismissal of the summons * * * is mandated since the court never acquired jurisdiction *(see, People v Alberi,*NYLJ, Feb. 7, 1990, at 26, col 2 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; *People v Martin,*NYLJ, Apr. 16, 1993, at 34, col 2 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; *People v Cooperman, supra).”*Moreover, even if the ticket at issue were to be deemed a misdemeanor complaint there is no indication that defendant waived prosecution by information *(see,*CPL 170.10 [4] [d]). In view of our determination, it is not necessary to address defendant’s remaining contentions.

DiPaola, P. J., Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.
# C_2005153EN.01003301.xml

| 24.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/33

---

Corrigendum to Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme (Euratom) for research and training in the nuclear energy field

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 139 of 8 June 2005
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 139 of 8 June 2005

(2005/C 153/13)

In the Annex on page 40, point 8, in the third column of the table, alongside the topic ‘RAD PROT-2005/6-3.3.1.1-2’:

for:

for:

‘IP’

read:

read:

‘STREP’.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 27, 2015

No. 04-14-00551-CV

Pablo SOLIZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-02-16542-CV

David Wellington Chew, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On December 29, 2014, appellant’s attorney, Mr. Rick Soliz, filed an appellate brief that 

did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it did not provide 

appropriate citations to the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). An appellant’s 

brief must “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). 

On January 5, 2015, this court ordered Mr. Soliz to file an amended brief that complies 

with these rules no later than January 19, 2015. On January 20, 2015, Mr. Soliz filed a motion 

requesting an extension of time to file the amended brief. The motion is GRANTED. Mr. Soliz 

is ORDERED to file the amended brief no later than February 19, 2015. NO FURTHER 

EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED ABSENT EXTENUATING 

CIRCUMSTANCES. If another noncomplying brief is filed, the court may strike the brief, 

prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. Id. If 

appellant fails to timely file an amended brief that complies with Rule 38.1, this court may 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Laurent Salvador Lamothe – Former Haitian Prime Minister and Minister of Planning and External Cooperation – for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Laurent Salvador Lamothe – Former Haitian Prime Minister and Minister of Planning and External Cooperation – for Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 2, 2023

Today, I am announcing the designation of Laurent Salvador Lamothe, former Haitian Prime Minister and Minister of Planning and External Cooperation, for his involvement in significant corruption.  This action renders Lamothe generally ineligible for entry into the United States.  Specifically, Lamothe misappropriated at least $60 million from the Haitian government’s PetroCaribe infrastructure investment and social welfare fund for private gain. Through this corrupt act and his direct involvement in the management of the fund, he exploited his role as a public official and contributed to the current instability in Haiti.

We continue to support the citizens, organizations, and public servants of Haiti who are committed to generating hope and opportunity for a better future in their nation.  The United States will continue to promote accountability for those who abuse public power for personal gain.  Today’s designation is part of a series of actions that promote accountability for those who foment violence, block life-saving humanitarian support, and enrich themselves at the expense of the Haitian people.

###

*This public designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. K, P.L. 117-328) (“Section 7031(c)”).  S**ection 7031(c) requires the Secretary of State to publicly or privately designate foreign officials and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary has credible information of involvement in significant corruption or a gross violation of human rights.*

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsHaitiOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### Challes De Hart Brower, Respondent, *v.*William H. Shaw et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of Special Term.

David J. Newland, for appellants.

William E. Hill, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs. .

Present: Conlan, Schuchmah and Olcott, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.
§ 402.304 Approval of request for reinstatement. ( a ) If the initiating agency grants a request for reinstatement, the initiating agency— ( 1 ) Gives written notice to the excluded person specifying the date of reinstatement; and
( 2 ) Notifies appropriate Federal and State agencies, and, to the extent possible, all others that were originally notified of the exclusion, that the person is reinstated into the Medicare program.
( b ) A determination by the initiating agency to reinstate an excluded person has no effect if Medicare, Medicaid, or, where applicable, any other Federal health care program has imposed a longer period of exclusion under its own authorities.
Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF HUDSON UNITED BANCORP:

Hudson United Bank, organized under New Jersey business laws

HUBCO Capital Trust I, a statutory business trust

HUBCO Capital Trust II, a statutory business trust

JBI Capital Trust I, a statutory business trust

Jefferson Delaware Inc., a service corporation for payment of
 JBI Capital Trust I

AMFDCM, Inc., organized under New Jersey business laws


                       SUBSIDIARIES OF HUDSON UNITED BANK:

Hendrick Hudson Corp. of New Jersey, organized under New Jersey business laws

Lafayette Development Corp., organized under New Jersey business laws

HUB Investment Services, Inc., organized under New Jersey business laws

HUB Mortgage Investments, Inc., organized under New Jersey business laws

NJ Investments of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware business laws

AMBA Realty Corporation, organized under the Connecticut business laws

Hudson Trader Brokerage Services, organized under New York business laws

Fair Street Associates, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Markgard Realty, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Marmet Apartments of West Virginia, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Plural Realty of Chappaqua, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Riverdale Timber Ridge, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Plural Realty, Inc., organized under New York business laws

Posabk, Inc., organized under New York business laws

PSB Building Corp., organized under New York business laws

PSB Associates, organized under New York business laws

Atlantic Company, Inc., organized under Delaware business laws

Woulf Asset Holdings, organized under New Jersey business laws

F&M Capital Corporation, organized under Delaware business laws

F&M Mortgage Company, organized under Delaware business laws

F&M Investment Company, organized under Delaware business laws

JeffMortgage, Inc., organized under New Jersey business laws
#### Douglas Robert HOTCHKISS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-872.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1979.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, John Conway and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defenders and Kathleen Kroll, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

A conviction for possession of narcotics paraphernalia is appealed because the trial judge ruled a defense witness could not testify. *Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure*3.220 requires an accused to provide a list of his witnesses if he demands and receives from the state a list of the prosecution witnesses. Here defense counsel failed to disclose to the state the name of a witness known to the defendant. On the trial date defense counsel said he was going to call the witness and asked the court to delay the trial long enough to allow the state to depose the witness and investigate her story. The trial judge was disturbed by this and because this same lawyer had upon other occasions caused problems because of lack of preparation and in this very ease had received a continuance to investigate further, the judge felt the best sanction would be the exclusion of the witness. We agree the conduct, past and present, of trial counsel 1 was reprehensible and the lawyer deserved to be dealt with harshly, but we cannot visit the punishment on the defendant, in this case. There was no prejudice to the state shown and it is quite possible the exclusion of the witness’ testimony resulted in prejudice to the appellant. *Richardson v. State,*246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

The conviction for possession of paraphernalia is reversed and this cause is remanded for new trial on that count. The conviction and sentence on Count I is affirmed.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

1

. Counsel on appeal were not trial counsel.
HomeOman

# Oman

111 items

        -    Media Note  		Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism John T. Godfrey Travel to Oman, UAE, London	  September 24, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Lenderking’s Travel to Saudi Arabia and Oman	  September 14, 2021 
        -    TIAS  		Oman (21-902) – Temporary Relocation Transit Agreement	  September 2, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		The United States Designates an Oil Broker Network Supporting Qods Force	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 13, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 27, 2021	  Jalina PorterJuly 27, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Omani Deputy Foreign Minister Al Harthy	  July 27, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Oman	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to the People’s Republic of China and Oman	  July 21, 2021 
        -    		Travel to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the People’s Republic of China, and Oman, July 18-27, 2021	   
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Oman	  July 1, 2021 

previous page1…56789…12next page

Back to Top
#### § 21.41 Professional examinations, holding of; subjects to be included.

From time to time the Surgeon General may order examinations to be held in such professions or specialties within professions and for such grades as he deems necessary for the purpose of providing merit rolls of eligible candidates for appointment in the Regular Corps and shall, if a professional examination is to be required, prescribe the subjects relating to each profession or specialty within such profession in which candidates will be examined.

[21 FR 9806, Dec. 12, 1956, as amended at 24 FR 1790, Mar. 12, 1959]
# C_2006060EN.01003201.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/32

---

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-49/06)

(2006/C 60/62)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 1999/37/EC expired on 1 June 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 138 of 1.6.1999, p. 57

1

---