alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006022EN.01000801.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 18 November 2005 in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v P. Jurriëns Beheer BV

(Case C-406/05)

(2006/C 22/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Staatssecretaris van Financiën and P. Jurriëns Beheer BV on the following questions:

| 1. | As regards the management of a collective investment fund, is the application of Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) dependent merely on the nature of the service provided or is application thereof also subject to the condition that the management services are provided by the person who maintains a legal relationship with the participants in the fund concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

As regards the management of a collective investment fund, is the application of Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) dependent merely on the nature of the service provided or is application thereof also subject to the condition that the management services are provided by the person who maintains a legal relationship with the participants in the fund concerned?

1

| 2. | Can a service agreed with an organisation which, in regard to its business activities, consists of the management of a collective investment fund, be deemed to constitute management for the purposes of the exemption mentioned under Question 1 if the person performing the service does so in his capacity as a director of that organisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a service agreed with an organisation which, in regard to its business activities, consists of the management of a collective investment fund, be deemed to constitute management for the purposes of the exemption mentioned under Question 1 if the person performing the service does so in his capacity as a director of that organisation?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Former Bangladeshi Official for Significant Corruption

# 											Designation of Former Bangladeshi Official for Significant Corruption									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

May 20, 2024

The U.S. Department of State announced today the public designation of former General Aziz Ahmed, previously Chief of the Bangladesh Army Staff, due to his involvement in significant corruption.  His actions have contributed to the undermining of Bangladesh’s democratic institutions and the public’s faith in public institutions and processes.

Aziz Ahmed engaged in significant corruption by interfering in public processes while helping his brother evade accountability for criminal activity in Bangladesh.  Aziz also worked closely with his brother to ensure the improper awarding of military contracts and accepted bribes in exchange for government appointments for his personal benefit.

This designation reaffirms the U.S. commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and rule of law in Bangladesh.  The United States supports anticorruption efforts in Bangladesh through assistance to make government services more transparent and affordable, improve the business and regulatory environment, and build capacity in investigating and prosecuting money laundering and other financial crimes. 

*These public designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.  This action renders Aziz and his immediate family members generally ineligible for entry into the United States.*

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBangladeshBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSanctions

Back to Top
Exhibit
      32.2
 
 Certification
of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of
operations as of and for the periods covered therein.
 
 
 /s/ J. Kimbrough DavisJ.
      Kimbrough DavisExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
 
 Date: May
7, 2009
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                              ----------

                CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  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 on Form 10-QSB/A of
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended January 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew L. Simon,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc., to the best of my knowledge, that:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  August 8, 2005

                                          /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                          -------------------

                                          Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. and will
be retained by Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31301

Summary Calendar

DOUGLAS ROBERTSON

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CV-585

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Robertson, currently Louisiana prisoner # 91333, attempted to

remove his state-court criminal bank robbery proceedings to federal court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. He appeals the district court’s remand of the case

to state court. Because Robertson did not file a state habeas petition, his motion

for a certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A).
No. 06-31301

2

Robertson also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

He is effectively challenging the district court’s certification that he should not

be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP.

P. 24(a).

In state court, Robertson was convicted of bank robbery, and his conviction

had been affirmed on direct appeal. His notice of removal was untimely. See

28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Moreover, as Robertson did not allege that a specific

federal law protects the criminal conduct with which he was charged, he has not

shown that removal of the criminal action was appropriate under § 1443. See

City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28 (1966).

Because Robertson has failed to show that his case presented nonfrivolous

issues for appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal

is not taken in good faith. Robertson’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and

his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1595

In Re: RANDY DRUMMOND, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:07-cv-03031-TLW)

Submitted: September 21, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randy Drummond, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Randy Drummond petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to allow him to 

file an application for a certificate of appealability of the 

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We 

previously denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed 

Drummond’s appeal as to both orders. We conclude that Drummond 

is not entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). 

The relief sought by Drummond is not available by way 

of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

also deny Drummond’s motion to compel answer. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
§ 418.400 Individual liability for coinsurance for hospice care. An individual who has filed an election for hospice care in accordance with § 418.24 is liable for the following coinsurance payments. Hospices may charge individuals the applicable coinsurance amounts. ( a ) *Drugs and biologicals.* An individual is liable for a coinsurance payment for each palliative drug and biological prescription furnished by the hospice while the individual is not an inpatient. The amount of coinsurance for each prescription approximates 5 percent of the cost of the drug or biological to the hospice determined in accordance with the drug copayment schedule established by the hospice, except that the amount of coinsurance for each prescription may not exceed $5. The cost of the drug or biological may not exceed what a prudent buyer would pay in similar circumstances. The drug copayment schedule must be reviewed for reasonableness and approved by the intermediary before it is used.
( b ) *Respite care.* ( 1 ) The amount of coinsurance for each respite care day is equal to 5 percent of the payment made by CMS for a respite care day.
( 2 ) The amount of the individual's coinsurance liability for respite care during a hospice coinsurance period may not exceed the inpatient hospital deductible applicable for the year in which the hospice coinsurance period began.
( 3 ) The individual hospice coinsurance period— ( i ) Begins on the first day an election filed in accordance with § 418.24 is in effect for the beneficiary; and
( ii ) Ends with the close of the first period of 14 consecutive days on each of which an election is not in effect for the beneficiary.
# C_2006086EN.01004802.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/48

---

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-12/06)

(2006/C 86/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Karina Suleimanova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the European Communities in so far as it sets her recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the European Communities in so far as it sets her recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As a successful candidate in a competition for which the notice was published before 1 May 2004, the applicant was recruited after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants (1).

1

In her application, the applicant first submits that the contested decision fails to take account of the legal framework set up by the competition notice. She claims that, pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, she was recruited at a grade lower than that mentioned in the competition notice.

The applicant also considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. Successful candidates in the same competition or the same level of competition were graded at different levels depending on whether they were recruited before or after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.

In addition, the applicant lastly alleges a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as she reasonably expected to be recruited at the grade mentioned in the competition notice to fill the post for which she had applied.

---

(1)  OJEU L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1

1

---
Exhibit99.1

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

The undersigned certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

 

(1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October31, 2002, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the accompanyingReport fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: February 5, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  Joseph  C. Christenson      |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Joseph C. Christenson                 |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ Timothy C. Clayton                |
|   | Timothy C. Clayton                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |
Exhibit 23.1





berrydunnlogoa21.jpg














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) of Union Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2017 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, included in the 2016 Annual Report to Shareholders of Union Bankshares, Inc.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-209815) pertaining to the Union Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-214858) pertaining to the Union Bankshares, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated March 15, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, incorporated therein by reference, of Union Bankshares, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2016.





berrydunnsignaturea21.jpg


Portland, Maine


March 12, 2019


Vermont Registration No. 92-0000278



























































berrydunnfootera04.jpg
#### § 802.236 Section 721.

The term *section 721* means section 721 of title VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565).
Exhibit No. 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|1                                            | . | Providential Capital, Inc.                      
|-------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    
|                                            
|2                                            | . | Provimex, Inc.                                  
|                                             |   | A majority-owned (85%) subsidiary of the Company
|                                            
|3                                            | . | Touchlink Communications, Inc.                  
|                                             |   | A majority-owned (85%) subsidiary of the Company
|                                            
|4                                            | . | Providential Energy Corporation.                
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    
|                                            
|5                                            | . | PHI Digital, Corp.                              
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    
|                                            
|6                                            | . | PhiLand Corporation                             
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    
|                                            
|7                                            | . | Providential Vietnam Growth Fund                
|A Cayman Islands-based private equity fund  
|of which the Company is the General Partner.
|                                            
|8                                            | . | IndoChina Mining Corporation                    
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    
|                                            
|9                                            | . | Providential Vietnam                            
|A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company    



1

---
§ 421.1 Basis, applicability, and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This part is based on the provisions of the following sections of the Act: Section 1124—Requirements for disclosure of certain information. Sections 1816 and 1842—Provisions relating to the administration of Parts A and B. Section 1893—Requirements for protecting the integrity of the Medicare program.
( b ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this part apply to agreements with Part A (Hospital Insurance) fiscal intermediaries that received awards under sections 1816 or 1842 of the Act prior to October 1, 2005, contracts with Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) carriers that received awards under sections 1816 or 1842 of the Act prior to October 1, 2005, and contracts with Medicare integrity program contractors that perform program integrity functions.
( c ) *Scope.* The scope of this part— ( 1 ) Specifies that CMS may perform certain functions directly or by contract.
( 2 ) Specifies criteria and standards CMS uses in evaluating the performance of fiscal intermediaries' successor entities and in assigning or reassigning a provider or providers to particular fiscal intermediaries.
( 3 ) Provides the opportunity for a hearing for fiscal intermediaries and carriers affected by certain adverse actions.
( 4 ) Provides adversely affected fiscal intermediaries an opportunity for judicial review of certain hearing decisions.
( 5 ) Sets forth requirements related to contracts with Medicare integrity program contractors.
[72 FR 48886, Aug. 24, 2007]
<PAGE>
                                  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 Annual Report of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Todd B. Barnum, Chairman and Chief 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; 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: January 17, 2006


                                        /s/ Todd B. Barnum
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Todd B. Barnum
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
                                        Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.