alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006022EN.01001402.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/14

---

Action brought on 27 October 2005 — Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau v Commission

(Case T-392/05)

(2006/C 22/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau GmbH (Neustrelitz, Germany) (represented by: M. Grehsin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the Commission of 5 March 2003 (document number C(2003) 519) in so far as the Land guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania have, according to Article 1(3) of the Decision, been qualified as illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC as regards subprogramme C (shared offices abroad) in the territory of ‘official candidates for accession’. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the Commission of 5 March 2003 (document number C(2003) 519) in so far as the Land guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania have, according to Article 1(3) of the Decision, been qualified as illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC as regards subprogramme C (shared offices abroad) in the territory of ‘official candidates for accession’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested Decision the Commission found that the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the granting of aid to promote the sale and export of products from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, in so far as they grant assistance that does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (1). According to the Commission there is also State aid if provision has been made for the granting of aid in respect of export measures to countries which have the official status of candidates for accession to the European Union.

1

The applicant maintains that the contested Decision is unlawful as the defendant has equated an official candidate for accession with a Member State of the European Union and consequently applied the rules relating to the common market. Furthermore, in the view of the applicant, the aid scheme does not infringe Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (2). Finally, the applicant claims that the contested Decision is unintelligible. In this connection it observes that the notification procedure should not apply to de minimis aid.

2

de minimis

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid.

1

de minimis

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises.

2

---
Draganflyer Helicopter Serial Number ________ Flight Plan Date Location Flight Plan Number
Estimated Takeoff Time Estimated Land Time Maximum Altitude Nature of Flight
Pilot Spotter Student Payload Type Support Personnel
Restrictions or Special Instructions
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| */s/                Eric Yu*                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Name:                   Eric                Yu                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
| Title:     Chief                Financial Officer      Chief                Accounting Officer Date:                     March 31, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
SERVED JULY 14,2011 

DEPARTMENT OF 

iRANSPORTATlON 

OCCKET OPERAflONS 

m\ JUL !U P 2: iU 

U.S. DEPARTMnNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE, INC, 

FAA DOCKET No. CPIOSWOOIO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0974 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DECISION 

Complainant Fcdeial Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Motion for 

Decision ("Motion"), arguing that no genuine issues of material fad exist and that it is 

entitled to Judgmenl as a matter of law. The Motion was opposed by Respondent Air Z 

Flying Ser\'ice, Inc. ("Respondent"). Complainant (hen filed a "Supplemeni" to its 

Motion for Decision, arguing that discovery it has taken in Ihe meantime underscored its 

case. 

The pleadings establish that there arc genuine issueajn dispute. Only a hearing can 

resolve them. As such. Complainant's Motion'for Decisioa^DENIED. 

Attachment - Service List 

'Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CORRECTED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Laurence E. Rohl, Respondcni 's Represenialive 

President/Director of Operations, 

Air Z Flying Service, Inc., Responclcn! 

355 Richmond Rd., Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, OH 44143 

TEL: 216-261-2992 

FAX; 216-261-2993 

Nicliolas R. Milliard, CompJciifianr.s Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL; 202-267-3452 

FAX; 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Aciinifustrative Lcnv Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room EI2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U S Mail For service in person or bv expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.. Wilbur Wright Bnilding-Suite 2W1000. Waslungton, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
#### ISABEL KOUNS O’PRY, SOLE DESCENDENT AND SOLE HEIR OF JOHN KOUNS, SURVIVING PARTNER OF GEORGE L. KOUNS AND JOHN KOUNS, AND CHARLES SCHNEIDAU, SUBSTITUTED ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GEORGE L. KOUNS, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[51 C. Cls., 111; 249 U. S., 323.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The act of July 2, 1864, chapter 225, 13 Statutes, 375, section 8, providing for the purchase for the United States at designated places of the products of States declared in insurrection, at not exceeding three-fourths their New York market value, was strictly in addition, as its title declared, to the abandoned property act of 1863, and not an amendment of that act in the sense of section 162 of the Judicial Code, which gives jurisdiction to the Court of Claims over claims for property taken under the latter act and sold.

The words “ addition ” and “ amendment,” as applied to statutes, may or may not have the same meaning, according to the purpose.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 31, 1919.
§ 403.245 Loss of certification. ( a ) A policy loses certification if— ( 1 ) The insuring organization withdraws the policy from the voluntary certification program; or
( 2 ) CMS determines that— ( i ) The policy fails to meet the requirements specified in § 403.232(a); or
( ii ) The insuring organization has failed to meet the requirements for submittal of material specified in § 403.239.
( b ) If a policy loses its certification, CMS will inform all State Commissioners and Superintendents of Insurance of that fact.
( c ) If a policy that displays the emblem, or that has been marketed as a certified policy without the emblem, loses certification, the insuring organization must notify each holder of the policy, or of a certificate issued under the policy, of that fact. The notice must be in writing and sent by the earlier of— ( 1 ) The date of the first regular premium notice after the date the policy loses its certification; or
( 2 ) 60 days after the date the policy loses its certification.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,176
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,346
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          17,950
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            17,895
<LOANS>                                         65,761
<ALLOWANCE>                                        964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,128
<DEPOSITS>                                      86,634
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,167
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                820
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,662
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  99,128
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,736
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  862
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   209
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,807
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,750
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,827
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,980
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,429
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,429
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.22
<LOANS-NON>                                        171
<LOANS-PAST>                                       267
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   982
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       33
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  964
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               964
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            397


</TABLE>
§ 423.165 Compliance deemed on the basis of accreditation. ( a ) *General rule.* A Part D sponsor is deemed to meet all of the requirements of any of the areas described in paragraph (b) of this section if— ( 1 ) The Part D sponsor is fully accredited (and periodically reaccredited) for the standards related to the applicable area under paragraph (b) of this section by a private, national accreditation organization approved by CMS; and
( 2 ) The accreditation organization uses the standards approved by CMS for the purposes of assessing the Part D sponsor's compliance with Medicare requirements.
( b ) Deemable requirements. The requirements relating to the following areas are deemable: ( 1 ) Access to covered drugs, as provided under §§ 423.120 and 423.124.
( 2 ) Drug utilization management programs, quality assurance measures and systems, and MTM programs as provided under § 423.153.
( 3 ) Privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy of enrollee records, as provided under § 423.136.
( c ) *Effective date of deemed status.* The date the Part D sponsor is deemed to meet the applicable requirements is the later of the following: ( 1 ) The date the accreditation organization is approved by CMS.
( 2 ) The date the Part D sponsor is accredited by the accreditation organization.
( d ) *Obligations of deemed Part D sponsors.* A Part D sponsor deemed to meet Medicare requirements must— ( 1 ) Submit to surveys by CMS to validate its accreditation organization's accreditation process; and
( 2 ) Authorize its accreditation organization to release to CMS a copy of its most recent accreditation survey, together with any survey-related information that CMS may require (including corrective action plans and summaries of unmet CMS requirements).
( e ) *Removal of deemed status.* CMS removes part or all of a Part D sponsor's deemed status for any of the following reasons— ( 1 ) CMS determines, on the basis of its own investigation, that the Part D sponsor does not meet the Medicare requirements for which deemed status was granted.
( 2 ) CMS withdraws its approval of the accreditation organization that accredited the Part D sponsor.
( 3 ) The Part D sponsor fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
( f ) *Authority.* Nothing in this section limits CMS' authority under subparts K and O of this part, including, but not limited to the ability to impose intermediate sanctions, civil money penalties, and terminate a contract with a Part D plan sponsor.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 75 FR 19818, Apr. 15, 2010; 89 FR 30835, Apr. 23, 2024]
# C_2006143EN.01002905.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2005 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-126/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 143/59)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 20.05.2005.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Robert R. Jones, III, President and CEO, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual reportis being prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based onsuch evaluation; and
          (c) Disclosed in this annual 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; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; 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: March 30, 2005   /s/ Robert R. Jones, III    Robert R. Jones, III  President and CEO
#### Lacy EVERETT et al., Petitioner, v. America Fiallo GONZALVO, Respondent.

No. 46245.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 13, 1975.

Certiorari dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARACELI GARDEA,

Appellant,

v.

JOSE GARDEA,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00214-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2023DCM1824)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. The motion to 

dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing appellate 

courts to dismiss an appeal on the motion of the appellant). Costs of the appeal are taxed against 

Appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). 

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

January 11, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
HomeU.S. Efforts to Address the Root Causes of Irregular Migration in Central America...Good Governance, Good Jobs Declaration

# 									Good Governance, Good Jobs Declaration							

February 6, 2023

The Government of the United States and the Partnership for Central America share the belief that open, responsive, and accountable democratic governance is the foundation of vibrant economies that generate good jobs and are vital for the people of Northern Central America to lead fulfilling, safe, and dignified lives.  We acknowledge the important role that the Call to Action, announced on May 27, 2021, can play in fostering an environment where rule of law and decent work flourish.  We declare our intent to strengthen our collective efforts to achieve this vision.

As part of our continued collaboration under Central America Forward, we intend to work together to promote business integrity, respect for human rights – in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), meaningful due diligence, adoption of good practices, including as related to meaningful stakeholder engagement, and compliance with domestic and international laws, including with respect to the elimination of corruption; the right of freedom of association and to  collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; the effective abolition of child labor; the elimination of human trafficking; the elimination of unlawful discrimination, including based on gender, in respect of employment and occupation; and a safe and healthy working environment.

We encourage private sector entities to join us in this endeavor.  We intend to partner with entities that model business integrity and adhere to the following principles and actions:
        - Not to engage in corrupt business practices, including bribery;
        - Not to tolerate violations of internationally recognized labor rights;
        - Not to tolerate sexual harassment or violence in the workplace;
        - Develop policies and practices to identify and mitigate adverse human rights impacts in their operations, in line with the UNGPs, and to take timely action in response to indications of corrupt conduct or human rights abuses;
        - To identify opportunities to strengthen and apply internal prevention, detection, and remediation mechanisms and to promote these principles in their value chains.

We hereby commit to collaborate on advancing these goals and identifying and promoting best practices, innovating, and advocating for good governance and good jobs.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsBusinessHuman Rights and Democracy

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top