alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Representative in Paraguayan Congress for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Representative in Paraguayan Congress for Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

April 6, 2021

I am announcing today the public designation of a Representative in the Paraguayan Legislature’s Lower House, Ulises Rolando Quintana Maldonado due to his involvement in significant corruption.  During his time as a representative, Mr. Quintana engaged in acts that facilitated transnational organized crime, undermined the rule of law, and obstructed the public’s faith in Paraguay’s public processes.

This designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021.  In addition to the designation of Mr. Quintana, I am publicly designating his wife, Mirtha Beatriz Esperanza Fariña Velausteguiz.  This action renders both Mr. Quintana and his wife as ineligible for entry into the United States.

The United States continues to stand with the people of Paraguay in their fight against corruption and to hold their elected leaders accountable.  This designation reaffirms the U.S. commitment to combating corruption in Paraguay, the tri-border region, and globally.

For more information, please contact INL-PAPD@state.gov.

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonParaguayThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Curtis Fern COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-208.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 06, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 06, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0206. CITY OF HINESVILLE, GEORGIA v. NANCY PARKER O'NEAL et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014V607
exhibit4n






T-RA-RPL-E1 Page E1  TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA  (TIAA)  730 Third Avenue, New York, NY  10017-3206  Telephone:  [800-842-2733]  Endorsement to Your TIAA Retirement Annuity Contract  [ Effective Date: Attached at issue / Upon receipt / Specific date / Date of Issue, and as part of  endorsement END-1000.24-ACC, if such endorsement applies / Upon receipt, and as part of  END-1000.24-ACC, if such endorsement applies  / Specific date, and as part of END-1000.24- ACC, if such endorsement applies]  This endorsement modifies the provisions of your TIAA Retirement Annuity Contract and becomes  part of it. Please read this endorsement and attach it to your contract.  The following provisions are added to your contract:  The term Investment Account refers to the Real Estate Account or to any subaccount of any other  Separate Account available under the contract.  Retirement Plan Loans  A Retirement Plan Loan is a disbursement of some or all of your Investment Account accumulation  to provide loans. To the extent your employer’s plan so provides and in accordance with section  72(p) of the IRC, as amended, and ERISA, to the extent applicable, you may request a Retirement  Plan Loan from your available Investment Account accumulations, at any time prior to the annuity  starting date. Retirement Plan Loans are not available from your TIAA Traditional accumulations.  The amount of a Retirement Plan Loan may generally not exceed the least of:  i) the total of your available Investment Account accumulations; ii) [50%] of the present value of your vested accrued benefit under any of your employer's plans; and iii) [$50,000] In determining the amount available for a Retirement Plan Loan, all plans of your employer,  including 403(b), 401(a), 403(a) and 457(b) plans, to the extent loans are available, and all such  plans of any related employers under IRC Section 414(b), (c) or (m) shall be considered employer  plans for this purpose.   A request for a Retirement Plan Loan must be made on or before the annuity starting date in  accordance with the terms of your contract. A Retirement Plan Loan will be effective as of the  business day on which we receive your request, in a form acceptable to TIAA as well as any spousal  waiver that may be required under ERISA or the terms of your employer’s plan. TIAA will  determine all values as of the end of the effective date. You can't revoke a request for a Retirement  Plan Loan after its effective date.   Exhibit 4(N) 





 






  T-RA-RPL-E1   Page E2      A Retirement Plan Loan reduces the accumulations from which it is paid by the amount of the loan  chosen. The loan will be issued in accordance with the terms of a loan agreement. The loan  agreement will describe the terms, conditions and any fees or charges for the loan. Any loan  repayments applied to the contract will be applied as new premiums.                    President and       Chief Executive Officer
Amorphous Metal TransformersAmorphous Metal Transformers(AMT’s)Estimated 2.3MEstimated 2.3MAMT’sproduced worldwideproduced worldwideOver Lap JointProtecting CRGO SheetProtecting Epoxy Resin CoatOil VentAMDT Core StructureFinished Core• Ribbon groups overlapped• Groups staggered to spaceoverlaps across joint• Joint is opened up for core/coil assembly and then re-laced• Joint can be opened and closed multiple times• Allows easy repair of transformers if necessary• One piece core allows for easy assembly•Ribbon groups overlapped•Groups staggered to spaceoverlaps across joint•Joint is opened up for core/coil assembly and then re-laced•Joint can be opened and closed multiple times•Allows easy repair of transformers if necessary•One piece core allows for easy assemblyFinishedCoreUnlaceInsertcore/coilRe-laceAMT Core/Coil AssemblyAMDT COREAMDT CORE (OPEN)AMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLYAMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLY(Core Joints Open(Core Joints Open-Ready for Coils Installation)Ready for Coils Installation)AMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLYAMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLY(Core Joints Open(Core Joints Open-LV/HV Coils Installation)LV/HV Coils Installation)AMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLYAMDT CORE/COIL ASSEMBLY(Core Joints Closed(Core Joints Closed-LV/HV Coils Installation)LV/HV Coils Installation)5 Leg - AMDT Core And Coil Assembly
#### § 416.76 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart apply to facility services furnished before January 1, 2008.

[71 FR 68226, Nov. 24, 2006]
# C_2006048EN.01000902.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-33/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Community action in the field of water policy - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 48/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-33/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Hottiaux and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 31 January 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó. Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as regards the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as regards the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
# C_2006131EN.01001101.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Stockholms län) — Ulf Öberg v Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa

(Case C-185/04) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for workers - Officials and servants of the European Communities - Parental benefits - Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)

(2006/C 131/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Länsrätten i Stockholms län

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulf Öberg

Applicant:

Defendant: Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17(2), 18 and 39 EC, Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English Special Edition: 1968(II), p. 475) and Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Entitlement to parental benefit (foräldrapenning) — Account not taken of a period during which the worker was covered by the Joint Sickness insurance scheme pursuant to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings applies, the period during which a worker was affiliated to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities must be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

1

---
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

IN SUPPORT OF MCAN J-10-2 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0994 

JANUARY 31 2012 
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7414** 

EDWARD JAMES EGAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00039

- MSD

- TEM )

Submitted : December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Edward James Egan, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward James Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justi ce or judge issues a ce rtificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Egan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Egan’s motion for a certificate of appealabili ty and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41066 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MARQUEZ-FERRER, also known as Rogelio Marquez-Guajardo, also known as Jose Garza-Ferreyes, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-362-1

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appointed counsel for Jose Marquez-Ferrer, the Federal Public Defender, has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Marquez-Ferrer has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
# C_2006096EN.01001501.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/15

---

Action brought on 27 January 2006 — Justerini & Brooks Limited v OHIM

(Case T-32/06)

(2006/C 96/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Justerini & Brooks Limited (London, United Kingdom) [represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor]

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elia Canelo Gutierrez (Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 23 November 2005 (Case R 36/2005-2) relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 605 461, notification of which was received on 30 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 23 November 2005 (Case R 36/2005-2) relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 605 461, notification of which was received on 30 November 2005;

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘J&B’ for goods and services in classes 14, 18, 21, 25, 33 and 43 (Community trade mark application No 2 696 383)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Elia Canelo Gutierrez

Mark or sign cited: International figurative trade mark ‘JOB’ for goods in class 33 (registration No 275 247)

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejects opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(2)(iii) and 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of procedural requirements, as contained in various rules of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21539]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application; 
Correction

    By Notice dated June 24, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on July 9, 2009, (74 FR 32954), the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, provided notice of application by Rhodes Technologies, 
498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, to be registered 
as an importer of basic classes of controlled substances listed in 
schedule II. The Notice of Application should be corrected by adding 
the following information: ``The company plans to import the listed 
controlled substances to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical 
ingredients.''

    Dated: August 21, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21539 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Order issued October 16, 2012

In The

No. 05-10-00126-CV

MEENAKSHI S. PRABHAKAR, M.D. AND

INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS, P.A., Appellants/Cross-Appellees

Ve

DAVID FRITZGERALD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 160th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-08507-H

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to abate the parties’ cross appeals to permit

proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement. Pursuant to Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 42.1 (a)(2)(C), we ABATE the appeal effective October 16, 2012. The appeal

will be reinstated upon the filing of a joint motion by the parties to reinstate or on November 30,

2012, whichever comes first.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3120 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3120

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
     To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to witness 
           retaliation, witness tampering and jury tampering.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
        (1) in section 1513--
            (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (B) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or 
testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which 
may be imposed for the offense under this section shall be the higher 
of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have 
been imposed for any offense charged in such case.'';
        (2) in section 1512, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a 
trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be 
imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided 
by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense 
charged in such case.''; and
        (3) in section 1503(a), by adding at the end the following: 
    ``If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a 
    trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section 
    involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the 
    maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense 
    shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the 
    maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged 
    in such case.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32
 PRESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I LIMITED
      PARTNERSHIPFORM 10-Q MARCH 31,
  2009





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Presidential Associates I Limited
Partnership (the “Partnership”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies 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
and 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 Partnership.






Date:
      May 15, 2009
                    /s/ Eggert
      DagbjartssonEggert
      DagbjartssonChief
      Executive Officer


Date:
      May 15, 2009
                      /s/ Andrew
      PragueAndrew
      PragueChief
      Financial Officer