alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of the Burmese Regime’s Military Aircraft Suppliers

# 									Designation of the Burmese Regime’s Military Aircraft Suppliers							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 8, 2022

Burma’s military regime has waged a brutal campaign of violence against the people of Burma, carrying out lethal air strikes against the political opposition and the broader civilian population.  On October 23, the regime carried out one of its deadliest aerial bombings since the coup, firing upon an ethnic community gathering in an attack that killed as many as 100 people and claimed the lives of artists, performers, and concertgoers in Kachin state.  We stand with the people of Burma in the face of the regime’s increasingly brazen attempts to terrorize and intimidate them, while suppressing their aspirations for a democratic, inclusive, and prosperous future.

Today, the United States is taking additional actions against those who enable the regime’s violence, particularly its repeated air assaults and killing of civilians.  The Department of the Treasury is designating Sky Aviator Company Limited and its owner and director, Kyaw Min Oo, pursuant to Executive Order 14014, for operating in the defense sector of the Burmese economy.  Under Kyaw’s control, Sky Aviator is a key supplier of military aircraft parts to Burma’s military.  Since the February 2021 coup, Sky Aviator has received multiple arms shipments from sanctioned entities.  Kyaw has also facilitated foreign military officers’ visits to Burma as well as the import of arms and other military equipment and provided assault helicopter upgrades.

The United States will continue to work with our partners to promote justice and accountability for the regime’s human rights abuses and deprive the regime of the revenue and resources it uses to commit atrocities against the people of Burma.

For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBurmaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateTerrorist Designation

Back to Top
# C_2006060EN.01001302.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/13

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-5/05 SA: Maria Fernanda Gil do Nascimento and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities)

(2006/C 60/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-5/05 SA: Maria Fernanda Gil do Nascimento and Others (lawyer: J. Grilo Simões) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and P. Guerra e Andrade) — application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities, brought on 11 March 2005, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the matter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the matter.

| 2. | Ms Gil do Nascimento, Mr Sirolla, Ms Leão Pingo Barata, Mr Vera Pedro, Mr Fontes, Ms Florindo Mestre, Ms Coutinho Martins, Mr do Nascimento Neves, Mr Rodrigues Paula, Ms Teixeira dos Santos and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Gil do Nascimento, Mr Sirolla, Ms Leão Pingo Barata, Mr Vera Pedro, Mr Fontes, Ms Florindo Mestre, Ms Coutinho Martins, Mr do Nascimento Neves, Mr Rodrigues Paula, Ms Teixeira dos Santos and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2005.

1

---
# C_2006029EN.01001301.xml

| 4.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4086 — Charterhouse/Nocibé)

(2006/C 29/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4086. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4086. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### James D. BOURN, Appellant, v. Shirley Lowe BOURN, Appellee.

No. 73-1050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Tanzanian Foreign Minister Stergomena Tax

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Tanzanian Foreign Minister Stergomena Tax							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 15, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

During a meeting with Tanzanian Foreign Minister Tax on the margins of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C., Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman congratulated Foreign Minister Tax on her recent appointment. They discussed our increasing cooperation on information and communications technology, trade, investment, and agriculture. Deputy Secretary Sherman commended Tanzania’s impressive COVID-19 vaccination rate and welcomed our strong bilateral health partnership. The Deputy Secretary and Foreign Minister discussed the importance of strong democratic governance.

Tags

Africa Leaders SummitBureau of African AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonTanzania

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

April 4, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan Yusof today in Washington, DC during the fifth U.S.-Brunei Senior Officials’ Dialogue.

Deputy Secretary Campbell and Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan celebrated 40 years of robust diplomatic relations between the United States and Brunei and reaffirmed a shared commitment to strengthening bilateral security ties. The two parties announced plans to elevate the relationship to a Strategic Partnership to further cooperation on cyber and technology, economic and commercial, and other issues. The Deputy Secretary and Foreign Minister II also emphasized the value of increased cooperation on regional issues and raised partnership opportunities for delivering urgent humanitarian assistance to the people in Gaza.

Tags

BruneiBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### The State *against*Jonathan Dayton.

TEIIS was an indictment, for carrying the letter, mentioned in the case against *Thomas Gibbons,*found also in the *Oyer and Terminer*in *Essex;*and removed to this court by *certiorari.*The return was the same as in that case, and after judgment was pronounced, Mr. *Chetwood*prayed leave to take the indictment off the files of the court, and restore it to the *Oyer and Terminer,*that a proper return might be made to the writ, or such other course taken, as the *Attorney General*might think proper.

*64The court granted leave, and the indictment was restored to the *Oyer and Terminer,*but it is understood, that it has been no further prosecuted.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group; Subcommittee F-Manpower & Training; NCI-F Manpower & Training 
Grants.
    Date: October 5-6, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Lynn M. Amende, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Resources And Training Review Branch, Division Of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd, 
Room 8105, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4759, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9efff3fbf0fafbf2def3fff7f2b0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f8f4fcf7fdfcf5d9f4f8f0f5b7f7f0f1b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21774 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Raymond F. FAYERWEATHER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 12, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review is the denial of relief sought by a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus.

This denial is affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant filing a motion pursuant to Rule 3.8S0 CrPR in the trial court, contesting the legality of his sentencing, notwithstanding the prior decision of this court reported in Fayerweather v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So.2d 522.

Affirmed.
#### Alexander Cooper, Respondent, *v.*Charles Kanter et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

July, 1898.)

Judgment — Mature of the proof.

A judgment must be supported by proof, and cannot rest on qualified admissions made by the counsel for the defendants on the trial and upon a stipulation, between attorneys, whose conditions were not fully performed.

Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, eighth district.

Louis H. Levin, for appellants.

Elias Rosenthal, for respondent.

Per *Curiam.*

The judgment in this case rests not upon proof of the plaintiff’s cause of action, but on certain qualified admissions made by the counsel for the defendants on the trial and a stipulation entered into between the attorneys in open court. One of the conditions of the stipulation was that all of the goods should be returned by the plaintiff to the defendants, a requirement which does not seeirn to have been observed, as, according to the statement made by the justice at the close of the case, 169 articles were missing. Futkermore, the admission of the counsel for defendants was not that $200 was due to the plaintiff, but that if the plaintiff had performed all the work and delivered it properly, he would tie *204entitled to $200; whereas he had damaged some of the goods to the extent of $23.10, and had also failed to return others, aggregating in value over $300." There was, therefore, nothing in this case, so far as appears from the return, to support a judgment in favor ■of the plaintiff for $200, or for any other sum.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants' to abide the event.-

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
Exhibit 10.9

 

Spousal Consent Letter

 

I, Juanjuan Li (ID No.: *********), as the legal spouse of Peifeng Xu (ID No.: *********) hereby declare that:

 

1.   Peifeng Xu is one of the shareholders of Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd. and holds 30% shares in such Company in his own name.

 

2.   I have already reviewed the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement and Exclusive Asset Subscription Agreement signed by and between Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhixiang Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. on July 25, 2017 and the Exclusive Call Option Agreement, Equity Interest Pledge Agreement and Proxy Agreement (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Control Right Agreements”) signed by Peifeng Xu as a party thereof on October 15, 2019.

 

3.   I have already consulted professionals, fully and accurately understood the provisions of the Control Right Agreements, and known that Zhixiang Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. is entitled to the pledge right and exclusive call option and has obtained the authorization of Peifeng Xu to exercise the shareholder’s rights and dispose the shares of Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd as mutually agreed on his behalf.

 

4.   I agree to Peifeng Xu signing the Control Right Agreements and hereby fully acknowledge and unconditionally and irrevocably agree that those shares held by my spouse in Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd. and registered under his name should be disposed of in accordance with the Exclusive Call Option Agreement, Proxy Agreement, Equity Interest Pledge Agreement signed by my spouse on October 15, 2019 and according to the arrangements under any letter of authorization, letter of commitment or other documents signed by my spouse as per the aforesaid Control Right Agreements, and such share disposition should not be based on any married couple’s common property right.

 

5.   I further guarantee that no behavior shall contradict the aforesaid arrangement. If I have already obtained any shares in Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd. for any reason, I will be bound by the Control Right Agreements and perform the shareholder’s obligations thereunder. In addition, upon request of Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd., I will sign a series of agreements of which the form and content are the same as the Control Right Agreements.

 

Hereby declared.

 

	
 
    	
Signed by:
    	
/s/ Juanjuan Li
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
October 15, 2019
#### Helen Meleski *v.*Olive Havens et al.

Maltbie, C. J., Avery, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued June 2

decided July 1, 1942.

*Sheldon B. Smith,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Freeman Light,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The trial court found the following facts: The plaintiff is the mother of an illegitimate child and works as a domestic servant. She boarded the child, then six months old, with the defendants. After the child had been with the defendants for about three months the parties entered into an adoption agreement which was approved by the Court of Probate for the district of Norwalk on February 15, 1940, after the usual formalities.

On November 8, 1940, the plaintiff brought the present suit, claiming that she signed the adoption agreement in the belief, induced by the defendants, that it was a proceeding to correct the birth certificate of her daughter and that, the adoption agreement was therefore procured by fraud and misrepresentation. She further claimed that, relying on the fraudulent representations of the defendants, she did not appear in the Probate Court and that the defendants committed a fraud on that court by failing to disclose the true nature of the agreement.

*239Her allegations that she was prevented by the fraudulent representations of the defendants from presenting her case in the Probate Court and that they committed a fraud on that court, if proved, were sufficient to entitle her to a judgment. *Folwell*v. *Howell,*117 Conn. 565, 569, 169 Atl. 199. The inherent difficulty with the plaintiff’s position on this appeal is that, while the case was tried on these issues, she failed to prove the truth of these allegations. The evidence was conflicting and the memorandum of decision shows that the only issue was one of credibility. No reference is made to the finding in the plaintiffs brief and the plaintiff has improperly argued the question upon the basis of the evidence, printed in accordance with her assignments of error attacking the finding. We have nevertheless examined the evidence in connection with these assignments of error. No material correction in or addition to the finding can be made. Even the plaintiff appears to admit that there was evidence supporting the finding, for in her brief she states that the issue on appeal is whether she proved her case by the better weight of the evidence. The subordinate facts support the conclusion and the judgment. Credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence are for the trial court. *Doty*v. *Wheeler,*120 Conn. 672, 677, 182 Atl. 468.

The plaintiff also claims in her brief that the attestation and acknowledgment of the adoption agreement were faulty and that its presentation in that condition constituted a further fraud on the Probate Court. In the first place this was not alleged and in the second there is no requirement that an adoption agreement need be either witnessed or acknowledged. General Statutes, §§4809-4814.

There is no error.
#### HENRY GUILMETTE v. THE UNITED STATES.

[No. 33270.

Decided February 19, 1917.]

*On the Proofs.*

*Navy pay.*— The facts in the present case are the same upon which the court acted in giving judgment to the same claimant in 49 C. Ols., 188. Judgment is now awarded on the same basis for pay since the rendition of the former judgment.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. George A. King*for the plaintiff. *King da King*were on the briefs.

*Mr. Richard P. Whiteley.*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston*Thompson, for defendants.

Hay, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

On January 5, 1914, this court decided that this plaintiff was entitled to receive credit for five years’ constructive service under the Navy personnel act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. L., 1007. The amount allowed him by that decision was up to and including the date of filing the petition in that case, September 20, 1911. 49 C. Cls., 188.

It was also decided in that casé that the retirement of the plaintiff from the service was in good faith, and “that the plaintiff was in fact and in law completely separated from the service, and was entitled under his reappointment to be credited with five years’ service as appointed from civil life.” 49 C. Cls., 192.

Barney, Judge, in the case of *Barber*v. *United*States, 50 C. Cls., 256, referred to the decision of this court in the case of *Guilmette*v. *United*States, and said: “ In the Guilmette case, 49 C. Cls., 188, this court held that where an officer in good faith had resigned from the service and reentered after 17 days, he would be allowed the advantages of this statute.” He then distinguished the Barber case from the Guilmette case, and said: “ We believe that we went to the full limit of liberality in the construction of this statute in that case and are not inclined to go any further.”

*220This suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover the balance of the money due him for his constructive service from September 20, 1911, to which time he was paid by virtue of the judgment rendered in his favor in the case of *Guilmette*v. *United*States, *supra.*

The facts in this case are precisely those upon which this court acted in deciding the case in 49 C. Cls., *supra.*No reasons have been given by the defendants which would justify us in reversing that decision of this court. We are of opinion that a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,806.07 should be entered against the United States, and it is so ordered.

BarNey, Judge, Booth, Judge, and Campbell, *Chief Jus*tice, concur.

DowNet, Judge, did not participate in the decision of this case.