alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Inaugural United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Diplomatic Working Group Meeting on  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cyber Activities

# 									Inaugural United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Diplomatic Working Group Meeting on  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cyber Activities							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

December 7, 2023

On December 7, Japan hosted the first meeting of the U.S.-Japan-Republic of Korea (ROK) Trilateral Diplomatic Working Group to counter cyber threats posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), following the establishment of trilateral partnership announced at the Camp David Trilateral Summit in August.  Led by U.S. Deputy Special Representative for the DPRK Dr. Jung Pak, Japanese Ambassador for Cyber Policy Ishizuki Hideo, and ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General for North Korean Nuclear Affairs Lee Jun-il, the meeting underscored the need for close trilateral and global collaboration to disrupt the DPRK’s ability to generate revenue through malicious cyber activity, crypto thefts, and IT workers, which it uses to fund its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs.

Through this working group, the United States, the ROK, and Japan will pursue a wide range of trilateral actions to disrupt DPRK IT worker networks; engage private industry on the DPRK cyber threat; and coordinate trilateral capacity building assistance.  The Working Group meeting also focused on determining further areas of strategic focus for the group.

For the latest update on tactics used by DPRK IT workers to fraudulently obtain employment with companies around the world, read the most recent public service announcement that provides additional guidance on the DPRK IT Worker Advisory.  Follow the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy on LinkedIn and Twitter (@StateCDP) for more.

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsCyber IssuesJapanNorth KoreaOffice of the Coordinator for Cyber IssuesOffice of the SpokespersonSouth KoreaTechnologyWeapons of Mass Destruction

Back to Top
#### David S. TEPERSON, M. D., Drs. Jose & Teperson, P. A., Stephen Z. Gervin, M. D., and Stephen Z. Gervin, M. D., P. A., Petitioners, v. Frank J. DONATO and L. Ann Donato, Respondents.

No. 79-525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1979.

*704Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and Robert J. Bogdanoff, Miami, for petitioners.

Levy & Cohen and Jeffrey M. Mart, Miami, for respondents.

Before HAVERPIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

David S. Teperson, M.D., et al., defendants in a medical malpractice action, seek, by certiorari, review of an order denying in part their motion for protection and requiring them to produce copies of certain medical records.

The respondents filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against the petitioners, after the respondents had fully complied with the medical mediation action and received a finding of the medical mediation panel. Petitioners responded to this complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss, stating that the complaint failed to allege any specific deviations from the proper standard of care and, thus, did not state a cause of action for medical malpractice.

The respondents subpoenaed the medical records custodian of the Biscayne Medical Center, directing him to bring to the deposition any and all records in the possession of the hospital indicating all surgeries performed at the hospital by the petitioners and all records showing the petitioners’ patient going from surgery to intensive care. To block this subpoena duces tecum, the petitioners filed a motion for protection requesting that the trial court enter an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum served upon the Biscayne Medical Center. After a hearing, the trial court entered the order under review partially denying the petitioners’ motion for protection and ordering that the Biscayne Medical Center produce copies of the operative notes and intensive care records pertaining to all patients who underwent back operations by the petitioners. However, the trial court ordered that the names of all such patients shall be deleted or otherwise removed from any such records that are produced. From that order, the petitioners now file this petition for certiorari review.

The trial court erred in partially denying the petitioners’ motion for protection. This issue has recently been determined in favor of the petitioners. *Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Peralta,*358 So.2d 232 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). In *Argonaut,*this court held that it was error for the trial court to order the production of medical records of persons not a party to the action: “The question of medical malpractice is whether or not the doctor, in treating the plaintiff, used a standard of care commensurate with that used in the community and that question can be answered by utilizing other methods of proof than the invasion into medical records of strangers.”

Therefore, the order under review requiring production is quashed.
# C_2006048EN.01000901.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

(Second Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-373/04 P: Commission of the European Communities v Mercedes Alvarez Moreno (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Member of the auxiliary staff - Conference interpreter - Action - Request pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Measure adversely affecting a person - Definition)

(2006/C 48/17)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-373/04 P, appeal pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart), the other party to the proceedings being Mercedes Alvarez Moreno residing in Berlin (Germany) (Lawyers: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission in so far as it declared that the action for annulment of the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 was admissible and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to pay the whole of the costs relating to the action in Case T-323/01; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission in so far as it declared that the action for annulment of the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 was admissible and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to pay the whole of the costs relating to the action in Case T-323/01;

Alvarez Moreno

Commission

| 2. | In Case T-323/01, dismisses the action for annulment of, first, the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 and, second, the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 September 2001, rejecting Mrs Alvarez Moreno's complaint; |
| --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-323/01, dismisses the action for annulment of, first, the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 and, second, the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 September 2001, rejecting Mrs Alvarez Moreno's complaint;

| 3. | Orders each of the parties to bear its or her own costs relating to the present proceedings and to those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each of the parties to bear its or her own costs relating to the present proceedings and to those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
HomeGlobal Community Liaison Office Key Topics...Foreign Service Life

# Foreign Service Life

GCLO's Support Services Team provides confidential guidance and assistance to employees and families navigating the opportunities and challenges of Foreign Service life.

## 						Guidance in Areas of Foreign Service Life: 					

          - Adding a Family Member to Orders
          - **Counseling Resources and Referral Services**
          - Death of an Employee or Family Member Overseas
          - Divorce and Separation
          - Domestic Violence and Abuse
          - Eldercare
          - Foreign Born Spouses
          - List of Foreign Service Agencies’ Employee Assistance Programs
          - List of Important Documents
          - Members of Household (MOH)
          - Moving Overseas
          - Moving to Washington
          - Pregnancy, Adoption, Surrogacy, and Foster Care
          - Separated Tours
          - Singles in the Foreign Service
          - Tandem Employees in the Foreign Service

Back to Top
# C_2006126EN.01000901.xml

| 30.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3946 — Renolit/Solvay)

(2006/C 126/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 February 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(2) 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 website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M3946. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3946. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

Editorial Note on Subpart H of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart H of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35098, 35099, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.356 Determining substantial financial risk and majority financial interest. ( a ) *Determining substantial financial risk.* The PSO must demonstrate to CMS's satisfaction that it apportions a significant part of the financial risk of the PSO enterprise under the MA contract to each affiliated provider. The PSO must demonstrate that the financial arrangements among its affiliated providers constitute “substantial” risk in the PSO for each affiliated provider. The following mechanisms may constitute risk-sharing arrangements, and may have to be used in combination to demonstrate substantial financial risk in the PSO enterprise. ( 1 ) Agreement by a provider to accept capitation payment for each Medicare enrollee.
( 2 ) Agreement by a provider to accept as payment a predetermined percentage of the PSO premium or the PSO's revenue.
( 3 ) The PSO's use of significant financial incentives for its affiliated providers, with the aim of achieving utilization management and cost containment goals. Permissible methods include the following: ( i ) Affiliated providers agree to a withholding of a significant amount of the compensation due them, to be used for any of the following: ( A ) To cover losses of the PSO.
( B ) To cover losses of other affiliated providers.
( C ) To be returned to the affiliated provider if the PSO meets its utilization management or cost containment goals for the specified time period.
( D ) To be distributed among affiliated providers if the PSO meets its utilization management or cost-containment goals for the specified time period.
( ii ) Affiliated providers agree to preestablished cost or utilization targets for the PSO and to subsequent significant financial rewards and penalties (which may include a reduction in payments to the provider) based on the PSO's performance in meeting the targets.
( 4 ) Other mechanisms that demonstrate significant shared financial risk.
( b ) *Determining majority financial interest.* Majority financial interest means maintaining effective control of the PSO.
[63 FR 18134, Apr. 14, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 35098, June 26, 1998]
[HANNIS T. BOURGEOIS, LLP LETTERHEAD]


EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF HANNIS T. BOURGEOIS, LLP


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS














We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-150255 and Form S-8 No. 333-20631) of Britton & Koontz Capital Corporation and any related Prospectus of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 15, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Britton & Koontz Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and to the use of such Report, to be included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.












HTB signature


Hannis T. Bourgeois, LLP


Baton Rouge, Louisiana


March 15, 2011
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF PALMETTO BANCSHARES, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, as the chief executive officer and chief accounting
officer of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc., certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods
indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing
certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    L. LEON
PATTERSON                                                         
|L. Leon Patterson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                           
|                                                                                 
|/s/    PAUL W.
STRINGER                                                          
|Paul W. Stringer President and Chief Operating Officer (Chief Accounting Officer)



Dated: March 16, 2007
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.2

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 Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Eric Haskell, Executive Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Eric Haskell

Eric Haskell
Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
December 23, 2002
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Real Estate Associates Limited V (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
1[: _Ji\

**I·~··: =.;~..-3-P~**  ;03 3507 5355 DENKI KAGAKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA

# DENKA CERTIFICATE OF TEST RESULTS MAR.1999 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THE INSPECTION RESULTS OF THE FOLLOWING ITEM. DESCRIPTION : DENKA CSA#20 MANUFACTURED DATE : FEB.1999 !.CHEMICAL COMPOSITION I T E M 1 I s TEST RESULT(%)

MgO S5.0% 1.4 IGNITION LOSS :S3.0% 1.2 Na,o 

# -- 0.07

KoO 

# -- 0.05 Na,Oeq :;;; 0.50% 0.10 Cl- :ao.03% 0.015 NaoOeq: Na.O t K.OX0.658 2.PHYSICAL PROPERTY I T E M J I s TEST RESULT SPECIFIC GRAVITY 

### "' 2.90-2.96



### w:m!NE **RHh8M~~~sl** 

# ... <1;2000 SIEVE 1.2mm UPPER (%) 

### '" :;00.5

**tFTI~G** j!ME 

## '" INITIAL

**~0-60** r-m1n. FINAL :;; 10-00



## m~~H **~HANGE)** 

## '" 7DAYS ;;:0.025 28DAYS

**~-0.015**

**co;kn~sftrvE** 

### "' 3DAYS ;;:; 12.5 

# nmil 

# 5 7DAYS <1:;22.5 28DAYS* <1:;42.5 REMARKS. TEST METHOD (I) (2) (4) ; !IS R5201 (3) (5) (6) ·; !IS A6202 2.94 2560

0 2-15 3-05 0.079 0.050 27.0 41.5 56.5 

### * THE VALUE OF THE TEST RESULT AT THE LAST MONTH .3.LOT No. :98451 DENKI KAGAKU KOGYO KABUSHIK.l KAISHA OM! PLANT



# .~~" SPECIAL CEMENT ADDITIVE DEPT. Sanshin Bldg.. 4-1.Yurakuwcho 1-chome Chiyoda-ku,Tokyo,100 Japan Telephone:Tokyo(3507) Fax; Tokyo

_ ..''nfTIWiltb' ' Rlr'r ... .1. 18 # 5/ 10

'.

,·
| (1)                                                                                                                                                                | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      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. |

| /s/ Dean      Antonis              |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Dean      Antonis                            |
| President      (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date: May      20, 2008                 |
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.632 Continuation of benefits while the applicable integrated plan reconsideration is pending. ( a ) *Definition.* As used in this section, timely files means files for continuation of benefits on or before the later of the following: ( 1 ) Within 10 calendar days of the applicable integrated plan sending the notice of adverse integrated organization determination.
( 2 ) The intended effective date of the applicable integrated plan's proposed adverse integrated organization determination.
( b ) *Continuation of benefits.* The applicable integrated plan must continue the enrollee's benefits under Parts A and B of title XVIII and title XIX if all of the following occur: ( 1 ) The enrollee files the request for an integrated appeal timely in accordance with § 422.633(d);
( 2 ) The integrated appeal involves the termination, suspension, or reduction of previously authorized services;
( 3 ) The services were ordered by an authorized provider;
( 4 ) The period covered by the original authorization has not expired; and
( 5 ) The enrollee timely files for continuation of benefits.
( c ) *Duration of continued or reinstated benefits.* If, at the enrollee's request, the applicable integrated plan continues or reinstates the enrollee's benefits, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, while the integrated reconsideration is pending, the benefits must be continued until— ( 1 ) The enrollee withdraws the request for an integrated reconsideration;
( 2 ) The applicable integrated plan issues an integrated reconsideration that is unfavorable to the enrollee related to the benefit that has been continued;
( 3 ) For an appeal involving Medicaid benefits— ( i ) The enrollee fails to file a request for a State fair hearing and continuation of benefits, within 10 calendar days after the applicable integrated plan sends the notice of the integrated reconsideration;
( ii ) The enrollee withdraws the appeal or request for a State fair hearing; or
( iii ) A State fair hearing office issues a hearing decision adverse to the enrollee.
( d ) *Recovery of costs.* In the event the appeal or State fair hearing is adverse to the enrollee— ( 1 ) The applicable integrated plan or State agency may not pursue recovery for costs of services furnished by the applicable integrated plan pending the integrated reconsideration, to the extent that the services were furnished solely under of the requirements of this section.
( 2 ) If, after the integrated reconsideration decision is final, an enrollee requests that Medicaid services continue through a State fair hearing, state rules on recovery of costs, in accordance with the requirements of § 438.420(d) of this chapter, apply for costs incurred for services furnished pending appeal subsequent to the date of the integrated reconsideration decision.
[84 FR 15835, Apr. 16, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 6103, Jan. 19, 2021]