alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Yemen

313 items

        -    		Biographies of the Finalists for the 2021 International Women of Courage Awards	   
        -    Report  		Yemen	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Yemen	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Yemen	  June 27, 2017 

previous page1…272829303132next page

Back to Top
----

Action brought on 27 February 2006 — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission

(Case T-75/06)

(2006/C 96/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Teko AE (Athens, Greece) and Aragonesas Agro SA (Madrid, Spain) [represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (known as the ‘plant protection products directive’ or ‘PPPD’) provides that Member States shall not authorise a product unless it is inscribed in Annex I of the Directive. The applicants, who are producers of endosulfan, request the annulment of the contested Decision, which refused to include endosulfan in that Annex.

In support of their application they first invoke a number of alleged procedural irregularities, namely: that the assessment of the contested Decision is based on criteria other than those specified in Directive 91/414, is incomplete and makes only selective use of the data submitted by the applicants; that new guidelines and criteria established by the Commission were applied retroactively after the applicant's notification and submission of data; and that the Commission refused to advise and consult with the applicants in relation to changing evaluation criteria and policy.

The applicants further allege that from a substantive law viewpoint the contested Decision violates Article 95(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414. They consider that the Commission failed to comply with its duty, under these provisions, to assess active substances and include them in Annex I in light of current scientific and technical knowledge and subject only to the requirements listed in article 5.

They further invoke the violation of a number of general principles of Community law, namely: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the duty to perform a diligent and impartial assessment, the right of due process (right of defence and right to a fair hearing), the principle of excellence and independence of scientific advice, the principle of equal treatment, the principle that more general provisions must give way to a lex specialis and finally the principle of estoppel.

----

(1)OJ L 317, 3/12/2005 p. 25

(2)OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p.1

----
#### Melody ROSENBERG, Petitioner, v. Michael ROSENBERG, Respondent.

No. 53082.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 1979.

James 0. Nelson, Miami, for petitioner.

Charles R. Lipcon, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This court adopts the dissenting opinion by Judge Hubbart, reported at 352 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Accordingly, the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal is quashed, and the case remanded with directions that the trial court set attorney’s fees for Petitioner’s counsel.

ENGLAND, C. J., and SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ, concur.

BOYD, J, dissents.

Order on mandate, 372 So.2d 1022.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CHIRON CORPORATIONSECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe periodic report of**CHIRON CORPORATION, aDelaware corporation** (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I,**HOWARD H. PIEN, ChiefExecutive Officer** of the Company, hereby certify as of the datehereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of theUnited States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)          the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.
| Date: March 16, 2006 | /s/ HOWARD H.  PIEN                       |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                      | Howard H. Pien

*Chief Executive Officer* |
|                      |                                      |
|                      |                                      |

 

----
#### Steven Bryant SHELLMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven CAMBRA, Jr., Warden; Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-16886.

D.C. No. CV-98-00905-LKK/GGH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 2001.

*323Before SCHROEDER, BEEZER, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Steven Shellmon, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing the petition, rather than holding it in abeyance pending exhaustion of his state remedies, because a new petition may be barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. The state claims the district court erred in not denying the petition with prejudice because the court decided the only claim it contained against Shellmon on the merits. The provisions of the AEDPA apply.

We earlier agreed with the state. *Shellmon v. Cambra,*No. 99-16886, 2000 WL 564020 (9th Cir. May 9, 2000). This appeal is now before us again after remand from the United States Supreme Court to reconsider in light of *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We now similarly conclude that the district court did not err under *Slack*in dismissing the petition rather than holding it in abeyance pending exhaustion of other claims in state court. The petition before the district court in this case, unlike in *Slack,*contained no unexhausted claims. The district court did not stay the petition, but instead reviewed the single, exhausted claim before it and found the claim merit-less. That ruling was correct on the merits in light of *Lisenbee v. Henry,*166 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.1999). Having decided the only claim presented in the petition, the district court was not required under *Slack*to stay its judgment pending exhaustion of other claims.

The state argues that once the district court determined that the sole claim raised in the petition was without merit, it should have dismissed the petition with prejudice rather than without prejudice. The state is correct, because the district *324court’s order disposed of the only issue before it on the merits.

The district court’s judgment of dismissal without prejudice is VACATED. We REMAND for entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

1

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Hickey Douglas T – Republic of Finland – December 2021

# 									Hickey Douglas T – Republic of Finland – December 2021							

Certificate of Competency

December 6, 2021

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate ofDemonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:	Republic of Finland

CANDIDATE:	Douglas T. Hickey

Douglas Hickey is currently the Managing Director, Hickey Gryphon QOF, based in Eagle Idaho.  He has more than 30 years of operational experience holding senior-level positions in the telecom, Internet and technology industries. Hickey was named United States Commissioner General at Expo Milano with the Personal Rank of Ambassador by President Barack Obama in 2014.  As Commissioner General, he oversaw efforts to create a dynamic USA Pavilion that told America’s food security story and activated a global conversation about the challenges of feeding the planet.Earlier, Mr. Hickey was President and CEO of San Francisco-based BinWise Inc., the leading provider of analytics to premier restaurant, hotel and entertainment groups around the world, and before that he was Managing Director of Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, one of Silicon Valley’s leading venture capital firms, for more than 10 years. Mr. Hickey’s considerable experience as an innovator and a leader in the fields of telecommunications and financial management, his strong record of civic engagement, and his demonstrated ability to work with diverse teams to achieve shared goals, makes him a well-qualified candidate to serve as Ambassador to the Republic of Finland.Hickey was CEO of Critical Path, the leading provider of messaging services to corporations around the globe.  He was also President and CEO of Global Center, which became one of the first and largest providers of advanced web hosting and content distribution on the web.He earned his B.A. from Siena College, Loudonville, New York in 1977 and was awarded an Honorary PhD for Sienna College in 2016. 

Back to Top
Amendment dated December 31, 2002 to Zions Bancorporation Restated Pension Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.16 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 ZIONS BANCORPORATION 
 PENSION PLAN 
 This Amendment to the restated and amended Zions Bancorporation Pension Plan (the “Plan”) is made and approved this 31 day of December, 2002,
by the Zions Bancorporation Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”), for and on behalf of Zions Bancorporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Employer.” 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
 WHEREAS, the Employer has heretofore entered into the Plan,
which Plan has been most recently restated and amended in its entirety effective January 1, 2001, and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer has
reserved the right to amend the Plan in whole or in part, and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer, by action of its Board of Directors, has authorized
the Zions Bancorporation Benefits Committee to make certain amendments to the Plan for the purpose of ceasing generally all benefit accruals under the Plan; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises the Benefits Committee, for and on behalf of the Employer adopts the following amendments to the Plan: 
 1. Section 2.1 is amended by adding a new sub-section (h) to read as follows: 
  

	 	(h)	From and after December 31, 2002, no Employee (whether or not an Eligible Employee) who is not already a Participant in the Plan as of December 31, 2002, shall become a
Participant in the Plan or be eligible to commence participation in the Plan. 

 2. Section 3.2 is amended by adding a new
sub-section (f) to read as follows: 
  

	 	(f)	 Unless otherwise provided by further amendment, from and after 











	 	 
December 31, 2002, no Cash Balance Account of any Participant shall accrue any further contribution or earnings credit under this Section 3.2.



 3. This Amendment shall be effective for all Plan Years commencing after December 31, 2002. 
 4. In all other respects the Plan is ratified and approved. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be duly executed as of the date and year first above written. 
  

			
	ZIONS BANCORPORATION BENEFITS COMMITTEE
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Diana Andersen
HomeThird-Party Contractor...Glen Anthony Doherty

# 									Glen Anthony Doherty							

DS Memorial

September 12, 2012

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Third-Party Contractor****Year of Death: 2012**

Glen Anthony Doherty, Private Security Contractor and former Navy SEAL, died on September 12, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, during an attack on a U.S. facility. His hometown is Winchester, Massachusetts.

**Photo: Private collection image**

Tags

DS Third Party ContractorLibya

Back to Top
#### W. A. SMITH, Appellant, v. George TAYLOR and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 73-957.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

David A. Maney, of Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.

Charles W. Pittman, Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Quiett v. St. Paul Insurance Companies (La.App.1st, 1973), 273 So.2d 882.

McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
§ 136.117 Amendment of regulations. Before revising or amending the regulations in this subpart, the Secretary shall take the following actions: ( a ) Consult with Indian Tribes and national and regional Indian organizations to the extent practicable about the need for revision or amendment and consider their views in preparing the proposed revision or amendment.
( b ) Present the proposed revision or amendment to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
( c ) Publish the proposed revisions or amendments in the Federal Register as proposed rulemaking to provide adequate notice to receive comments from, all interested parties.
( d ) After consideration of all comments received, publish the regulations in the Federal Register in final form not less than 30 days before the date they are made effective.
#### James LAISURE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 24, 1975.

*38James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Harold H. Moore, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of counsel and find that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

Although not raised on appeal, the written sentence order incorrectly imposed a general sentence on both offenses charged in a two-count information. We have held such general sentences to be invalid. *Darden v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 306 So.2d 581; *Haddon v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 307 So.2d 238; *Long v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 310 So.2d 35; *Farmer v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 315 So.2d 225.

At the sentencing proceedings the trial judge stated he could not sentence appellant on both counts, and actually sentenced him on Count I only.

The cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of entering a corrective sentence for sale of a controlled substance in violation of § 893.13 F.S. (1973). Since this was the actual intention of the trial judge, this action may be taken without the appellant appearing before the court.

The judgment is affirmed and the cause is remanded with directions.

BOARDMAN, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-15]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) for 
Eligible Multifamily Housing Projects

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
application information, deadline information and other requirements 
for the FY2009 Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) for Eligible 
Multifamily Housing Projects. Approximately $20 million in grant funds 
is made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved 
March 11, 2009), for the physical conversion of eligible multifamily 
assisted housing projects or portions of projects to assisted living 
facilities (ALFs). The notice providing information regarding the 
application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is 
available on the Grants.gov Web site at http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms_apps_idx.html. A link to Grants.gov is also available on 
the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 
number for the Assisted Living Conversion Program for Eligible 
Multifamily Housing Projects (ALCP) is 14.314. Applications must be 
submitted electronically through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the ALCP 
program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant 
Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, 
Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2480 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may 
access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service during working hours at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: August 20, 2009.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary of Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E9-21535 Filed 9-2-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
* 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 98-10701

______________________

RONALD B. MOORE

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT HARRIS, Sheriff; ET AL

Defendants,

ROBERT HARRIS, Sheriff; ERNESTO GARZA, JR., Deputy;

KAUFMAN COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:97-CV-1418)

_________________________________________

April 20, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Having reviewed the briefs and the record, and concluding that the defendant deputy

had qualified immunity because there was no violation of clearly established law ( see Taylor

v. Gregg

, 36 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1994), and Hand v. Gary

, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir. 1988), which,

although in tension with Malley v. Briggs

, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), concerning the effect to be given

a search warrant for claims against officers initiating an arrest, reflect no violation of clearly

established law); and concluding further that there is no material fact issues as to the other

claims under federal law, and that judgment as a matter of law on those claims was proper2

against the plaintiff, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
No. 99-463.

#### Sullivan *v.*River Valley School Board et al.

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
§ 418.1 Statutory basis. This part implements section 1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 1861(dd) of the Act specifies services covered as hospice care and the conditions that a hospice program must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program. Section 1861(dd) also specifies limitations on coverage of, and payment for, inpatient hospice care. The following sections of the Act are also pertinent: ( a ) Sections 1812(a) (4) and (d) of the Act specify eligibility requirements for the individual and the benefit periods.
( b ) Section 1813(a)(4) of the Act specifies coinsurance amounts.
( c ) Sections 1814(a)(7) and 1814(i) of the Act contain conditions and limitations on coverage of, and payment for, hospice care.
( d ) Sections 1862(a) (1), (6) and (9) of the Act establish limits on hospice coverage.
[48 FR 56026, Dec. 16, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 36017, Aug. 12, 1992; 74 FR 39413, Aug. 6, 2009]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-70-000]


Milford Wind Corridor LLC; Notice of Filing

September 4, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 2, 2009, Milford Wind Corridor LLC, 
pursuant to section 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, filed a petition for 
declaratory order requesting confirmation of its firm rights to use the 
Milford Wind Project, in Milford, Utah, generator lead to interconnect 
the full planned capacity of the Milford Wind Project to the integrated 
transmission system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eea8abbcada1808287808bbd9b9e9e819c9aae888b9c8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0969582939fbebcb9beb583a5a0a0bfa2a490b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22087 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>