alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Extraordinary ECOWAS Summit on Niger

# 									Extraordinary ECOWAS Summit on Niger							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

July 30, 2023

The United States welcomes and commends the strong leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Heads of State and Government to defend constitutional order in Niger, actions that respect the will of the Nigerien people and align with enshrined ECOWAS and African Union principles of “zero tolerance for unconstitutional change.” We join ECOWAS and regional leaders in calling for the immediate release of President Mohamed Bazoum and his family and the restoration of all state functions to the legitimate, democratically-elected government. The United States further welcomes the dispatch of the special representative of the ECOWAS Chair to Niger and urges all parties to work with ECOWAS for a peaceful and expeditious resolution of the current situation. The United States will remain actively engaged with ECOWAS and West African leaders on next steps to preserve Niger’s hard-earned democracy.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDemocracyEconomic SummitsNigerOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Form of Waiver



 Exhibit 10.15 
 FORM OF WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required to
comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008. 
 I acknowledge that this
regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I
participate as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program. 
 This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship. 
 * * * * * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand to this Waiver as of the
             day October, 2008. 
  

	
	  
	Name:
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.1010 Disallowance of Federal financial participation for erroneous State payments (for PERM review years ending after July 1, 2020). ( a ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) This section establishes rules and procedures for disallowing Federal financial participation (FFP) in erroneous medical assistance payments due to eligibility improper payment errors, as detected through the PERM program required under this subpart, in effect on and after July 1, 2020.
( 2 ) After the State's eligibility improper rate has been established for each PERM review period, CMS will compute the amount of the disallowance, removing any underpayments due to eligibility errors, and adjust the FFP payable to each State. The disallowance or withholding is only applicable to the State's PERM year.
( 3 ) CMS will compute the amount to be withheld or disallowed as follows: ( i ) Subtract the 3 percent allowable threshold from the lower limit of the State's eligibility improper payment rate percentage excluding underpayments.
( ii ) If the difference is greater than zero, the Federal medical assistance funds for the period, are multiplied by that percentage. This product is the amount of the disallowance or withholding.
( b ) *Notice to States and showing of good faith.* ( 1 ) If CMS is satisfied that the State did not meet the 3 percent allowable threshold despite a good faith effort, CMS will reduce the funds being disallowed in whole.
( 2 ) CMS may find that a State did not meet the 3 percent allowable threshold despite a good faith effort if the State has taken the action it believed was needed to meet the threshold, but the threshold was not met. CMS will grant a good faith waiver only if the State both: ( i ) Participates in the MEQC pilot program in accordance with §§ 431.800 through 431.820, and
( ii ) Implements PERM CAPs in accordance with § 431.992.
( 3 ) Each State that has an eligibility improper payment rate above the allowable threshold will be notified by CMS of the amount of the disallowance.
( c ) *Disallowance subject to appeal.* If the State does not agree with a disallowance imposed under paragraph (e) of this section, it may appeal to the Departmental Appeals Board within 30 days from the date of the final disallowance notice from CMS. The regular procedures for an appeal of a disallowance will apply, including review by the Appeals Board under 45 CFR part 16.
[82 FR 31187, July 5, 2017]
<PAGE>




                                   EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each director and/or officer of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), whose signature appears below hereby appoints Todd
B. Barnum or William C. Niegsch, Jr., or either of them, as his or her
attorney-in-fact, to sign, in his or her name and behalf and in any and all
capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual
Report") for the fiscal year ended October 26, 2003, and likewise to sign and
file any and all amendments, including post-effective amendments, to the Annual
Report, and the Company hereby also appoints such persons as its
attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with like authority
to sign and file the Annual Report and any amendments thereto in its name and
behalf, each such person and the Company hereby granting to such
attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying
all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 9th day of January,
2004.


Signature                                Title
----------                               -----
*/s/Todd B. Barnum                       Chairman, President, Chief
------------------                       Executive Officer and Director
    Todd B. Barnum

*/s/William C. Niegsch, Jr.              Executive Vice President, Chief
---------------------------              Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary
    William C. Niegsch, Jr.              and Director

*/s/William E. Arthur                    Director
---------------------
    William E. Arthur

*/s/Thomas R. Green                      Director
-------------------
    Thomas R. Green

*/s/Robert A. Rothman                    Director
---------------------
    Robert A. Rothman

*/s/Roger D. Blackwell                   Director
----------------------
    Roger D. Blackwell

*/s/Michael D. Murphy                    Director
---------------------
    Michael D. Murphy
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.28 Conversion factors. CMS establishes CFs in accordance with section 1848(d) of the Act. ( a ) *Base-year CFs.* CMS established the CF for 1992 so that had section 1848 of the Act applied during 1991, it would have resulted in the same aggregate amount of payments for physician services as the estimated aggregate amount of these payments in 1991, adjusted by the update for 1992 computed as specified in § 414.30.
( b ) *Subsequent CFs.* For calendar years 1993 through 1995, the CF for each year is equal to the CF for the previous year, adjusted in accordance with § 414.30. Beginning January 1, 1996, the CF for each calendar year may be further adjusted so that adjustments to the fee schedule in accordance with section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act do not cause total expenditures under the fee schedule to differ by more than $20 million from the amount that would have been spent if these adjustments had not been made.
[56 FR 59624, Nov. 25, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 42492, Sept. 15, 1992; 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995; 60 FR 63177, Dec. 8, 1995]
# C_2006103EN.01003202.xml

| 29.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/32

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4169 — Virgin/CPW/JV)

(2006/C 103/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 March 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 website (http://europa.eu.int/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://europa.eu.int/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 32006M4169. 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 32006M4169. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
----

NOTICE TO CANDIDATES WITH ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THIS TEXT

(2006/C 133 A/02)

Only the application form enclosed in the Official Journal printed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities will be regarded as authentic. For this reason, photocopies or any other copy of this document (obtained electronically, for instance) will not be accepted.

To obtain the Official Journal please apply, before 26 June 2006, to one of the following addresses:

quoting the reference ‘Selection Procedure PE/97/S’, the language in which you wish to receive the documentation and the address to which it should be sent.

----
# C_2006151EN.01001302.xml

| 29.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4237 — Bouygues/Alstom)

(2006/C 151/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 June 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 French 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://ec.europa.eu/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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4237. 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 32006M4237. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Isaac Dananberg, Appellant, *v.*Isaac Reinheimer, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1898.)

Lease — An assignee is liable only for breaches after the assignment — Counterclaim.

Where an assignee of a term brings an action against the landlord to recover rent paid him by mistake, the .landlord cannot counterclaim for breaches of covenants of the lease which were committed before the assignment, as an assignee is only liable for those breaches which occurred after he took' the assignment.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, fourth district, in favor of The defendant.

Lyman A. Spalding, for appellant.

Samuel Hoffman, for respondent.

Beekman, P. *J.*

The evidence does not warrant any other conclusion than thaf the .plaintiff went into possession of the demised premises as assignee of the term under a written assignment winch hears date February 1, 1898. As such assignee, therefore, it is¿lear that he was liable only for breaches of the covenants contained in the lease which took place after the transfer had been made to him. The trial justice consequently erred in allowing so much of the defendant’s counterclaim as was predicated upon violations of the lease which took place prior to the assignment, and for which, therefore, the plaintiff’s assignor was alone liable.

The claim is made on behalf of the respondent that the counterclaim should be allowed on the further ground that the plaintiff is suing as assignee of the deposit of $250, which was made by the original lessee with the defendant, his landlord, “ to be applied for the payment of the rent for the months of March and April, 1898,” and that the assigned claim is subject to reduction by the amount set forth in the counterclaim which was due from said assignor at the time of the assignment. The difficulty with this contention is that the action is not brought on any such theory. The complaint was oral, and was stated to be for money had and received, but the *713bill of particulars which was afterwards served distinctly shows that the action was not brought to recover the amount of the deposit, but a sum of money actually paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, after the assignment, for rent which accrued under the lease for the months of March and April, 1898, his contention being that the rent for those months had already been paid under the terms of the deposit above mentioned, and that the payment so made by him was made under a mistake of fact.

Hpon the facts before us there seems to be no ground for sustaining so much of the counterclaim as covers the period anterior to the assignment. It follows that the judgment must be reversed.

Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1999
[CASH]                                             441
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                   441
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                     441
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                             6833
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                         70
[COMMON]                                         10280
[OTHER-SE]                                     (16742)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                    (6392)
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                (2033)
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                               (248099)
[INCOME-TAX]                                  (248099)
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                           (248099)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                  (248099)
[EPS-BASIC]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
#### § 426.478 Retiring or revising an LCD during the Board's review of an ALJ's decision.

A contractor may retire or revise an LCD during the Board's review of an ALJ's decision using the same process described in § 426.420. If an LCD is retired or revised to remove completely the challenged provision(s), the aggrieved party who sought the review is entitled to individual claim review provided at § 426.488(b).
§ 417.400 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* The regulations in this subpart implement section 1876 of the Act, which authorizes Medicare payment to HMOs and CMPs that contract with CMS to furnish covered services to Medicare beneficiaries.
( b ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) This subpart sets forth the requirements an HMO or CMP must meet in order to enter into a contract with CMS under section 1876 of the Act. It also specifies the procedures that CMS follows to evaluate applications and make determinations.
( 2 ) The rules for payment to HMOs and CMPs are set forth in subparts N, O, and P of this part.
( 3 ) The rules for HCPP participation in Medicare under section 1833(a)(1)(A) of the Act are set forth in subpart U of this part.
[60 FR 45675, Sept. 1, 1995]
#### P.A.P., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-1219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 1980.

James R. Long, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

P.A.P., a child, appeals an order of the juvenile court adjudicating him delinquent and an order committing him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitation. He was charged with twelve counts of theft, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes. After trial before the court, he was found not guilty of eight counts (one charge involved a separate case not involved in this appeal). Appellant was found guilty as charged in counts 3, 5, 8, and 9.- This appeal followed timely.

Appellant contends that the evidence introduced against him was insufficient to support a finding that he was guilty of the *923offense charged in each count. We agree with him as to counts 5, 8, and 9, but disagree as to count 3.

The state relied to a great extent on the testimony of one Wilk, one of appellant’s coperpetrators. We did not have all of Wilk’s testimony before us. We ordered that the deleted portions be transcribed and made a part of the record, but were advised that the testimony had only been taped, had subsequently been erased, and was therefore not available.

After reading the testimony included in the record, we conclude that the evidence concerning counts 5, 8, and 9 falls far short of the standard of proof required to convict. The standard of proof necessary to adjudge a minor delinquent is the same as that required to convict an adult. *R.C.B. v. State,*374 So.2d 1168 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); *J.L.J. v. State,*367 So.2d 699 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); *D.M.M. v. State,*275 So.2d 308 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

We are unable to find any evidence that would have placed appellant in each residence at the times in question. The evidence concerning this issue consisted primarily of Wilk’s testimony. His testimony is vague and indefinite, amounting to nothing more than, at most, suspicious circumstances and as such is simply insufficient to support a conviction. *Hall v. State,*303 So.2d 428 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). For example, he could not remember the dates the burglaries took place, identify the places where they occurred, or remember what property was stolen.

We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support appellant’s convictions of counts 5, 8, and 9.

We have considered the other points raised by appellant and judge them to be without merit.

The convictions are REVERSED as to counts 5, 8, and 9, and AFFIRMED as to count 3. The order of commitment is AFFIRMED.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
# C_2006131EN.01000201.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division) — BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-419/02) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 10(2) - Chargeability of VAT - Payment of amounts on account - Prepayments for future supplies of pharmaceutical products and prostheses)

(2006/C 131/02)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 p. 1) — Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘economic activities’ — Contracts between companies for the supply of pharmaceutical products and prostheses having the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage.

Operative part of the judgment

Prepayments of the kind at issue in the main proceedings whereby lump sums are paid for goods referred to in general terms in a list which may be altered at any time by agreement between the buyer and the seller and from which the buyer may possibly select articles, on the basis of an agreement which he may unilaterally resile from at any time, thereupon recovering the unused balance of the prepayments, do not fall within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 08.02.2003

1

---
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Israel (19-1204) – Extension to Agreement of July 27, 2004 Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural Products

# 									Israel (19-1204) – Extension to Agreement of July 27, 2004 Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural Products							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 4, 2019

Trade and Investment: Agricultural Products

Effected by Exchange of Letters at Jerusalem and Washington December 4, 2019; entered in force December 4, 2019.

Extension of agreement done July 27, 2004: TIAS 04-910 [3 MB].  Agreement previously extended December 10, 2008: TIAS 04-910 [3 MB]; December 6, 2009: TIAS 04-910 [3 MB]; November 19, 2012: TIAS 04-910 [3 MB]; December 4, 2016; December 5, 2017; November 8, 2018.
Download Agreement						 [277 KB]

Tags

AgricultureIsraelTrade and InvestmentTreaties

Back to Top