alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeReports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy (2008)

# 									Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy (2008)							

ACPD Special Report

June 25, 2008

Getting the People Part Right: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy

**Additional Related Information**:

Vice Chairperson Amb. Elizabeth Bagley’s testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

FAQs on “Getting the People Part Right” by Chairman William Hybl

Tags

Advisory CommitteePublic DiplomacyU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE 

PETERMAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 124 WM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge;  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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Marsha A. MongeonMarsha A. MongeonChief Financial Officer








March 28, 2011
# C_2006048EN.01004402.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006 — GHK Consulting v Commission

(Case T -383/05 R)

(2006/C 48/83)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
# C_2006121EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen lodged on 11 January 2006 — Rhiannon Morgan v Bezirksregierung Köln

(Case C-11/06)

(2006/C 121/01)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Administrative Court, Aachen (Germany))

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Rhiannon Morgan

Claimant:

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Defendant:

Question referred

Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full course of study in another Member State on the ground that the course does not represent the continuation of attendance at a German education or training establishment for a period of at least one year?

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren SMITH.

No. 63003.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 7, 1979.

A. J. Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Counsel, 24th Judicial Dist., Indigent Defender Bd., Kenner, for defendant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Ronald Loumiet, George Mustakas, Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged by bill of information with a simple burglary committed on October 6, 1977. La.R.S. 14:62. On November 17, 1977, he was tried before a *twelve*person jury, which found him guilty as charged. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to serve seven years at hard labor. On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because he was improperly tried by a twelve person jury rather than a six person jury.

Article I, Section 17 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution provides in pertinent part:

> Section 17. A criminal case in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment is neces*858sarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. *A case in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor or confinement without hard labor for more than six months shall be tried before a jury of six persons,*five of whom must concur to render a verdict, (emphasis supplied).

*See also,*La.C.Cr.P. Art. 782.

Defendant was charged with the offense of simple burglary, for which La.R.S. 14:62, as amended by Acts 1977, No. 133, § l,1 provides the following punishment: “Whoever commits the crime of simple burglary shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than twelve years.” Consequently, by constitutional and statutory mandate, defendant was required to be tried before a six person jury.

We have consistently held that the verdict returned by a jury composed of either more or less than the correct number of jurors is null. *See, State v. Nedds,*364 So.2d 588 (La.1978), and cases cited therein.

The state argues that defendant waived his right to complain of the defect by failing to object at the trial level. *See,*La.C.Cr.P. Art. 841. However, an error in the size of the jury is discoverable on the face of the record and therefore we may note it *ex proprio motu*without formal objection or an assignment of error. *See,*La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2); *State v. Nedds, supra.*

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.

DENNIS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by him in *State v. Nedds,*364 So.2d 588 (La.1978).

1

. Prior to the 1977 amendment to R.S. 14:62, simple burglary was punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. However, the above-quoted amendment was effective on September 9, 1977, before the commission of the subject offense on October 6 and therefore it governed the instant prosecution.
HomeDependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty...Independent States in the World

# 									Independent States in the World							

Fact Sheet

Bureau of Intelligence and Research

October 2, 2023

						Download Independent States and Dependencies						(csv)						[38 KB]

See also: Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

Total count of independent states: 197* Diplomatic relations with the United States+ Member of United Nations**!**New change, since previous list

**Source:** Office of The Geographer and Global Issues, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC

----

**NOTES****Note 1:** In this listing, the term “independent state” refers to a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US.

**Note 2:** Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) Standard two-letter and three-letter codes. GENC is the replacement standard for FIPS 10-4 and is the U.S. Government profile of the ISO 3166 international country code standard. For more information on GENC please see https://nsgreg.nga.mil/genc/discovery.

**Note 3:** With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

**Note 4:** “Congo” is the official short-form name for both the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To distinguish one from the other, the U.S. Department of State adds the capital in parentheses. This practice is unofficial and provisional.

**Note 5:** The official conventional long-form and short-form names remain “Republic of Turkey” and “Turkey”, respectively. “Republic of Türkiye” should be used in formal and diplomatic contexts. The conventional names may be used in place of or alongside “Türkiye” in appropriate instances, including U.S. government cartographic products, as it is more widely understood by the American public.

**Note 6:** Claimed by both the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Intelligence and ResearchBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsResearch

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.1







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 quarterly report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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/ Renyi Hou


Renyi Hou


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


November 23, 2009





/s/ Heung Sang Fong


Heung Sang Fong


Chief Financial Officer


November 23, 2009





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Michael Wayne LYONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-2023.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1980.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

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

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant, Michael Wayne Lyons, appeals from a judgment and sentence for battery.

Appellant’s only point on appeal is that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from cross-examining the battery victim regarding whether he had a pending claim under the Florida Crimes Compensation Act.

The Florida Crimes Compensation Act, Chapter 960, Florida Statutes (1979), was enacted by the legislature to provide governmental financial assistance for victims of crimes who suffer personal injury as a direct result of a criminal act. Section 960.-09(3) of the act specifically provides that the outcome of any criminal proceeding shall have no bearing upon the consideration of any claim under the act:

> (3) Claims shall be investigated and determined, regardless of whether the alleged criminal has been apprehended or prosecuted for, or convicted of, any crime based upon the same incident, or has been acquitted or found not guilty of the crime in question owing to lack of criminal responsibility or to other legal exemption or defense.

In light of this statutory provision, we hold that the trial court correctly sustained the objection to testimony regarding the existence of a claim under the Crimes Compensation Act. The existence or nonexistence of such a claim was irrelevant to any issue at trial. The Crimes Compensation Act was carefully drafted to have no bearing on any criminal proceeding. Certainly the legislature did not intend the Crimes Compensation Act could be used as a means of attacking the credibility of victims who testify at trial.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
# C_2006048EN.01000502.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04; Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Neufchâteau in the criminal proceedings against Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA and Jean-Pascal Durré (1)

1

(Free movement of persons and services - Concept of 'worker' - Condition of a relationship of subordination - Motor vehicle - Made available to the worker by the employer - Vehicle registered abroad - Employer established in another Member State - Registration and taxation of the motor vehicle)

(2006/C 48/10)

Language of the case: French

In Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de Police de Neufchâteau (Belgium), made by decision of 16 January 2004, received at the Court on 25 March 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA (C-151/04) and Jean-Pascal Durré (C-152/04) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

It is contrary to Article 43 EC for the domestic legislation of one Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, to require a self-employed worker residing in that Member State to register there a company vehicle made available to him by the company for which he works, established in another Member State, when it is not intended that that vehicle should be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis and it is not, in fact, used in that manner.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

1

---
#### Lauzaza *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Lem.*

(Decided May 11, 1911.

55 South. 444.)

*Affidavit; Warrant; Officer Authorized to Talce.*— In view of the provisions of section 7519 and 7585, Code 1907, in connection with Weakley’s Local Laws, Jefferson County, pp. 217 and 644, as to the powers and jurisdiction of justices of the peace in certain precincts of Jefferson county, and of such judges, the judge of the Inferior Criminal Court of Birmingham, is an officer authorized to take an affidavit and issue a warrant charging a criminal offense.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. William: E. Fort.

Phillip Lauzaza was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

Affirmed.

The affidavit charged the selling, or aiding, abetting, and counseling the unlawful sale, of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, and was made before I. H. Benners, judge of the inferior court of Birmingham, and a warrant issued thereon was made returnable before the judge of the criminal court of Jefferson county. The motion to quash raised the proposition that Benners was not an officer authorized by law to take affidavits and issue warrants in such cases, and that the affidavit was not made before an officer authorized to take it.

E. C. Einston, for appellant.

No brief came to the Reporter.

Robert C. Brickell, Attorney General, for the State.

No brief came to the Reporter.

WALKER, P. J.

By a motion to quash the affidavit charging the defendant with the commission of a criminal offense, the defendant raised the question that the *206affidavit was not made before an. officer authorized by law to take the same, in that it was made before I. H. Benners, the judge of the inferior court of Birmingham. A justice of the peace is a magistrate before whom such a complaint may be made. —Code 1907, §§ 7519. 7585. The judge of the inferior court of Birmingham, by section 1 of the act establishing the court, had conferred upon him the right to “have and exercise all the power and authority and perform all the duties now prescribed by law, or that may hereafter be provided by law, for justices of the peace” in precincts 21 and 37 in Jefferson county; and by a local law of earlier date there was conferred upon justices of the peace in those precincts “the same jurisdiction in criminal cases as is now exercised by justices of the peace.” — Weakley’s Local Laws of .Jefferson County, pp. 217, 644. This statement of the statutory provisions bearing upon the question presented suffices to show that there was no merit in the objection raised.

Affirmed.
§ 423.466 Timeframes for coordination of benefits and claims adjustments. ( a ) *Retroactive claims adjustments, underpayment refunds, and overpayment recoveries.* Whenever a sponsor receives information that necessitates a retroactive claims adjustment, the sponsor must process the adjustment and issue refunds or recovery notices within 45 days of the sponsor's receipt of complete information regarding claims adjustment.
( b ) *Coordination of benefits.* Part D sponsors must coordinate benefits with SPAPs, other entities providing prescription drug coverage, beneficiaries, and others paying on the beneficiaries' behalf for a period of 3 years from the date on which the prescription for a covered Part D drug was filled.
[75 FR 19819, Apr. 15, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 7964, Feb. 12, 2015]
# C_2005315EN.01000702.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-70/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 315/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-70/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Juhász, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005

1

---
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3431

AN ACT

To amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity

to improve the flow of interstate commerce.Act of 1993 to clarify certain requirements and
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3431

AN ACT

To amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of

1993 to clarify certain requirements and to improve the

flow of interstate commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3431 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Armored Car Industry

3 Reciprocity Improvement Act of 1996’’.

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF STATE RECIPROCITY OF WEAP5 ONS LICENSES ISSUED TO ARMORED CAR

6 COMPANY CREW MEMBERS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a) of the Armored Car

8 Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 5902(a)) is

9 amended to read as follows:

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an armored car crew member

11 employed by an armored car company—

12 ‘‘(1) has in effect a license issued by the appro13 priate State agency (in the State in which such

14 member is primarily employed by such company) to

15 carry a weapon while acting in the services of such

16 company in that State, and such State agency meets

17 the minimum requirements under subsection (b);

18 and

19 ‘‘(2) has met all other applicable requirements

20 to act as an armored car crew member in the State

21 in which such member is primarily employed by such

22 company;

23 then such crew member shall be entitled to lawfully carry

24 any weapon to which such license relates and function as

25 an armored car crew member in any State while such

26 member is acting in the service of such company.’’.
3

•HR 3431 EH

1 (b) MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS.—Section 3(b)

2 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5902(b)) is amended to read as

3 follows:

4 ‘‘(b) MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS.—A State

5 agency meets the minimum State requirements of this

6 subsection if—

7 ‘‘(1) in issuing an initial weapons license to an

8 armored car crew member described in subsection

9 (a), the agency determines to its satisfaction that—

10 ‘‘(A) the crew member has received class11 room and range training in weapons safety and

12 marksmanship during the current year; and

13 ‘‘(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon

14 by the crew member would not violate Federal

15 law, determined on the basis of a criminal

16 record background check conducted during the

17 current year; and

18 ‘‘(2) in issuing a renewal of a weapons license

19 to an armored car crew member described in sub20 section (a), the agency determines to its satisfaction

21 that—

22 ‘‘(A) the crew member has received con23 tinuing training in weapons safety and marks24 manship from a qualified instructor for each
4

•HR 3431 EH

1 weapon that the crew member is licensed to

2 carry; and

3 ‘‘(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon

4 by the crew member would not violate Federal

5 law, as determined by the agency.’’.

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect

8 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2006086EN.01004901.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/49

---

(2006/C 86/89)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

Past publications

OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---