alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                        246,962
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                246,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          29,336
<BONDS>                                                             0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    217,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  246,962
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                2,753
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               18,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (15,602)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 426.130 Party submissions.

Any party submitting material, except for material for which a privilege is asserted, or proprietary data, to the ALJ or the Board after that party's initial challenge must serve the material on all other parties at the same time.
HomeINL Work in the Field of Corrections

# 									INL Work in the Field of Corrections							

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

March 11, 2019

Each year, approximately 15 million people throughout the world are in prison or are detained. Of this total, 10 million are incarcerated and five million are released back into the community. What takes place while they are in prisons has a tremendous impact on what happens to them, and to society, when they are released.

Correctional systems – including detention, imprisonment, probation, parole, and community supervision – are key to the health of criminal justice systems. Effective correction institutions contribute to public safety, stability of society, and legitimacy of government. Ineffective, corrupt, or inhumane systems can undermine public support for governmental authority, contribute to crime by enabling criminal organizations to continue conducting criminal activities and enterprises, or by failing to keep convicted prisoners in jail.

Corrections reform has become integral to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs’ (INL’s) mission of providing criminal justice foreign assistance. INL helps nations improve sub-standard correctional systems to make them safe, secure, humane, and transparent. We also work to ensure they comply with international standards and norms, and contribute to the stability and security of the host nation, the United States, and the international community. INL does this by working with U.S. federal and state corrections agencies, the private sector, civil society, educational institutions, and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and Council of Europe, to:

          - Generate and deliver programs to assist nations with reforming sub-standard prison and correctional systems;
          - Provide technical assistance, training, and mentoring that strengthens corrections institutions around the world; and,
          - Engage in the development of global corrections standards and policies.

In addition, through the United Nations and alongside experts from the corrections field, academia, and civil society, INL has strengthened international standards for the treatment of prisoners worldwide. The original Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were adopted by the United Nations in 1957 to provide a guide for creating meaningful and humane change in corrections institutions. The revised rules, known as “The Nelson Mandela Rules,” were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on October 7, 2015. For several years prior to the UN adoption, INL led the United States in the international negotiations and diplomacy needed to reach agreement on these updated standards, which today provide universal guidance that underpins corrections reform around the world.

Back to Top
#### § 436.400 Scope.

This subpart prescribes general requirements for determining the eligibility of both categorically needy and medically needy individuals specified in subparts B, C, and D of the part.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Centocor, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-35729, 33-16286, 33-7311, 33-23481, 33-44231, 33-29142 and 333-07829 on Form
S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-35731, 2-86486, 33-35730, 33-00167,
33-16285, 33-16284 and 33-23480 on Form S-8 of Centocor, Inc. of our report
dated January 28, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Centocor,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, shareholders' equity and
related consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December
31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Centocor, Inc.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 13, 1998
HomeIntellectual Property Enforcement...IP Enforcement Abroad

# 									IP Enforcement Abroad							

## The “Special 301” Report

The IPE Office works with more than 290 U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions to monitor the status of IPR and develop a unique understanding of key international IP issues. This in-country understanding allows the Department of State to provide unique insights to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)-led annual Special 301 Report , which serves to identify opportunities and challenges facing U.S. innovative and creative industries in foreign markets. The Report describes the state of IPR protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners around the world and provides an easy reference for foreign governments and the private sector. Department of State Foreign Service Officers serving overseas play an important role in ensuring the Report’s accuracy by verifying claims submitted by stakeholders and by engaging host governments to build upon their capacity to protect IP.

## The Notorious Markets Report

In addition to the Special 301 Report, IPE collaborates with USTR and other government agencies to publish the annualNotorious Markets List  under the auspices of the Special 301 Report, which highlights specific physical and online markets around the world that engage in and facilitate substantial copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. These markets are highlighted on the List not only because they exemplify global counterfeiting and piracy concerns, but also because their scale of infringement activity cause significant economic harm to U.S. IPR holders. The publication of the Notorious Markets List has guided authorities to carry out legal action where appropriate and further intensify their efforts in combating piracy and counterfeiting.

## IP Crime Enforcement

We also work with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) through the International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (ICHIP) program. ICHIPs are experienced DOJ attorneys placed at U.S. embassies in key regions to enhance foreign law enforcement partner capacity to investigate and prosecute IPR crimes.

## IP Attachés

The IPE Team also works with the United States Patent and Trademark Offices to place IP Attachés   at several embassies and consulates. IP Attachés are technical experts who work to improve IP systems internationally. The attachés advocate to improve IP policies, laws, and regulations abroad for the benefit of U.S. businesses and stakeholders.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for Trade Policy and NegotiationsIntellectual Property

Back to Top
# Turkmenistan

69 items

        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Turkmenistan	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Turkmenistan	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		2022 Turkmenistan Presidential Election	  Ned PriceMarch 15, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		U.S.-Turkmenistan Annual Bilateral Consultations	  March 2, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Central Asian Foreign Ministers	  February 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2020: Turkmenistan	  December 16, 2021 
        -    Other Release  		Secretary of State’s Determinations Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016	  November 18, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the C5+1 Ministerial during UNGA 76	  September 29, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Turkmenistan National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 26, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement of the C5+1 on Addressing the Climate Crisis	  September 21, 2021 

previous page1234567next page

Back to Top
EX-10.27






Exhibit 10.27




Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements




     In addition to the compensation arrangements filed as other exhibits to this annual report,
EnPro Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) has the following compensation arrangements with its
directors and named executive officers.



Compensation Arrangements for Directors




     The Company has an arrangement to pay non-employee members of the Company’s board of directors
compensation for their service on the board. Effective for 2009, each non-employee member of the
Company’s board of directors receives an annual retainer of $150,000, $75,000 of which is paid in
cash and $75,000 of which is paid in phantom shares of our common stock, of which $25,000 are
phantom shares payable in shares of our common stock upon the director’s termination of service as
a director and $50,000 are phantom shares payable in cash upon the director’s termination of
service as a director. The non-executive chairman of the board receives an additional monthly fee
of $15,000, the chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee receives an additional annual
fee of $8,000, and the chairmen of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee and the
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee each receive an annual fee of $6,000. Non-employee
directors also receive an initial grant of $30,000, which is paid in phantom shares of our common
stock, upon initial election or appointment to the board.



Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers




     The Company’s chief executive officer and its four other most highly compensated executive
officers, based on 2008 base salaries and bonuses (such five officers, the “named executive
officers”), are all “at-will” employees who serve at the pleasure of the board of directors. The
board of directors sets the annual base salary for each of the named executive officers and has the
discretion to change the salary of any of the officers at any time. Effective for 2009, the annual
base salaries for the named executive officers are as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Base Salary	 
	 

	Stephen E. Macadam
	 	$	825,000	 
	William Dries
	 	$	350,000	 
	Richard L. Magee
	 	$	313,000	 
	J. Milton Childress II
	 	$	250,000	 
	Donald G. Pomeroy II
	 	$	195,000
#### Kevin Lee STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald CORBELL, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 86-2609.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1986.

*121Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Gabriel G. Quintanilla, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Curtis B. Stuckey, Mr. Garrigan, Nacogdoches, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THOMAS GIBBS GEE, THOMAS M. REAVLEY, and EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellants for stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

In this § 1983 action against state police officers, a jury has found that the major alleged actor among them — the others are charged merely with failing to intervene— did not employ unreasonable force in subduing the plaintiff following his arrest. It is settled law that policemen are entitled to employ reasonable force in the performance of their duties; it is only the use by them of unreasonable force in the circumstances presented that violates federal rights. The Supreme Court holds that governmental officers performing discretionary actions in line of duty are immune from civil liability for their actions unless they violate clearly established law. *E.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth,*472 U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). It follows that, if the jury findings stated are valid, these defendants are immune.

*Mitchell*also determines that “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” 472 U.S. at —, 105 S.Ct. at 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d, at 427. Here the district court denied defendants’ immunity on an issue of law: the scope of qualified immunity. As *Mitchell*recognizes, defendants’ “entitlement is an *immunity from suit ...*effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” 472 U.S. at —, 105 S.Ct. at 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d at 425.

This case has already once been tried, resulting in the stated jury finding, now set aside by the court on the ground that it gave the jury an incorrect legal instruction on intent. The defendants are entitled to appeal as of right from that action of the court, without being required to stand trial again before their appeal is determined. The trial court’s order granting new trial is therefore stayed until further order of this Court.

Judge REAVLEY would deny the stay on the grounds that the determination of qualified immunity rests on factual questions and, therefore, the appeal may not be maintained.
#### James Randy WHITE v. STATE.

6 Div. 791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 22, 1980.

Margie T. Searcy, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Sarah Kathryn Farnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

TYSON, Judge.

James Randy White was charged by indictment with the robbery of Zippy Mart of Alabama, Inc., a corporation, in the possession of Dennis Victory by taking $38.48-in lawful currency from his person and against his will by putting him in fear, etc. The jury found the appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and fixed punishment at forty years imprisonment. The trial court set sentence in accordance with this verdict.

Because the oral charge of the trial court (R. pp. 126-138) did not cover the matter of the appellant’s right not to take the witness stand and testify at trial, we must reverse and remand this cause for a new trial. We, therefore, pretermit consideration of other assignments of error.

I

At the close of the trial court’s oral charge, appellant’s attorney tendered some thirty-five written requested charges, each of which was refused by the trial court (R. pp. 156-167). These charges were also called to the trial court’s attention in the motion for new trial, which was overruled by the trial court (R. p. 183). Refused charge number ten reads as follows (R. p. 159):

> “The Court charges the jury that the fact that the Defendant did not testify in this case cannot be considered in determining the Defendant’s guilt or innocence. No inference or conclusion should be drawn by the jury from the fact that the De*1187fendant was not sworn and put on the witness stand as a witness in his own behalf, nor should this fact have any weight with the jury in reaching a verdict.”

The above charge has been determined by this court to be a good charge requiring reversal if the same is not covered either by the oral charge of the trial court or by other given instructions. *Swindle v. State,*50 Ala.App. 403, 279 So.2d 574 (1973). As in *Swindle,*the appellant did not testify; hence, the above charge is not abstract under the evidence in this cause.

For the error shown, this cause is reversed and remanded on the authority of *Perry v. State*(Ala.), 368 So.2d 310 (1979); and *Swindle,*supra, for a new trial.

Reversed and Remanded.

All the Judges concur.
#### Leronto WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-1597.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1981.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Carl H. Lida, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Spinkellink v. State,*313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975); *Coney v. State,*341 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Jones v. State,*360 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *Simmons v. United States,*390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); *Adams v. Williams,*407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).
41193.

41194.

#### STRICKLAND v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATHENS. GUEST v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATHENS.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendants were convicted in the Recorder’s Court for the City of Athens under an ordinance which provides that no person shall fire any pistol, gun or other firearm in the city within three hundred yards of any *281street, alley or building in the city. The defendant Guest was identified as the driver of an automobile and the defendant Strickland as the person who actually did the shooting from such automobile on a public street in the City of Athens. On certiorari the convictions were affirmed by a judgment dismissing the petitions. Error is now assigned on the judgments of the superior court dismissing the petitions for certiorari. *Held:*

Decided March 9, 1965.

*Hudson & Steele, Jim Hudson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Joseph J. Gaines,*contra.

“Where constitutional issues are raised for the first time in the superior court on certiorari from a judgment of an inferior tribunal, the superior court can not consider, nor can this court review, the constitutional questions thus sought to be made.” *Jones v. Mayor &c. of Athens, 105*Ga. App. 86 (3) (123 SE2d 420). See also *Thompson v. Allen,*195 Ga. 733 (25 SE2d 423); *Brackett v. City of Atlanta,*51 Ga. App. 92 (179 SE 584).

Identity is a question for the trior of fact, and where a witness identifies a defendant (whether the identification be based on the defendant’s eyes, clothes, hairline or some intangible factor not capable of description), the credibility of the witness making such identification is not to be decided by this court. See *Revill v. State,*210 Ga. 139 (78 SE2d 12); *Johnson v. State,*73 Ga. 107; *Gray v. State,*6 Ga. App. 428 (4) (65 SE 191); *Kirby v. State,*43 Ga. App. 102 (1) (158 SE 438).

All who participate, either directly or as accessories, in the violation of municipal ordinances are equally guilty as principals. See *Stradley v. City of Atlanta,*7 Ga. App. 441 (2) (67 SE 107); *DeFreese v. City of Atlanta,*12 Ga. App. 201 (1) (76 SE 1077); *Morse v. Mayor &c. of Macon,*9 Ga. App. 829 (72 SE 284).

The evidence authorized the convictions and the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing the petitions for certiorari for any reason assigned.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
[Cite as Janosek v. Janosek, 127 Ohio St.3d 1262, 2010-Ohio-6132.] 

JANOSEK, APPELLEE, v. JANOSEK, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as Janosek v. Janosek, 127 Ohio St.3d 1262, 2010-Ohio-6132.] 

Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.

(No. 2009-1705 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 20, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

Nos. 91882 and 91914, 2009-Ohio-3882. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 

accepted. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 James C. Cochran and Gary S. Singletary, for appellee. 

 Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., James E. Loeb, David L. Marberger, and 

Suzanne M. Jambe; and Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Larry W. 

Zukerman, and Paul B. Daiker, for appellant. 

______________________
### **EXHIBIT 23.1**

###  

###  

###  

###  

### CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

###  

###  

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3and related prospectuses (Registration Nos. 333-122386, 333-125861 and333-140415) and on form S-8 (Registration No. 333-111386) of RegeneRxBiopharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2008 withrespect to the 2006 and 2007 financial statements of RegeneRxBiopharmaceuticals included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).

 

 

/s/ Reznick Group, P.C.

 

 

Bethesda, MD

 

March 27,2008

 

 

 

----