alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Issuance of an Addendum to the Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory

# 									Issuance of an Addendum to the Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

September 26, 2023

The Department of State, together with the Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Labor, issued an Addendum to the 2021 Updated Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory to call attention to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and the evidence of widespread use of forced labor there.

The Addendum highlights the following:
        - Reports from both governmental and non-governmental sources that contain information about the ongoing, widespread, and pervasive risks in supply chains posed by state-sponsored forced labor and other human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
        - The urgency for businesses to undertake appropriate human rights due diligence measures as described in the  Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufactured with Forced Labor in the People’s Republic of China.  This guidance is issued pursuant to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

The United States will continue to promote accountability for the PRC’s atrocities and other human rights abuses through a whole-of-government effort and in close coordination with the private sector and our allies and partners.

For the full text, please see Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDemocracyEconomic AffairsHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonXinjiang

Back to Top
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Resources

HomeOffice of the Ombudsman...Key Topics – Office of the Ombudsman

# 									Key Topics – Office of the Ombudsman							

## Principles

**Independence:** The Ombudsman is independent in structure, function, and appearance to the highest degree possible within the organization.

**Neutrality and Impartiality:** The Ombudsman, as a designated neutral, remains unaligned and impartial. The Ombudsman does not engage in any situation which could create a conflict of interest.

**Confidentiality:** The Ombudsman holds all communications with those seeking assistance in strict confidence, and does not disclose confidential communications unless given permission to do so. The only exception to this privilege of confidentiality is where there appears to be imminent risk of serious harm.

**Informality:** The Ombudsman, as an informal resource, does not participate in any formal adjudicative or administrative procedure related to concerns brought to his/her attention.

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.
("PNBC") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Tony J.
Sorcic, President & Chief Executive Officer of PNBC, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 represents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         PNBC.



/s/ Tony J. Sorcic
-------------------------



Tony J. Sorcic
President & Chief Executive Officer

March 26, 2003







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton
National Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1737
KENDALL H. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYSONS MANOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; SKY BRYCE ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-94-639-A) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendall H. Breedlove, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissinghis civil action and denying his motion to vacate the court's dismissal order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion rendered from the bench and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court that Appellant failed to establish that the complaint was served on any Defendant. However, we modify the district court's order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (m). We deny Appellant's motion to amend the record on appeal, to file a complete record on appeal, and to appoint a magistrate to examine the record. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Croatia (22-1228.1) – Extradition Agreement

# 									Croatia (22-1228.1) – Extradition Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 28, 2022

Law Enforcement: Extradition

Signed at Washington December 10, 2019; entered into force December 28, 2022.
Download Agreement						 [1 MB]

Tags

CroatiaLaw EnforcementTreaties

Back to Top
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-90454, 33-96076, 33-80899, 333-02194, 333-09075, 333-34031, 333-66997, 333-89983, 333-43254, 333-59274, 333-71598, 333-96711, 333-96713, 333-107012, 333-116883 and 333-129006 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 9, 2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statements schedule of FileNet Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FileNet Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

*/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP*

 

Deloitte and Touche LLP

Costa Mesa, California

March 9, 2006
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

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

§ 422.388 Deposits. ( a ) *Insolvency deposit.* ( 1 ) At the time of application, an organization must deposit $100,000 in cash or securities (or any combination thereof) into an account in a manner that is acceptable to CMS.
( 2 ) The deposit must be restricted to use in the event of insolvency to help assure continuation of services or pay costs associated with receivership or liquidation.
( 3 ) At the time of the PSO's application for an MA contract and, thereafter, upon CMS's request, a PSO must provide CMS with proof of the insolvency deposit, such proof to be in a form that CMS considers appropriate.
( b ) *Uncovered expenditures deposit.* ( 1 ) If at any time uncovered expenditures exceed 10 percent of a PSO's total health care expenditures, then the PSO must place an uncovered expenditures deposit into an account with any organization or trustee that is acceptable to CMS.
( 2 ) The deposit must at all times have a fair market value of an amount that is 120 percent of the PSO's outstanding liability for uncovered expenditures for enrollees, including incurred, but not reported claims.
( 3 ) The deposit must be calculated as of the first day of each month required and maintained for the remainder of each month required.
( 4 ) If a PSO is not otherwise required to file a quarterly report, it must file a report within 45 days of the end of the calendar quarter with information sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this section.
( 5 ) The deposit required under this section is restricted and in trust for CMS's use to protect the interests of the PSO's Medicare enrollees and to pay the costs associated with administering the insolvency. It may be used only as provided under this section.
( c ) A PSO may use the deposits required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to satisfy the PSO's minimum net worth amount required under § 422.382(a) and (b).
( d ) All income from the deposits or trust accounts required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, are considered assets of the PSO. Upon CMS's approval, the income from the deposits may be withdrawn.
( e ) On prior written approval from CMS, a PSO that has made a deposit under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, may withdraw that deposit or any part thereof if— ( 1 ) A substitute deposit of cash or securities of equal amount and value is made;
( 2 ) The fair market value exceeds the amount of the required deposit; or
( 3 ) The required deposit under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section is reduced or eliminated.
[63 FR 25379, May 7, 1998]
§ 423.1070 Removal of hearing to Departmental Appeals Board. ( a ) At any time before the ALJ receives oral testimony, the Board may remove to itself any pending request for a hearing.
( b ) Notice of removal is mailed to each party.
( c ) The Board conducts the hearing in accordance with the rules that apply to ALJ hearings under this subpart.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24A1077. ROBERT ANTHONY RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA .

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On March 27, 2024, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and

a brief no later than April 08, 2024. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
§ 423.1030 Notice of prehearing conference. ( a ) *Timing of notice.* The ALJ will fix a time and place for the prehearing conference and mail written notice to the parties at least 10 calendar days before the scheduled date.
( b ) *Content of notice.* The notice will inform the parties of the purpose of the conference and specify what issues are sought to be resolved, agreed to, or excluded.
( c ) *Additional issues.* Issues other than those set forth in the notice of determination or the request for hearing may be considered at the prehearing conference if— ( 1 ) Either party gives timely notice to that effect to the ALJ and the other party; or
( 2 ) The ALJ raises the issues in the notice of prehearing conference or at the conference.
§ 423.2002 Right to an ALJ hearing. ( a ) An enrollee who is dissatisfied with the IRE reconsideration determination has a right to a hearing before an ALJ if— ( 1 ) The enrollee files a written request for an ALJ hearing within 60 calendar days after receipt of the written notice of the IRE's reconsideration; and
( 2 ) The enrollee meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 423.2006.
( b ) An enrollee may request that the hearing before an ALJ be expedited if: ( 1 ) The appeal involves an issue specified in § 423.566(b) but does not include solely a request for payment of Part D drugs already furnished;
( 2 ) The enrollee submits a written or oral request for an expedited ALJ hearing within 60 calendar days of the date of the written notice of an IRE reconsideration determination. The request can only be submitted after the enrollee receives the written IRE reconsideration notice. The request should also explain why applying the standard timeframe may seriously jeopardize the life or health of the enrollee; and
( 3 ) The enrollee meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 423.2006.
( c ) OMHA must document all oral requests for expedited hearings in writing and maintain the documentation in the case files.
( d ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the reconsideration is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the written reconsideration, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( e ) For purposes of meeting the 60 calendar day filing deadline, the request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the office specified in the IRE's reconsideration.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5127, Jan. 17, 2017; 84 FR 19872, May 7, 2019]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...First Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution

# 									First Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 25, 2022

Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Monica Medina will travel to Punta del Este, Uruguay to lead the U.S. delegation to the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1) November 26-28. Assistant Secretary Medina will join U.S. interagency partners, including the EPA, USAID, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and representatives from over 150 countries to develop a global agreement on plastic pollution.

The INC-1 is the negotiating body established by the United Nations Environment Assembly to develop the text of a global agreement on plastic pollution. The United States is actively engaged in negotiations seeking a global agreement that is ambitious, innovative, and covers the full lifecycle of plastics.

For media inquiries, please contact OES-PA-DG@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPollutionUnited NationsUruguay

Back to Top
§ 433.11 Enhanced FMAP rate for children. ( a ) Subject to the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section, the enhanced FMAP determined in accordance with § 457.622 of this chapter will be used to determine the Federal share of State expenditures, except any expenditures pursuant to section 1923 of the Act for payments to disproportionate share hospitals for— ( 1 ) Services provided to optional targeted low-income children described in § 435.4 or § 436.3 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Services provided to children born before October 1, 1983, with or without group health coverage or other health insurance coverage, who would be described in section 1902(l)(1)(D) of the Act (poverty-level-related children's groups) if— ( i ) They had been born on or after that date; and
( ii ) They would not qualify for medical assistance under the State plan in effect on March 31, 1997.
( b ) Enhanced FMAP is not available if— ( 1 ) A State adopts income and resource standards and methodologies for purposes of determining a child's eligibility under the Medicaid State plan that are more restrictive than those applied under policies of the State plan (as described in the definition of optional targeted low-income children at § 435.4 of this chapter) in effect on June 1, 1997; or
( 2 ) No funds are available in the State's title XXI allotment, as determined under part 457, subpart F of this chapter for the quarter enhanced FMAP is claimed; or
( 3 ) The State fails to maintain a valid method of identifying services provided on behalf of children listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
[66 FR 2666, Jan. 11, 2001]
#### THE UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC DREDGING COMPANY, WALTER B. BROOKS, AGENT.

[53 C. Cls., 490 ; 253 U. S., 1.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The specifications upon which a dredging contract was based described the materials to be removed as believed by the Government to be mainly mud and fine sand; declined to guarantee the accuracy of the description; required bidders to examine and decide for themselves; referred them to maps exhibiting results of test borings made by the Government, confirming the description; declined to guarantee that such borings actually represented the character of the bottom over the entire vicinity in which they were taken, but expressed the Government’s belief that the general information thereby given was trustworthy. The representations were deceptive in that the test borings gave information to the Government not imparted to bidders of materials more difficult to excavate than those shown by the maps and specifications.

*Held:*(1) That a contractor which relied upon such representations of the results of the borings and of the Government’s belief based thereon, and whose reliance was confirmed by the Government’s approval of its plant — adapted only to the lighter materials and submitted for inspection as to its adequacy pursuant to the specifications — was entitled to stop work after part performance and recover the difference between the cost of the excavation done and the amount received under the contract.

(2) That this right was not lost by proceeding with the work and entering into a supplementary contract, after the *520heavier materials were encountered, but before the .contractor learned of the results of the test borings and that they were inadequate.

(3) That the cause of action was in contract, not in tort.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 26,1920.
#### § 436.1006 Definitions relating to institutional status.

For purposes of FFP, the definitions in § 435.1010 of this chapter apply to this part.

[44 FR 17939, Mar. 23, 1979. Redesignated and amended at 71 FR 39229, July 12, 2006]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Guiding Principles on Government Use of Surveillance Technologies

# 									Guiding Principles on Government Use of Surveillance Technologies							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 30, 2023

Surveillance technologies can be important tools for protecting national security and public safety when used responsibly and in a manner consistent with applicable international law.  At the same time, a growing number of governments misuse surveillance technologies to restrict access to information and the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  In some cases, governments use these tools in ways that violate or abuse the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy.  In the worst cases, governments employ such products or services as part of a broad state apparatus of oppression.

Today, the United States is proud to join over 45 Summit for Democracy participating states in endorsing new ***Guiding Principles on Government Use of Surveillance Technologies.* [275 KB]**These *Guiding Principles*illustrate how governments can maintain their commitment to respect democratic values and protect human rights in the responsible use of surveillance technology. They were developed by consensus in the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of 36 governments dedicated to protecting the same human rights online as offline, currently chaired by the United States.

The *Guiding Principles* are intended to prevent the misuse of surveillance technologies by governments to enable human rights abuses in three main areas:
        - The use of Internet controls;
        - Pairing video surveillance with artificial intelligence-driven tools; and
        - The use of big data analytic tools.

Responsible policies and practices in the use of these technologies protect human rights and foster transparency, accountability, and civic participation, while effectively and appropriately pursuing legitimate law enforcement, public safety, and national security objectives.

The 36 members of the Freedom Online Coalition are:  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

As part of the second Summit for Democracy, additional governments that endorsed the *Guiding Principles*are:  Albania, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Greece, Iceland, Kosovo, Malta, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

Tags

AlbaniaBulgariaColombiaCroatiaDemocracyEcuadorHuman RightsIcelandKosovoMaltaNorth MacedoniaOffice of the SpokespersonSecuritySloveniaSummit for DemocracyTechnology

Back to Top
§ 440.167 Personal care services. Unless defined differently by a State agency for purposes of a waiver granted under part 441, subpart G of this chapter— ( a ) *Personal care services* means services furnished to an individual who is not an inpatient or resident of a hospital, nursing facility, intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, or institution for mental disease that are— ( 1 ) Authorized for the individual by a physician in accordance with a plan of treatment or (at the option of the State) otherwise authorized for the individual in accordance with a service plan approved by the State;
( 2 ) Provided by an individual who is qualified to provide such services and who is not a member of the individual's family; and
( 3 ) Furnished in a home, and at the State's option, in another location.
( b ) For purposes of this section, *family member* means a legally responsible relative.
[42 FR 47902, Sept. 11, 1997]
§ 430.88 Evidence. ( a ) *Evidentiary purpose.* The hearing is directed to receiving factual evidence and expert opinion testimony related to the issues involved in the proceeding. Argument is not received in evidence. It must be presented in statements, memoranda, or briefs, as determined by the presiding officer. Brief opening statements, concerning the party's position and what he or she intends to prove, may be made at hearings.
( b ) *Testimony.* Testimony is given orally under oath or affirmation by witnesses at the hearing. Witnesses are available at the hearing for cross-examination by all parties.
( c ) *Stipulations and exhibits.* Two or more parties may agree to stipulations of fact. Those stipulations, and any exhibit proposed by any party, are exchanged before the hearing if the presiding officer so requires.
( d ) *Rules of evidence.* ( 1 ) Technical rules of evidence do not apply to hearings conducted under this subpart. However, rules or principles designed to ensure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination are applied by the presiding officer when reasonably necessary.
( 2 ) A witness may be cross-examined on any matter material to the proceeding without regard to the scope of his or her direct examination.
( 3 ) The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.
( 4 ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record are open to examination by the parties and an opportunity is given to refute facts and arguments advanced on either side of the issues.