alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Military Coup d’Etat in Niger

# 											Military Coup d’Etat in Niger									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

October 10, 2023

The United States has concluded that a military coup d’etat has taken place in Niger.  Pursuant to section 7008 of the Department of State’s annual appropriations act, the United States is suspending most U.S. assistance to the government of Niger.  On August 5, the United States temporarily paused certain foreign assistance programs to the government of Niger, totaling nearly $200 million.  That assistance is now also suspended pursuant to section 7008 of the Department of State’s annual appropriations act.  We also note the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s suspension of all assistance to Niger, including all preparatory work on its $302 million Niger Regional Transportation Compact and all new activity on its 2018 Compact. 

We underscore that we will maintain our life-saving humanitarian, food, and health assistance to benefit the people of Niger.  The United States also intends to continue to work with regional governments, including in Niger, to advance shared interests in West Africa.

We stand with the Nigerien people in their aspirations for democracy, prosperity, and stability. Since the coup, we have supported the Economic Community of West African States’ efforts to work with Niger to achieve a return to democratic rule.  Any resumption of U.S. assistance will require action by the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland to usher in democratic governance in a quick and credible timeframe.

The United States reiterates its call for the release of Mohamed Bazoum, his family, and all those detained.

Tags

AfricaBureau of African AffairsForeign AssistanceHostage RecoveryHuman Rights and DemocracyNigerOffice of the SpokespersonRefugee and Humanitarian AssistanceThe Secretary of StateOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs

Back to Top
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 828 V

Filed: June 26, 2017

Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

VICKI CAREY, on behalf *

of her minor child, C.C., *

*

Petitio ner

, * Petitioner ’s Motion for a

* Deci sion Dismissing the Petition;

v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine

* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION

On July 12 , 2016

, Vicki Carey filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 1 alleging that C.C. was injured by a

vaccine listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. See § 14. The information in the record, however,

does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.

On June 23, 2017 , P etitioner moved for a decision dismissing he r petition

, acknowledging that she will be unable to prove she is entitled to compensation in the Program

.

To receive compensatio n under the Program, P etitioner must prove either 1) that C.C.

suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table

– corresponding

to one of C.C. ’s vaccinations, or 2) that C.C suffered an injury that was actually caused by a

vaccine. See §§ 300aa

- 13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa

- 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not

uncover any evidence that C.C. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a

medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that C.C. ’s injury was

vaccine

- caused.

1 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter,

individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.Under the Act, the petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the

p etitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by

the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are

insufficient medical records supporting P etitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in

supp ort. Petitioner , however, has offered no such opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that P etitioner has failed to

demonstrate either that C.C. suffered a “Table Injury” or that C.C. ’s injury was “actually caused”

by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master
Release

#                         Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III's Phone Call With Turkish Minister of National Defense Hulusi Akar        

                Feb. 6, 2023                                            |×Share**Copy Link** Email                     Facebook                     X                     LinkedIn                     WhatsApp                    

Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III spoke by phone today with Turkish Minister of National Defense Hulusi Akar to offer condolences to Türkiye following the devastating earthquake there. Secretary Austin offered U.S. support to Turkish relief efforts and pledged ongoing assistance as Türkiye’s needs evolved. Minister Akar thanked Secretary Austin and emphasized the positive impact U.S.-Türkiye cooperation at Incirlik Airbase was having on relief efforts.

AustinDefense Secretarypartnershipsdisaster reliefhumanitarian
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsWind-tunnel measurements and comparison with flight of the boundary layer and heat transfer on a hollow cylinder at Mach 3The wind tunnel tests were conducted both with and without boundary layer trips at Mach 3 and nominal free stream Reynolds numbers per meter ranging from 3.3 x 10 the 6th power. Instrumentation consisted of pressure orifices, thermocouples, a boundary layer pitot pressure rake, and a floating element skin friction balance. Measurements from both wind tunnel and flight were compared with existing engineering prediction methods.Document ID19810006460Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsStallings, R. L., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Lamb, M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberL-14044NASA-TP-1789Accession Number81N14975Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-43-23-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810006460.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 430.18 Administrative review of action on State plan material. ( a ) *Request for reconsideration.* Any State dissatisfied with the Administrator's action on plan material under § 430.15 may, within 60 days after receipt of the notice provided under § 430.16(b), request that the Administrator reconsider the issue of whether the plan or plan amendment conforms to the requirements for approval.
( b ) *Notice and timing of hearing.* ( 1 ) Within 30 days after receipt of the request, the Administrator notifies the State of the time and place of the hearing.
( 2 ) The hearing takes place not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after the date of the notice, unless the State and the Administrator agree in writing on an earlier or later date.
( c ) *Hearing procedures.* The hearing procedures are set forth in subpart D of this part.
( d ) *Decision.* A decision affirming, modifying, or reversing the Administrator's original determination is made in accordance with § 430.102.
( e ) *Effect of hearing decision.* ( 1 ) Denial of Federal funds, if required by the Administrator's original determination, will not be delayed pending a hearing decision.
( 2 ) However, if the Administrator determines that his or her original decision was incorrect, CMS pays the State a lump sum equal to any funds incorrectly denied.
§ 440.80 Private duty nursing services. *Private duty nursing services* means nursing services for beneficiaries who require more individual and continuous care than is available from a visiting nurse or routinely provided by the nursing staff of the hospital or skilled nursing facility. These services are provided— ( a ) By a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse;
( b ) Under the direction of the beneficiary's physician; and
( c ) To a beneficiary in one or more of the following locations at the option of the State— ( 1 ) His or her own home;
( 2 ) A hospital; or
( 3 ) A skilled nursing facility.
[52 FR 47934, Dec. 17, 1987]
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Subramanian Sundaresh, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Adaptec, Inc. for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-K"), that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

|Date: June 13, 2006 |  |     |  |                                                                      
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | By: |  | /s/SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARESHSubramanian Sundaresh
Chief Executive Officer

I,
Christopher O'Meara, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-K, that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

|Date: June 13, 2006 |  |     |  |                                                                  
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | By: |  | /s/CHRISTOPHER O'MEARAChristopher O'Meara
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
§ 440.130 Diagnostic, screening, preventive, and rehabilitative services. ( a ) “Diagnostic services,” except as otherwise provided under this subpart, includes any medical procedures or supplies recommended by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts, within the scope of his practice under State law, to enable him to identify the existence, nature, or extent of illness, injury, or other health deviation in a beneficiary.
( b ) “Screening services” means the use of standardized tests given under medical direction in the mass examination of a designated population to detect the existence of one or more particular diseases or health deviations or to identify for more definitive studies individuals suspected of having certain diseases.
( c ) “Preventive services” means services recommended by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting within the scope of authorized practice under State law to— ( 1 ) Prevent disease, disability, and other health conditions or their progression;
( 2 ) Prolong life; and
( 3 ) Promote physical and mental health and efficiency.
( d ) “Rehabilitative services,” except as otherwise provided under this subpart, includes any medical or remedial services recommended by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts, within the scope of his practice under State law, for maximum reduction of physical or mental disability and restoration of a beneficiary to his best possible functional level.
[43 FR 45224, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 78 FR 42306, July 15, 2013]
SCWC-18-0000494 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. AUSTIN H. ROSA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000494; 5CPC-17-0000201) ORDER DISMISSING CERTIORARI PROCEEDING (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon further consideration of the records and files in this case, it appearing that the writ of certiorari herein was improvidently granted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this certiorari proceeding is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 5, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000494 05-APR-2021 01:49 PM Dkt. 50 ODSAC
#### Greg A. HALPHEN, Appellant, v. WESTERN CONTRACTING CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. TT-35.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 17, 1980.

*1255Ramon Clark Calafell, Jr. of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughn, Genders & McLaughlin, Tampa, for appellant.

Ivan Matusek and Kathleen R. Hudson, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order granting employer/carrier’s motion to vacate an order entered 19 days earlier approving a joint petition settlement. We affirm because the prior order had not become a final order under the terms of § 440.25(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), and no appeal had been taken. The deputy acted within his authority in vacating the prior order in these circumstances. *Mills v. Laris Painting Co.,*125 So.2d 745 (Fla.1961).

The deputy determined that the order should be set aside “in order to preserve the rights of the parties . .. and a further hearing scheduled for the purpose of considering the issues raised by the Motion to Vacate.” Those issues related to alleged mutual mistake or misrepresentation by the claimant as to subject matter jurisdiction in the settlement proceeding, because of the claimant’s filing of a “Jones Act” suit after the settlement hearing and before the entry of the order approving settlement based on the same accident. Section 440.09(2) provides that “no compensation shall be payable ... [to] any employee covered by . . . the Jones Act.” This provision is construed to be jurisdictional in nature, *Habrew Maritime International v. Williams,*IRC Order 2-3673 (Jan. 31, 1979), and the claimant’s pending Jones Act claim in the present case appears to be a reasonable ground for the deputy to reconsider his prior order approving the settlement agreement. For standards applicable to final settlement orders see *East v. Pensacola Tractor,*384 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), *cert. den.,*384 So.2d 159 (Fla.1980), and *Morgan Yacht v. Edwards,*386 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

We note that the vacating order was entered after a hearing held with less than 15 days’ notice. While § 440.25(3)(a) requires 15 days’ notice, the deputy has discretion to schedule a hearing on shorter notice in appropriate circumstances. See *Lundy’s Market Inc. v. Wexler,*IRC Order 2-3739 (March 20, 1979). Claimant’s appearance at and participation in the hearing, without raising the notice issue, indicates waiver and further precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. *Poinciana Village v. Sustack,*IRC Order 2-3676 (January 31,1979); *Patterson v. Carnegie,*9 FCR 368 (1976), *cert. dismissed*336 So.2d 600 (Fla.1976).

The order appealed is affirmed.

JOANOS, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
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 Quarterly report of Capital Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gifford A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                             /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                             -----------------------
                                             Gifford A. Dieterle
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             June 24, 2005
#### Jim Schoonmaker v. The State.

*No. 973.*

*Decided May 20th, 1896.*

Extortion—Recognizance on Appeal.

“Extortion” is not an offense eo nomine, and a recognizance on appeal from a conviction for extortion by an officer, in demanding and receiving higher fees than allowed by law, which recites the offense as “extortion,” is insufficient; it should recite the essential ingredients of the offense.

Appeal from the County Court of El Paso. Tried below before Hon. F. E. Hunter, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for demanding and receiving, as an officer (a deputy sheriff), more fees than are allowed by law; penalty, a fine of $25.

The opinion states the case.

[No brief for appellant.]

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted, under Penal Code, Art. 240 (New Code, Art. 256), of receiving, as an officer, illegal fees or money, to which he was not entitled, from Frankie Hamilton. The *425recognizance recites that the appellant stands charged with and convicted of “extortion.” “Extortion” is not an offense in this State eo nomine. Article 240 reads as follows: “If any officer authorized by law to demand or receive fees of office, or any person employed by such officer, shall willfully demand or receive higher fees than are allowed by law, or shall willfully demand or receive fees not allowed by law, he shall be punished by fine not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense.” It is well settled in this State with reference to reciting the offense in the recognizance on appeal to this court that, if the offense is not one eo nomine, the essential ingredients of that offense must be stated in the recognizance. This has not been done in this case, “extortion” not being an offense eo nomine. The recognizance fails not only to recite the offense set out in the indictment, but fails to recite any offense, wherefore it is fatally defective. See, Baizey v. State (Tex. Crim. App.) 30 S. W. Rep., 358; Loven v. State, Id.; Pace v. State (decided at Tyler Term, 1895), 32 S. W. Rep., 697. For other authorities, see, Willson’s Crim. Stat., §§ 1794, 2650. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1537

YA MEI ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. 

Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Song E. Park, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ya Mei Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. 

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude 

that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2013). We 

therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by 

the Board. See In re: Ya Mei Zhang (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
PETER BOOKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2697

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

Joel D. Robrish, Miami, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Kaitlin Weiss and Virginia Harris, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFeasibility demonstration of booster cross-over system for 3 1/2 inch SRB/MLP frangible nut systemRecent testing of the SRB/MLP Frangible Nut System (SOS Part Number 114850-9/Boosters P/N 114848-3) at NASA indicated a need to reduce the function time between boosters (2) within a single frangible nut. These boosters are initiated separately by electrical impulse(s). Coupling the output of each detonator with an explosive cross-over would reduce the function time between boosters (independent of electrical impulse) while providing additional redundancy to the system. The objectives of this program were to: provide an explosive cross-over between boosters, reduce function time between boosters to less than one (1) millisecond within a given nut, reduce cost of boosters, be compatible with the existing frangible nut system, and meet requirements of USBI Spec's (nut 10SPC-0030, booster 10SPC-0031).Document ID19840002115Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 27, 1983Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberTP-8877NASA-CR-170895NAS 1.26:170895Accession Number84N10182Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-34651Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840002115.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024