alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50957

Summary Calendar

PASCUAL Q. OLIBAS

d/b/a FREEDOM BAIL BONDS 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHERIFF ARNULFO GOMEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, El Paso

3:05-CV-225

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellee Pascual Q. Olibas, joined by his wife Cheryl Olibas,

individually and doing business as Freedom Bail Bonds sued, inter alia, Sheriff

Arnulfo Gomez of Reeves County, Texas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Texas Constitution, alleging constitutional wrongs. Sheriff Gomez filed a motion

for summary judgment seeking dismissal grounded in qualified and official

immunity. The district court denied qualified immunity in an Order signed July

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 6, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50957

2

27, 2007 in which the court accepted the Report and Recommendation of the

magistrate-judge who had, in an exhaustive analysis of the situation,

recommended denial of qualified immunity because the summary judgment

evidence demonstrated the existence of factual disputes as to whether Sheriff

Gomez acted with objective reasonableness, thereby preventing summary

judgment on immunity. It is well settled that an appeal of an interlocutory

ruling denying qualified immunity because of the existence of factual disputes

does not present an exception to our lack of jurisdiction to hear appeals of

interlocutory rulings. As that is the situation presented by this appeal, we do

not have jurisdiction to hear Sheriff Gomez's appeal of the district court's denial

of qualified immunity at this non-final stage of the proceedings in the district

court.

For lack of appellate jurisdiction, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.
H. R. 3458

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To increase, effective as of December 1, 1996, the rates of disability compensation

for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and

indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Costof-Living Adjustment Act of 1996’’.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATES AND LIMITATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall,

as provided in paragraph (2), increase, effective December 1, 1996,

the rates of and limitations on Department of Veterans Affairs

disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation.

(2) The Secretary shall increase each of the rates and limitations in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 1311, 1313, and 1314 of

title 38, United States Code, that were increased by the amendments made by the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–57; 109 Stat. 555). This increase

shall be made in such rates and limitations as in effect on November

30, 1996, and shall be by the same percentage that benefit amounts

payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401

et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 1996, as a result of

a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary may adjust administratively,

consistent with the increases made under subsection (a)(2), the

rates of disability compensation payable to persons within the purview of section 10 of Public Law 85–857 (72 Stat. 1263) who are

not in receipt of compensation payable pursuant to chapter 11

of title 38, United States Code.

(c) PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT.—At the same time as the matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by reason of a

determination made under section 215(i) of such Act during fiscal

year 1996, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
H. R. 3458—2

the rates and limitations referred to in subsection (a)(2) as increased

under this section.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
41204.

#### WARD et al. v. BENGE.

*541Argued March 2, 1965

Decided April 6, 1965.

*W. E. Mull,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Buckner F. Melton, O. L. Crumbley,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The assignments of error complaining of rulings on demurrer are not argued, and the special grounds of the amended motion for new trial neither being argued nor insisted upon are treated as having been abandoned.

The sole remaining question is whether the evidence authorized the verdict.

*“ ‘As*was said by the Supreme Court in *Adler v. Adler, 207*Ga. 394, 405 (61 SE2d 824), “This court does not pass upon the credibility of witnesses, nor the weight to be given evidence on disputed facts. These are questions for the jury. Whether their verdict is contrary to the evidence, or contrary to its weight, or decidedly and strongly against its weight, is a question the law vests in the trial judge’s discretion. He may grant a new trial on these grounds, but this court has no such power. Where the trial judge approves the verdict, the sole question for determination by this court is whether there is any evidence sufficient to authorize it.” See also *Knox v. Knox,*213 Ga. 677, 679 (101 SE2d 89).’ *Canal Ins. Co. v. Winge Bros.,*97 Ga. App. 782, 787 (104 SE2d 525). *Halpern v. Strickland,*98 Ga. App. 890, 891 (107 SE2d 227).” *Carter v. Chambliss,*101 Ga. App. 494, 496 (114 SE2d 306).

*542The evidence adduced on the trial of the case was voluminous, consisting of some 108 pages, and it would indeed serve no useful purpose to set forth such evidence in detail. Suffice it to say that, except as to the evidence that the prior proceeding complained of had terminated in favor of the defendant which was undisputed, most of the evidence for both the plaintiff and the defendants was subject to being considered impeached by the jury because of the sharp conflict between the evidence adduced by the parties. The jury was- authorized to find that the three ingredients necessary for a recovery for malicious use of legal process existed: “(1) Malice; (2) Want of probable cause; and (3) That the proceeding complained of had terminated in favor of the defendant therein before suit for damages based upon it was brought.” *Williams v. Adelman,*41 Ga. App. 424, 427 (153 SE 224), quoting from *Fryer v. Morrison,*32 Ga. App. 312 (123 SE 40). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendants’ motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
----

**EXHIBIT        21**

**SUBSIDIARIES        OF THE REGISTRANT**

|                                                             |   |                        |                           |                                                                             |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Subsidiaries                                                     |   | JurisdictionofIncorporation |                           | ApproximatePercentage                  ofVoting                  SecuritiesOwned |   |
|                                                             |   |                        |                           |                                                                             |   |
| Britton                  & Koontz Bank, National Association |   |                        | United                  States |                                                                             |   | 100 | % |
|                                                             |   |                        |                           |                                                                             |   |   |   |
| B&K                  Title Insurance Agency, Inc.            |   |                        | Mississippi                    |                                                                             |   | 100 | % |
|                                                             |   |                        |                           |                                                                             |   |   |   |
| Britton                  & Koontz Statutory Trust # 1        |   |                        | Mississippi                    |                                                                             |   | 100 | % |
UTF-8
§ 420.302 Requirement for access clause in contracts. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart applies to contracts— ( 1 ) Between a provider and a subcontractor and, where subject to section 1861(v)(l)(I)(ii) of the Act, between a subcontractor and an organization related to the subcontractor;
( 2 ) Entered into or renewed after December 5, 1980; and
( 3 ) For services the cost or value of which is $10,000 or more over a 12-month period, including contracts for both goods and services in which the service component is worth $10,000 or more over a 12-month period.
( b ) *Requirement.* Any contract meeting the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section must include a clause that allows the Comptroller General of the United States, HHS, and their duly authorized representatives access to the subcontractor's contract, books, documents, and records until the expiration of four years after the services are furnished under the contract or subcontract. The access must be provided for in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. The clause must also allow similar access by HHS, the Comptroller General, and their duly authorized representatives to contracts subject to section 1861(v)(l)(I)(ii) of the Act between a subcontractor and organizations related to the subcontractor and to books, documents, and records.
( c ) *Prohibition against Medicare reimbursement.* If a contract subject to the requirements of this subpart does not contain the clause required by paragraph (b) of this section, CMS will not reimburse the provider for the cost of the services furnished under the contract and will recoup any payments previously made for services under the contract. However, in order to avoid nonreimbursement or recoupment, providers will have until July 30, 1983, to amend those contracts entered into or renewed after December 5, 1980, and before January 31, 1983, that do not conform to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
[47 FR 58267, Dec. 30, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 13703, Apr. 6, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            4313
<SECURITIES>                                       221
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5205
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14250
<PP&E>                                            5301
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2060
<OTHER-SE>                                       51396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27645
<SALES>                                          11105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 22523
<CGS>                                             5983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 28035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        

</TABLE>
p130018.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0018 Focus Ready Draft 10/29/2012 ENGINEER: Jon \ JAS PV (kg/yr): 12,000
SUBMITTER:

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (10/23/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Same as . Analogs . // Human Health Related Cases:

. Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P2B1T2 . Page 1p130018.eng Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 200 ppb.) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1 NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claims:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0018

Page 2p130018.eng

Page 3
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...Kazakhstan (20-504) – Agreement Regarding Consular Privileges and Immunities

# 									Kazakhstan (20-504) – Agreement Regarding Consular Privileges and Immunities							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

May 4, 2020

Diplomatic and Consular Relations: Privileges and Immunities

Signed at Nur-Sultan May 3, 2019; entered into force May 4, 2020.
Download Agreement						 [560 KB]

Tags

Consular IssuesDiplomatic and Consular RelationsKazakhstanTreaties

Back to Top
§ 438.724 Notice to CMS. ( a ) The State must give CMS written notice whenever it imposes or lifts a sanction for one of the violations listed in § 438.700.
( b ) The notice must adhere to all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) Be given no later than 30 days after the State imposes or lifts a sanction.
( 2 ) Specify the affected MCO, the kind of sanction, and the reason for the State's decision to impose or lift a sanction.
HomeRemarks and Releases – Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability...NPT Disarmament Pillar Fact Sheet

# 									NPT Disarmament Pillar Fact Sheet							

Fact Sheet

Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability

July 27, 2022

The United States is committed to leading global progress toward nuclear disarmament and improving the international security environment. We believe multilateralism and international cooperation are essential to advancing the universal goals of the NPT.
Download the Fact Sheet						 [249 KB]

Tags

Arms ControlBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityNon-Proliferation Treaty

## 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 of2002*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Auto Underwriters of America, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dean Antonis, as Principal Executive Officer of theCompany hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.      /s/ Dean Antonis     Dean Antonis  President (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: May 15, 2006  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.764 Other applicable provisions.

The provisions of section 1128A of the Act (except subsections (a) and (b)) apply to civil money penalties under this subpart to the same extent that they apply to a civil money penalty or procedure under section 1128A of the Act.

[63 FR 35115, June 26, 1998. Redesignated at 72 FR 68726, Dec. 5, 2007]
#### Joe Walter ROBBINS v. CARAWAY-RHODES VETERINARY HOSPITAL et al.

No. 55378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1974.

In re: Joe Walter Robbins, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do, 299 So.2d 446.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22219]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; NIMH COR Honors Undergraduate Research Training.
    Date: October 9, 2009.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Rebecca C. Steiner, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 
6149, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-4525, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e1d1a0b07000b1c1c2e030f07024000070640090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e0d0a1b17101b0c0c3e131f17125010171650191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 9, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22219 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Moldova National Day

# 									Moldova National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 27, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend a warm congratulations to Moldova and its people on 32 years of independence from the Soviet Union.

The United States values Moldova’s shared commitment to strengthen democratic institutions and judicial reforms, foster economic growth, enhance its security, and promote respect for human rights. We look forward to continuing this partnership, including through the U.S.-Moldova Strategic Dialogue, and supporting Moldova on its path to EU integration. We are also grateful for Moldova’s unwavering support for its neighbor, Ukraine, in addressing the impacts of Russia’s war of aggression, and commend the Moldovan people’s efforts to welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Today, August 27, we celebrate Moldova and offer best wishes for a healthy and prosperous year ahead. Happy Independence Day.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsMoldovaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1611
AYABA MANA MESSAN; KODJOVI OROU; SIBI DIDI LAWSON, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-081-822; A96-081-823; A96-081-824) Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig Y. Lee, 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: Ayaba Mana Messan, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its prior order, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in d enying the motion to reconsider. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 491 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. SeeIn re: Messan , No. A96-081-822 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED