alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
INCLUDED IN ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,151
<PP&E>                                          28,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,603
<BONDS>                                          5,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,347
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,130
<SALES>                                         68,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,695
<CGS>                                           34,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,259)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.73
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the Elections in Equatorial Guinea

# 									On the Elections in Equatorial Guinea							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

November 29, 2022

The United States commends the people of Equatorial Guinea who exercised their right to vote on November 20.  We note, however, that international election observers, civil society groups, and opposition parties have made credible allegations of significant election-related irregularities, including documented instances of fraud, intimidation, and coercion.  These allegations include restrictions on the ability of representatives of political parties to access polling stations, repeat voting, pre-filling of Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE) ballots, non-secret voting booths, and heavily armed soldiers within 20 meters of voting booths.  We are also concerned by irregular counting practices that favor the party in power, including the counting of unopened ballots in favor of the PDGE and the counting of ballots without all political parties represented.  These irregularities would violate Equatoguinean law.  Given the scale of irregularities observed and the announced results giving the PDGE 94.9% of the vote, we have serious doubts about the credibility of the announced results.

Elections are an opportunity for a government and political parties to tangibly demonstrate their commitment to democratic principles.  We urge Equatoguinean authorities to work with all stakeholders – including the full spectrum of political organizations and non-partisan civil society organizations – to fully address these credible allegations of voter fraud and to take steps to permit the expression of diverse political perspectives.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborElectionsEquatorial GuineaOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
41166.

#### CAMPBELL v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

It is not error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that he could not state whether the defendant would be entitled to, or be benefited by medical treatment but that they do have hospitalization facilities in connection with penal institutions in response to a question by a juror, “If we sentence the defendant would that automatically give this boy psychiatric treatment or does he go to the penitentiary?” See as to similar refusals to comment *220by a trial court to improper questions by jurors, *Mosley v. State,*214 Ga. 369 (104 SE2d 900), and cases cited.

Decided February 9, 1965

Rehearing denied February 22, 1965.

*Everett L. Almon,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor General,*contra.

No harmful error is shown by a ground of a motion for new trial which shows that a question was objected to and the court directed counsel to reframe the question, but in lieu of reframing it counsel proceeded with a different line of examination.

Questions as to the correctness of rulings upon demurrers to an indictment cannot be raised by a special ground of a motion for new trial. See *Beck v. State,*100 Ga. App. 759, 760 (112 SE2d 426), and citations.

“Evidence constituting a part of the res gestae of the offense is admissible even though it may incidentally tend to prove the defendant’s guilt of some other offense for which he is not on trial.” *Weldon v. State,*84 Ga. App. 634 (1) (66 SE2d 920).

“A mere objection to alleged improper argument of counsel, without more, is not sufficient to invoke a ruling of the court; and in the absence of a specific motion either for a mistrial, or that the jury be instructed to disregard the argument, it was not error to fail to grant a mistrial or to instruct the jury.” *McCoy v. Scarborough, 73*Ga. App. 519 (6) (37 SE2d 221).

An instruction to the jury that in the event it convicts the defendant to fix the punishment between the minimum and maximum is an instruction to fix a determinate sentence in accordance with *Code*§ 27-2502 as amended by the Act of 1964 (Ga. L. 1964, p. 483; *Code Ann.*§ 27-2502).

In polling a jury the question to be asked is whether the verdict rendered was the juror’s verdict and is it still the juror’s verdict. See *Wilson v. State,*93 Ga. App. 375 (2) (91 SE2d 854).

The evidence authorized the verdict and no error of law appearing the trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Parnell, JJ., concur.*
§ 475.103 Requirements for performing quality improvement initiatives. ( a ) In determining whether or not an organization has demonstrated the ability to perform quality improvement initiatives, CMS will take into consideration factors such as: ( 1 ) The organization's proposed processes, capabilities, quantitative, and/or qualitative performance objectives, and methodology to perform quality improvement initiatives;
( 2 ) The organization's proposed involvement of and access to physicians and practitioners in the QIO area with the appropriate expertise and specialization in the areas of health care concerning the quality improvement initiatives;
( 3 ) The organization's access to professionals with appropriate knowledge of quality improvement methodologies and practices; and
( 4 ) The organization's access to qualified information technology (IT) expertise.
( b ) In making determinations under this section, CMS may consider characteristics such as the organization's geographic location and size. CMS may also consider prior experience in health care quality improvement that CMS considers relevant to performing quality improvement initiatives; such prior experience may include prior similar quality improvement initiative experience and whether it achieved successful results.
( c ) A State government that administers a Medicaid program will be considered incapable of performing quality improvement initiative functions in an effective manner, unless the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of CMS that the State agency performing the quality improvement initiatives will act with complete objectivity and independence from the Medicaid program.
#### Mary Defendorf, Plaintiff, *v.*Wilson L. Defendorf et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1899.)

Partition — Costs — Where it cannot be said that “ a defense has been interposed.”

A demand of relief by one defendant in partition against another, but one which in no manner tends to defeat the plaintiff’s claim, does not present a case “ where a defense has been interposed ” within the meaning of section 3253 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1898, and hence, although a large amount of real property be involved in the action, the aggregate allowances cannot exceed $200.

Motion to confirm referee’s report of sale in an action for partition. Facts embodied in opinion.

*678Townsend & Mahan, for plaintiff.

Emanuel Eschwege, for defendants.

Edward Russell, for Matilda Cleland.

A. C. Anderson, for Joshua Kantrowitz.

Moses Esherg, for Allen D. M. Defendorf.

Edward Jacobs, referee, in person.

Scott, J.

This is an action for partition, in which the property sold is $160,000, and a motion is now made for an order confirming the report of sale and fixing the allowances to be paid to the attorneys for the several parties. Section 3253 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by chapter 61 of the Laws of 1898, provides that allowances may be granted as follows: “1. In an action to foreclose a mortgage or for the partition of real property a sum not exceeding two and one-half per centum upon the sum due or claimed to be due upon the mortgage, nor the aggregate sum of two hundred dollars. 2. In any action or special proceeding * * * where a defense has been interposed, a sum not exceeding five per centum upon the sum recovered or claimed, or the value of the subject-matter involved.” This being an action for partition of real property, falls within the purview of subdivision 1, unless it can be said that a defense has been interposed. An examination of the judgment record shows that all of the defendants interposed answers uniting in the prayer of the complaint, so that it cannot fairly be said that any defense was interposed in the action. One of the defendants made allegations that a codefendant was indebted to her, but the issue thus raised tended in no way to defeat, in whole or in part, the relief sought by the plaintiff, and cannot be deemed to be a defense. I am, therefore, constrained, most reluctantly, to allow only $200 as an extra allowance, and, of course, all of it must go to the plaintiff, whose attorneys were called upon to perform most of the labor involved in the litigation. If I felt that the Code, as it stands now, empowered me to grant a larger allowance, I should unhesitatingly do so, as the sum to which I feel myself to be limited is obviously too small in a case involving so much property as is involved here.

Ordered accordingly.
ARMENIA- BANKING SECTOR

----

1 OCT 98
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.610 Period of availability for State allotments prior to FY 2009.

The amount of a final allotment prior to FY 2009, as determined under § 457.608(h) and reduced to reflect certain Medicaid expenditures in accordance with § 457.616, remains available until expended for Federal payments based on expenditures claimed during a 3-year period of availability, beginning with the fiscal year of the final allotment and ending with the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year.

[66 FR 2670, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 76 FR 9249, Feb. 17, 2011]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3509

To provide for a report regarding the effects that environmental factors

have on women’s health.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 22, 1996

Ms. FURSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To provide for a report regarding the effects that

environmental factors have on women’s health.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Health Envi5 ronmental Factors Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

7 ON WOMEN’S HEALTH.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and

9 Human Services, acting through the Director of the Na10 tional Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, shall
2

•HR 3509 IH

1 submit to the Congress a report in accordance with the

2 following:

3 (1) The report shall summarize the body of sci4 entific knowledge on the effects that environmental

5 factors have on women’s health. The report shall in6 clude descriptions of the known effects of environ7 mental factors on breast cancer, on immune dys8 function, and on compounds that mimic human es9 trogen.

10 (2) The report shall specify an agenda for the

11 conduct and support of research by such Director on

12 the effects that environmental factors have on wom13 en’s health. The agenda shall specify the categories

14 of research that should receive priority. In the devel15 opment of the agenda, the summary prepared under

16 paragraph (1) shall be considered, including consid17 eration of areas of research identified by the sum18 mary as having received insufficient study.

19 (b) DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—The report

20 under subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Congress

21 not later than one year after the date of the enactment

22 of this Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32** **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 Sabine Royalty Trust    (the “Trust”) on    Form 10-K    for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with    the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual    capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its    knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Trust.     BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR    SABINE ROYALTY TRUST      By: /s/  Ron    E. Hooper    Ron E. Hooper,    Senior Vice President, Royalty Management    Date: March 13, 2008     A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and    will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the    Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

|   | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/    | Terrance M. McCarthy                  |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Terrance M. McCarthy                  |
|   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VICTOR MANUEL CASTANEDAMONTES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50329

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01103-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 4, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE,** Senior

District Judge.

 

FILED

JUN 08 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Victor Manuel Castaneda-Montes (“Castaneda”) challenges his sentence of

69 months following a conviction for attempted reentry into the United States

following deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We affirm.

The district court did not plainly err in applying a 16-level crime of violence

enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Castaneda argues for the first time on

appeal that his conviction for violating a restraining order with an act of violence

or a credible threat of violence is not categorically a crime of violence. But he has

not cited any case in which state courts have applied this statute to conduct that

does not rise to the federal definition of a crime of violence, and he has not

otherwise shown a “realistic probability” that the statute would be applied

overbroadly. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). The

district court’s application of the enhancement was thus not plain error.

Castaneda also argues that the sentencing scheme under 8 U.S.C. § 1326

violates the Sixth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has held otherwise.

See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). And we have

previously rejected the argument that this part of Almendarez-Torres was

implicitly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. See United States v.

Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995–96 (9th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.
§ 423.2038 Deciding a case without a hearing before an ALJ. ( a ) *Decision fully favorable.* If the evidence in the administrative record supports a finding fully in favor of the enrollee(s) on every issue, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator may issue a decision without giving the enrollee(s) prior notice and without an ALJ conducting a hearing. The notice of the decision informs the enrollee(s) that he or she has the right to a hearing and a right to examine the evidence on which the decision is based.
( b ) *Enrollee does not wish to appear.* ( 1 ) The ALJ or attorney adjudicator may decide a case on the record and without an ALJ conducting a hearing if— ( i ) The enrollee indicates in writing or, for expedited hearings orally or in writing, that he or she does not wish to appear before an ALJ at a hearing, including a hearing conducted by telephone or video-teleconferencing, if available. OMHA must document all oral requests not to appear at a hearing in writing and maintain the documentation in the case files; or
( ii ) The enrollee lives outside the United States and does not inform OMHA that he or she wants to appear at a hearing before an ALJ.
( 2 ) When a hearing is not held, the decision of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator must refer to the evidence in the record on which the decision was based.
( c ) *Stipulated decision.* If CMS, the IRE, and/or the Part D plan sponsor submits a written statement or makes an oral statement at a hearing indicating the drug should be covered or payment may be made, or an enrollee's at-risk determination should be reversed, and the written or oral statement agrees to the amount of payment the parties believe should be made if the amount of payment is an issue before the ALJ or attorney adjudicator, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may issue a stipulated decision finding in favor of the enrollee on the basis of the statement, and without making findings of fact, conclusions of law, or further explaining the reasons for the decision.
[82 FR 5133, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 83 FR 16754, Apr. 16, 2018]
Home2009 Treaties and Agreements...Georgia (09-1105.1) – Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement

# 									Georgia (09-1105.1) – Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

November 5, 2009

Scientific and Technical Cooperation

Agreement signed at Tbilisi August 6, 2009; entered into force November 5, 2009.
Download attachment						 [6 MB]

Tags

GeorgiaScientific and Technological CooperationTreaties

Back to Top
#### BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 180.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 21, 1935.

For former opinion, see 74 F.(2d) 679.

Hammond & Littell, of New York City (Edmund Quincy Moses, Nelson Littell, and Clarence M. Crews, all of New York City, of counsel), for'plaintiff-appellant.

Warfield & Brown, of New York City (Donald L. Brown and Griffith Beems, both S -kTa v- , *r*t. *£ . * .*of. New York City, of counsel), for defend-smts-onnMIflTH-Q '

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the plaintiff’s petition for reargument as to reissue patent No. 18,322, we have again carefully considered the question of validity, and wé adhere to our former conclusion. Even if Elliott alone is not enough to anticipate claim _1, we cannot hold that invention was involved in making the adjustments necessary for the patent m suit out of parts shown in Brownson, Pitney, Elliott, and Kreuger’s first patent. The defendants’ new ground of attack, based on failure to disclaim after Judge Hickenlooper’s decision holding invalid certain claims of the parent patent, No. 1,638,815, has not been considered, as it is not presented by this record,
exv10w32






EXHIBIT
10.32



CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REDACTED PURSUANT TO A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
REQUEST BY HARMONIC INC. UNDER 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(B)(4), 200.83 AND 240.24B-2 AND SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.









Amendment to the Professional

Services Agreement for Manufacturing



This Amendment made this 6th day of January, 2006, between Harmonic Inc., hereinafter
called “HARMONIC” and Plexus Services Corp., hereinafter called “PLEXUS”.




WITNESSETH:



WHEREAS, HARMONIC AND PLEXUS entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated September 22,
2003 (“PSA”) for the purpose of Plexus providing Harmonic with manufacturing services of electronic
products for resale to Harmonic’s customers.



WHEREAS, HARMONIC and PLEXUS wish to modify and amend the PSA;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual promises contained herein,



IT IS HEREBY AGREED that the PSA shall be and hereby is modified and amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	In the fifth (5th) line in Section 7 of Exhibit D, change the carrying
charge of [*] ([*]) to [*] ([*]).
	 
	 	2.	 	All of the other terms and conditions of the PSA shall remain in full force and
effect, except as specifically amended herein.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the day and year first
written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	HARMONIC INC.	 	PLEXUS SERVICES CORP.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BY:

	 	 	 	BY:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TITLE:

	 	 	 	TITLE:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	DATE:

	 	 	 	DATE:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 







 




			
	*	 	Information redacted pursuant to a confidential
treatment request by Harmonic Inc. under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4), 200.83 and
240.24b-2 and submitted separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.