alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
40930.

#### GREEN v. THE STATE.

Russell, Judge.

1. The defendant was convicted of maintaining a lottery on the uncontroverted testimony of a police officer that he had discovered her in possession of a sealed envelope containing money and a bolita tally sheet and tickets, and had obtained an admission from her that “they were hers and that it was her game.” The circumstances under which the evidence was obtained would, over objection duly made, have raised an issue of fact as to whether the evidence should have been rejected as obtained by illegal search and seizure. Plaintiff in error, apparently relying on Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (81 SC 1684, 6 LE2d 1081), moved to suppress the evidence prior to arraignment, and renewed the motion prior to trial, but did not object to the evidence at the time it was offered.

In *Jackson v. State,*108 Ga. App. 529 (133 SE2d 436) it was held: “Where the defendant prior to trial made a motion to suppress certain evidence, which motion was overruled, and *347where thereafter on the trial of the case the evidence was admitted without any objection to its admission being made at that time, assuming, but not deciding that a motion to suppress was a proper remedy to have the evidence excluded, the failure of the defendant to object to the evidence at the time it was actually offered amounted to a waiver of any objection which he might have had thereto.” The motion to suppress in Federal courts is presently founded on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 40 (3), 18 U. S. C. A. No comparable rule of procedure appears in Georgia law, although it is a common and salutary function of pre-trial procedures to consider just the sort of evidentiary question which a motion to suppress might raise under these circumstances. Where such procedure is not available or is not used, the original ruling on the admissibility of evidence obtained prior to trial cannot be relied upon as a final adjudication on which error may be assigned thereafter.

Decided September 23, 1964.

*B. Clarence Mayfield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Solicitor, Sylvan A. Garfunkel,*contra.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
# C_2006108EN.01000301.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 10 February 2006 — Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) v 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala Nederland NV

(Case C-84/06)

(2006/C 108/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) (State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport))

Applicant

Defendants: 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala Nederland NV

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use oblige Member States to make anthroposophic medicinal products which are not at the same time homeopathic medicinal products subject to the requirements in respect of authorisation as set out in Title III, Chapter 1, of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use oblige Member States to make anthroposophic medicinal products which are not at the same time homeopathic medicinal products subject to the requirements in respect of authorisation as set out in Title III, Chapter 1, of that directive?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the Netherlands statutory provision which makes those anthroposophic medicinal products subject to the aforementioned requirements in respect of authorisation an exception to the prohibition under Article 28 EC which is authorised by virtue of Article 30 EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the Netherlands statutory provision which makes those anthroposophic medicinal products subject to the aforementioned requirements in respect of authorisation an exception to the prohibition under Article 28 EC which is authorised by virtue of Article 30 EC?

---

(1)  OJ L 311, p. 67.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby  consent to the  inclusion  in this  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of
Silicon Valley  Research,  Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 31, 2001 and for each
of the two  years  then  ended  and to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the
Registration  Statements  on Form  S-8  (No.  333-86725)  and in the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (No.  333-87979)of
Silicon Valley Research, Inc. of our report dated June 8, 2001.


/s/ MOSS ADAMS LLP

San Francisco, California
July 13, 2001
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDifferences in Characteristics of Aviation Accidents during 1993-2012 Based on Flight PurposeUsually aviation accidents are categorized and analyzed within flight conduct rules (Part 121, Part 135, Part 91) because differences in accident rates within flight rules have been demonstrated. Even within a particular flight rule the flights have different purposes. For many, Part 121 flights are synonymous with scheduled passenger transport, and indeed this is the largest group of Part 121 accidents. But there are also non-scheduled (charter) passenger transport and cargo flights. The primary purpose of the analysis reported here is to examine the differences in aviation accidents based on the purpose of the flight. Some of the factors examined are the accident severity, aircraft characteristics and accident occurrence categories. Twenty consecutive years of data were available and utilized to complete this analysis.Document ID20160003615Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsEvans, Joni K.*(Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 22, 2016Publication DateFebruary 1, 2016Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-23234NASA-CR-2016-219010Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNL12AA09CWBS: WBS 147016.01.07.04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160003615.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
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Nicolás Maduro Moros — New Target

# 									Nicolás Maduro Moros — New Target							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

March 26, 2020

Nicolás Maduro Moros Reward Poster (Accessible – English) [184 KB]

**NAME:** Nicolás Maduro Moros**ALIASES:** N/A**DOB:**November 23, 1962**POB:** Caracas, Venezuela**NATIONALITY:**Venezuelan**CITIZENSHIP:**Venezuelan**HEIGHT:** 6’3”**WEIGHT:** Unknown**HAIR COLOR:** Black**EYE COLOR:**Brown**SCARS, TATTOOS, OR MARKS:** Unknown

Nicolás Maduro Moros is the previous president of Venezuela.  Maduro succeeded to the Venezuelan presidency after Hugo Chavez died in 2013 and declared victory in a presidential election in 2018.  In 2019, the National Assembly of Venezuela invoked the Venezuelan constitution and declared that Maduro had usurped power and was not the president of Venezuela.  Since 2019, more than 50 countries, including the United States, have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state.  

Maduro helped manage, and ultimately, lead the Cartel of the Suns,a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials, as he gained power in Venezuela in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.  Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; during his tenure as Foreign Minister coordinated foreign affairs with Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns.  

Maduro was charged in a March 2020 Southern District of New York federal indictment for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 960a and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 924. 

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $15 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of **Nicolás Maduro Moros**.

If you have information and are located outside of the United States, please contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. If in the United States, please contact the local Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office in your city. 

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

TIPS:  **CONTACT THE DEA AT +1-202-681-8187** (PHONE/WHATSAPP/SIGNAL) OR BY EMAIL AT CartelSolesTips@usdoj.gov.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingNarcoticsRewards for JusticeVenezuela

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22251]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 12:00 p.m., Monday, September 21, 2009.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 11, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-22251 Filed 9-11-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Opening of the Trial of Former Séléka Commander for Atrocity Crimes in the Central African Republic

# 									Opening of the Trial of Former Séléka Commander for Atrocity Crimes in the Central African Republic							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 27, 2022

The United States welcomes the opening of trial proceedings at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the prosecution of Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, a former Séléka commander in the Central African Republic (CAR). This case marks the first Séléka-rebel defendant to face charges at the ICC for atrocities committed against civilians in CAR.

Amidst ongoing armed violence in the Central African Republic, the opening of these proceedings affirms the unwavering importance of justice. This trial at the ICC complements the vital parallel proceedings in CAR, including in domestic courts and the Special Criminal Court. The United States is committed to promoting accountability for war crimes and human rights violations and the end of impunity, which is foundational to lasting peace in the country and region.

Tags

AfricaAtrocitiesBureau of African AffairsCentral African RepublicHuman RightsInternational Criminal CourtOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
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 JSCE, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/CHARLES A. HINRICHSCharles A. Hinrichs Vice
President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2003 | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to JSCE, Inc. and will be retained by JSCE, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### § 476.76 Cooperation with health care facilities.

Before implementation of review, a QIO must make a good faith effort to discuss the QIO's administrative and review procedures with each involved health care facility.
Equation to calculate weighted mean value:

̅ =

Where

̅ is the weighted mean value of variable x. is the measured value of variable x in cycle i; is the distance traveled in cycle i ; is the weighting factor for the cycle i ;

Assume: Cycle 1 : ARB transient Cycle 2: 55mph Cruise Cycle 3: 65mph Cruise Then for weighted **brake energy** (E b ): For 55mph and 65mph Cruise cycle we have: = = 0. so

= For weighted traction energy (E t ):

= + +

The calculated ratio is shown in the PPT file.Brake limit calculation based on GEM CO2 calculation and w( - )/w(+) ratio:

= ∑ + ∑ ( 1 − )

∑ This equation can be re -written as:

= ∑ ∑ Where

= ( − ) / ( + ) for ARB transient, = = 0 ; is the total CO2 emission in cycle I;

Thus:

= ∑ (1) When = = , the above equation can reduced to:

= Which is your original proposal. Cummins’s calculation based on the braking energy and traction energy:

= ∑ (2) Which is similar to equat ion (1) in form.
Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-72788 of U.S.B. Holding Co., Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-56169, 333-43797, 333-27451, 33-80678 and
2-90674 on Forms S-8 of our report dated January 28, 1999 incorporated by
reference in the Company's 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K and appearing in the
Company's 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Stamford, Connecticut
March 30, 1999
#### § 50.201 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to programs or projects for health services which are supported in whole or in part by Federal financial assistance, whether by grant or contract, administered by the Public Health Service.
#### § 493.1219 Condition: Histopathology.

If the laboratory provides services in the subspecialty of Histopathology, the laboratory must meet the requirements specified in §§ 493.1230 through 493.1256, § 493.1273, and §§ 493.1281 through 493.1299.
### From: McKaughan, Colleen

**Sent:** Monday, February 11, 2013 1:36 PM **To:** Gary.Bohnee@SRPMIC

- nsn.gov **Cc:** Martz, Verle; Webb, Thomas; Nudd, Gregory **Subject:** Consultation with Salt River Pima

- Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Dear Mr. Bohnee, I believe I left you a voicemail on this topic several days ago. I wanted to follow up on the SRPMIC's request for consultation regarding EPA's proposed action on the A rizona Regional Haze SIP. We would be glad to meet with you and other representatives of the Tribe at your convenience. Wehave extended the public comment period in response to several requests, including the Tribe's, and the public comment period now extends to March 6, 2013. W e have provided Mr. Martz with the draft information prepared by our contractor. W e are reviewing the contractor information internally but would be interested in any discrepancies noted by SRPMIC or Phoenix Cement. Please let me know when you would like consultation to take place. Thank you very much. Colleen W. McKaughan Associate Director, Air Division USEPA, Region 9 (520) 498
- 0118
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Spencer L. SMITH, Respondent.

No. 43720.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 3, 1973.

Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, for complainant.

Spencer L. Smith, in pro per.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on the Petition of the Florida Bar for approval of a conditional guilty plea and entry of final order of discipline.

A formal complaint was filed against respondent by the Florida Bar on January 19, 1973. Subsequently, pursuant to the provisions of Integration Rule 11.13(6) (b),1 respondent tendered a condition*352al guilty plea subject to approval by the Supreme Court in exchange for the imposition of a public reprimand, taxation of costs and probation for a three year period which probation shall consist of quarterly reports filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court with a copy to Staff Counsel for the Florida Bar.

The Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar accepted the conditional guilty plea on April 20, 1973, subject to the approval by this Court.

We hereby approve the conditional guilty plea and the filing of this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand, and execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against respondent in the amount of $209.34.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

1

. Integration Rule 11.13(6) (b) provides,

> “(6) Consent judgment.

> 

> •‘(b) *After Appointment of Referee and Bar Counsel.*If an accused attorney states his or her desire to plead guilty to a grievance committee report or a filed comi)laint after a referee and Bar counsel are appointed, then Bar counsel, with the approval of staff counsel (or assistant staff counsel) and the designated reviewer, may advise the accused attorney of the discipline he will receive if a written plea of guilty is entered. No recommended discipline will be conveyed to the accused attorney unless the Bar counsel, staff counsel, and the designated reviewer are in complete agreement and that agreement is reduced to writing and made a part of the file. If an accused attorney tenders a plea of guilty in exchange for a *352stated form of punishment, and Bar counsel, staff counsel, and the designated reviewer cannot agree on acceptance or rejection of the conditional guilty plea, then the tendered plea will be referred to the Board of Governors for a final decision. Any proposed consent judgment more severe than a private reprimand shall before acceptance by The Florida Bar be submitted by The Florida Bar to the Supreme Court for approval.”
HomeClimate and Environment...Climate and Environment

# Climate and Environment

351 items

        -    Media Note  		Acting Assistant Secretary Littlejohn’s Travel to Oman, Ghana, and Kenya	  February 16, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 13, 2024Benjamin Franklin RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    DipNote  		Spotlight on Embassy Nuku‘alofa, Tonga	  February 1, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Commitments to Africa	  January 29, 2024 
        -    Fact Sheet  		The United States and Angola: Partnering for Prosperity	  January 24, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Assistant Secretary Geoffrey Pyatt’s Remarks at the Future Minerals Forum	  Geoffrey R. PyattJanuary 10, 2024Saudi Arabia 
        -    Media Note  		Senior Coordinator for Atlantic Cooperation Lapenn’s Travel to Canada	  January 8, 2024 
        -    DipNote: Climate and Environment  		2023 in Review: A Year of Progress for Oceans, the Environment, and Science	  Jennifer R. LittlejohnDecember 28, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Strengthening Climate Security Through Enhanced Security Sector Governance	  December 20, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Announcement of U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Outer Limits	  December 19, 2023 

previous page12345…36next page

Back to Top