alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the Enactment of Compact-Related Legislation

# 									On the Enactment of Compact-Related Legislation							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 9, 2024

The Department welcomes the enactment of legislation providing approval and funding to bring into force new assistance agreements under the Compacts of Free Association (COFA). Passage of this legislation, which was signed into law by the President today, serves as another milestone in our relationships with the Freely Associated States (FAS) of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.

This step follows the successful negotiation of the Compact-related economic assistance agreements between the United States and the Freely Associated States.  The 20-year duration and commitment of $7.1 billion of mandatory funding is reflective of our steadfast commitment to these strategically important partners.  We appreciate the continued strong bipartisan support for COFA in Congress.

Our special and uniquely close relationships with the Freely Associated States, underpinned by the Compacts, have been an anchor of U.S. engagement in the Pacific for decades.  Extending Compact-related assistance is a critical component of the Administration’s Pacific Partnership, Indo-Pacific, and National Security Strategies.  We look forward to working with our partners in the Freely Associated States over the next two decades of COFA-related cooperation.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsMarshall IslandsMicronesiaOffice of the SpokespersonPalauPartnershipsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Century Park Pictures Corporation
File No. 0-14247


          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 Century Park Pictures  Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Thomas K. Scallen,  Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: April 28, 2004                                By: /s/ Thomas K. Scallen
      --------------                                   -------------------------
                                                               Thomas K. Scallen
                                                             Chief Executive and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Century Park  Pictures  Corporation  and will be retained by Century
Park  Pictures   Corporation  and  furnished  to  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
41440.

#### GIBBS v. THE STATE.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. The general grounds are without merit.

2. In the course of the charge to the jury the court instructed: “In all criminal cases, whether felony or misdemeanor, the defendant shall have the right to make to the court and jury such statement in the case as he may deem proper in his own defense, That statement is not under oath, and shall have such force only as the jury may think right to give it. The jury may believe the statement of the defendant in preference to all sworn testimony, disbelieve it entirely, believe it in part and disbelieve it in part. Therefore, what you do with the defendant’s statement is a matter wholly for your *273determination. *I charge you further that the defendant shall not be compelled to answer any questions on cross examination should he think proper to decline to answer the same.”*The exception to the last sentence of this charge is that it is unsound as an abstract principle of law, was confusing and misleading to the jury.

Argued September 9, 1965

Decided September 17, 1965.

*Guy B. Scott, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Preston M. Almand, Solicitor,*contra.

Doubtless the court intended to charge that the defendant could not be cross examined on his unsworn statement. If it hard been couched in that language it would have been free from error. *Murray v. State,*85 Ga. 378, 381 (2) (11 SE 655); *Harper v. State,*129 Ga. 770 (5) (59 SE 792). In the context it is obvious that this charge referred to the unsworn statement, for the defendant was not sworn as a witness, but the charge should have gone no further than to say that the defendant could not be cross examined. If, by chance, this portion of the charge be construed to refer to questions on cross examination when the defendant is sworn as a witness it would be error because, first, it would introduce a matter unsupported in the record, since the defendant was not sworn, and second, when a defendant is sworn and testifies, he can refuse to answer questions on cross _ examination only under the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

3. The exception to a portion of the charge that “if you believe the defendant sold tax-paid whiskey as alleged in this indictment on February 9, 1964, in Clarke County, Georgia . . . you would be authorized to convict” him, on the ground that it omitted to instruct that the jury must believe this fact beyond a reasonable doubt, is without merit in view of other portions of the charge immediately preceding and following in which the court three times instructed fully that there should be an acquittal unless the'jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment. *Holmes v. State,*194 Ga. 849, 852 (3) (22 SE2d 808).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Part II, Section B, Item 1 – Operation Description
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.13 Copies and certified copies.

(a) Non-certified copies of patents, and patent application publications and of any records, books, papers, or drawings within the jurisdiction of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and open to the public, will be furnished by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to any person, and copies of other records or papers will be furnished to persons entitled thereto, upon payment of the appropriate fee. See § 2.201 of this chapter regarding copies of trademark records.

(b) Certified copies of patents, patent application publications, and trademark registrations and of any records, books, papers, or drawings within the jurisdiction of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and open to the public or persons entitled thereto will be authenticated by the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and certified by the Director, or in his or her name, upon payment of the fee for the certified copy.

[68 FR 48288, Aug. 13, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 71006, Dec. 22, 2003]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
THE WORLD BANK GROUP

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 7, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-16388

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 07-02500-CV-GET-1

DARRYL JORDAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 

JAVIER JARABA,

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia 

 

(April 7, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant presents two issues in his appeal of the district court’s order of

July 24, 2008, granting appellees’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint:

1) whether the district court erred in dismissing the amended complaint, and

2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Addressing the first issue, we find no error in the district court’s rationale

for dismissing appellant’s amended complaint and therefore affirm the dismissal. 

As for the second issue, the record reveals that appellant moved the court for leave

to file a second amended complaint on August 3, 2008. His motion was styled:

“Motion to Reconsider Order Dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice

or in the alternative Motion to Further Amend the Complaint.” The court denied

these alternative motions on October 14, 2008. Appellant’s notice of appeal only

appealed the district court’s “Order of July 24, 2008 granting Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss.” Because the notice did not appeal the October 14 order, that order is

not before us; hence, we do not consider whether the court abused its discretion in

denying further leave to amend. 

AFFIRMED. 

2
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 19 - 00347 - CR
LUCAS FARMER , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 443rd District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 43824CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant Lucas Farmer of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and assessed his punishment at twenty y ears’ imprisonment. The trial court
thereafter ordered Farmer’s sentence to run consecutively to a prior sentence in “Cause No. 33172 in the 13th Judicial District Court of Navarro County, Texas, wherein the defendant was on the 3rd day of, January, 2014, duly and legally sentenced to a term ofFarmer v. State Page 2

10 years for the offense of Aggravated Robbery.” This appeal ens ued. In his sole issue,
Farmer contends that the trial court improperly ordered his sentence in this case to run consecutively to his prior sentence. The State concedes error , and we agree. Article 42.08, subsection (a), of the Code of Criminal Procedur e gives a trial court discretion to order a defendant’s sentence to begin when a preceding conviction’s

sentence “ has ceased to operate.” Byrd v. State , 499 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); see T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.08(a). However, w h en a defendant has already been released on parole on the first offense , and his parole has not been revoked
before sentencing on the second offense, then th e defendant’s first sentence is considered
to have already ceased to operate. Byrd , 499 S.W.3d at 451. Consequently, the second sentence may not be stacked on top of the first sentence. Id.
The record here shows that Farmer was on parole on his p reced ing aggravated

robbery conviction when he committ ed the instant offense. The record establishes that
Farmer was then on a “parole hold” at the time of sentencing in this case

. See Ex parte
Turner , No. 12

- 19

- 00357

- CR, 2020 WL 500780, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Jan. 31, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“A parole revocation warrant, also known as a ‘blue warrant’ or a ‘parole hold,’ is an arrest warrant issued by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles when a parolee is suspected of violating the conditions of his parole.”)

. T here is no evidence , however, that Farmer’s parole on his preceding conviction had been revoked at the time of sentencing in this case. T he trial courtFarmer v. State Page 3

therefore improperly ordered Farmer’s sentence in this case to run consecutively to his
pr eceding sente nce. We accordingly sustain Farmer’s sole issue and modify th e trial court’s judgment
to delete the cumulation order . We affirm the judgment as modified.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neill Affirmed as modified Opinion delivered and filed September 30, 2020 Do not publish [ CR 25 ]
Exhibit 32.2

         CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
            UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis J. Curtin, Senior Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of E-Z-EM,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
            ended February 28, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and

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

Date April 8, 2004                        /s/ Dennis J. Curtin
     --------------                       -------------------------------------
                                          Dennis J. Curtin, Senior Vice
                                          President - Chief Financial Officer


                                      -41-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3165

EDWIN FONG,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in SF0752080497-1-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The United States Postal Service moves without opposition to reform the official

caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent.

Edwin Fong filed an appeal at the Board alleging that the Postal Service

improperly reassigned him and failed to follow applicable reduction-in-force regulations.

Additionally, Fong alleged that his subsequent acceptance of a support specialist position

was an involuntary reduction-in-grade. The Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction

over Fong's claims because the reassignment and his acceptance of another position

with the same pay and grade were not appealable adverse actions.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent

when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this
case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the

proper respondent in this petition for review.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

The Board should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this

order.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 23 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Edwin Fong

Austin M. Fulk, Esq.

Joyce G. Friedman, Esq. PILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

ME FEDERAL CIRCUIT

s20 JUL 23 2009

JAN HOADALT

CLERK

2009-3165	 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Riocan America Management Inc. as

Managing Agent for Las Palmas Dunhill,

L.P., and Las Palmas Riocan LP f/k/a Las

Palmas Dunhill, L.P.

,

Appellant s

,

v

.

Mirka L. Serrato d/b/a Ay Tenampa and

Serrma, LLC

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 0 74

- CV

Appeal from the

384 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2014DCV0623 )

O R D E R

On April 10 , 2017 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order required the

parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On April 1 8 , 2017 Appellee

timely filed an objection. The Court finds Appellee ’ s objection persuasive.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension

is lifted and the Record shall now be filed in this Court on or before May 1 8 , 2017.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 1 8 th day of April , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
NO. 06

- 15 -00104- CR

KENNEDY DEWAYNE RILEY, § ON APPEAL FROM THE Appellant § § 2 02 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. § § STATE OF TEXAS, § COURT OF BOWIE COUNY Appellee § TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING STATE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW the State of Texas by and through her below named Criminal District Attorney and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby requests a thirty (30) day exte nsion of the time period for the filing of the State’s Brief and in support of the same should show the Court as follows:
I. 1. This case is pending from the 2 02 ND Judicial District of Bowie County, Texas.
2. The case is styled State of Texas v. Kennedy Dewayne Riley , Cause N o. 13F0131-
202 3. Appellant was found guilty to the offense of capital murder sentenced to life without parole , in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice

. ACCEPTED 06-15-00104-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/16/2015 4:59:15 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK5. Appellant’s Brief s were filed on November 16, 2015 making the State’s Brief orig inally due on or about Decembeer 16, 2015

. 6. The State has not previously requested an extension of time for filing the State’s
Brie f. 7. The Brief was not timely prepared in this matter due to the press of the business, both trial and appellate. Said business includes, but is not limited to, the following since Appellant’s brief was filed:

 Preparation and attendance at the pre

- indictment and trial dockets in the 5 th District Court on November 16, 2015.

 Thanksgiving Holiday November 26

- 27, 2015.

 Preparation and attendance at revocation and sentencing docket in the 5 th District Court in New Boston, Texas on November 20, 2015

.

 Preparation and attendance a t the Grand Jury on December 10, 2015

.

 Pre

- trial meetings and trial preparation for the trial of Sta te of Texas v. Joshua
Jacobs th r oughout the week of December 7

- 11, 2015. Preparation and
attendance at jury sel e ction on December 15, 2015.

 Preparation and attendance at the pre

- indictment and trial dockets in the 5 th
District Court on December 16 , 2015.II.

The State’s attorney has been diligent in pursuing this appeal and is not seeking this

exte nsion for the purpose of delay.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, on the bases of Rule 73 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
the State respectfully requests this Court to grant the Motion for Extension of Time for the filing of the State’s Brief. Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted, __/s/ Lauren N. Sutton______ LAUREN N. SUTTON Texas Bar No. 24079421 601 Main Street Texarkana, TX 75501 L auren. sutton@txkusa.org ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion to Extend Time for Filing State’s Brief was forwarded to Mr. Clint Allen , coun sel for Appellant, on this the 16 th day of December, 2015

.

__/s/ Lauren N. Sutton__

_ ___ LAUREN N. SUTTON
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.46 Civil money penalties. ( a ) CMS may impose civil money penalties up to the maximum amounts specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. These amounts will be adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) and updated amounts specified in 45 CFR part 102. ( 1 ) For each violation regarding enrollment or disenrollment specified in § 460.40(a)(3) or (4), $100,000 plus $15,000 for each individual not enrolled as a result of the PACE organization's discrimination in enrollment or disenrollment or practice that would deny or discourage enrollment.
( 2 ) For each violation regarding excessive premiums specified in § 460.40(a)(5), $25,000 plus double the excess amount above the permitted premium charged a participant by the PACE organization. (The excess amount charged is deducted from the penalty and returned to the participant).
( 3 ) For each misrepresentation or falsification of information, specified in § 460.40(a)(6)(i), $100,000.
( 4 ) For any other violation specified in § 460.40, $25,000.
( b ) The provisions of section 1128A of the Act (other than subsections (a) and (b)) apply to a civil money penalty under this section in the same manner as they apply to a civil money penalty or proceeding under section 1128A(a).
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 25672, June 3, 2019]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – April 9, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – April 9, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

April 8, 2021

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS DAVID HALE**

Under Secretary Hale has no public appointments.

**SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE JOHN KERRY**

Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry is on travel to Abu Dhabi,  New Delhi, and Dhaka April 1-9, 2021. Please click here for more information.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:00 p.m.** Principal Deputy Spokesperson Jalina Porter holds a telephonic press briefing.****(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)****

 

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 52a.6 Information about grant awards. ( a ) The notice of grant award specifies how long NIH intends to support the project without requiring the project to recompete for funds. This period, called the project period, will usually be for 1-5 years.
( b ) Generally, the grant will initially be for one year, and subsequent continuation awards will also be for one year at a time. A grantee must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of such awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices, and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require a determination by the NIH that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
( c ) Neither the approval of any application, nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the Federal Government in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
(Approved under OMB Control Number 0925-0001)