alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Public Designation of Five Bulgarian Public Officials Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Public Designation of Five Bulgarian Public Officials Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

June 2, 2021

Today, we are announcing the public designation of former Bulgarian public officials Alexander Manolev, Petar Haralampiev, Krasimir Tomov, and Delyan Slavchev Peevski, as well as current Bulgarian public official Ilko Dimitrov Zhelyazkov, due to their involvement in significant corruption.  In their official capacities as Deputy Minister of the Economy, Director of the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, and Chief Secretary of the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, respectively, Manolev, Haralampiev, and Tomov were involved in corrupt acts that undermined the rule of law and the Bulgarian public’s faith in their government’s democratic institutions and public processes, including by using their political influence and official power for personal benefit.  In his capacity as a member of parliament, Peevski used Zhelyazkov, an official in the National Bureau for Control on Special Intelligence-Gathering Devices, as an intermediary and accomplice to peddle influence and pay bribes to protect himself from public scrutiny and to exert influence over key institutions and sectors in Bulgarian society.

The Department of the Treasury also has designated Peevski, Zhelyazkov and Bulgarian oligarch Vassil Bojkov, along with 64 entities owned and controlled by Bojkov and Peevski, for their roles in public corruption, pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which builds upon and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

These designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021.  In addition to Manolev, Haralampiev, Tomov, Zhelyazkov, and Peevski, we are publicly designating Manolev’s wife, Nadya Manoleva, and his children, Alexa, Joanna, and Dimitar; Haralampiev’s wife and son, Veselka Haralampieva and Pavel Haralampiev; Peevski’s minor son and daughter; and Zhelyazkov’s daughters Vania Ilkova Zhelyazkova and Roza Ilkova Zhelyazkova.  This action renders Manolev, Haralampiev, Tomov, Zhelyazkov, and Peevski, and each of their immediate families, ineligible for entry into the United States.

Today’s actions reaffirm our commitment to supporting rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions in Bulgaria.  The United States stands with all Bulgarians whose work drives reforms forward, and the Department will continue to use its authorities to promote accountability for corrupt actors in the region and globally.

For more information, please contact INL-PAPD@state.gov.

Tags

7031(c)Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBulgariaBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCorruptionHuman RightsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
48

 
audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 8, 2009                                                            /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Chief Executive Officer  
49
§ 488.735 Surveyor qualifications. ( a ) *Minimum qualifications.* Surveys must be conducted by individuals who meet minimum qualifications prescribed by CMS. In addition, before any State or Federal surveyor may serve on an HHA survey team (except as a trainee), he/she must have successfully completed the relevant CMS-sponsored Basic HHA Surveyor Training Course and any associated course prerequisites. All surveyors must follow the principles set forth in § 488.24 through § 488.28 according to CMS policies and procedures for determining compliance with the conditions of participation.
( b ) *Disqualifications.* Any of the following circumstances disqualifies a surveyor from surveying a particular agency: ( 1 ) The surveyor currently works for, or, within the past two years, has worked with the HHA to be surveyed as: ( i ) A direct employee;
( ii ) An employment agency staff at the agency; or
( iii ) An officer, consultant, or agent for the agency to be surveyed concerning compliance with conditions of participation specified in or pursuant to sections 1861(o) or 1891(a) of the Act.
( 2 ) The surveyor has a financial interest or an ownership interest in the HHA to be surveyed.
( 3 ) The surveyor has a family member who has a relationship with the HHA to be surveyed.
( 4 ) The surveyor has an immediate family member who is a patient of the HHA to be surveyed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


                            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 OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
Goddard, Ph.D., Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:  August 9, 2005                 /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                      ---------------------------
                                          Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                          Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6626

CYNTHIA ANN ROYAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLAY HESTER, Sheriff; DEPUTY WICKMAN; DEPUTY

MASON; DEPUTY SANDER; DEPUTY NICKSON; DEPUTY

BENNETT; DEPUTY HAWKS; SERGEANT ANDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-554-3)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Cynthia Ann Royal, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville,

Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Cynthia Ann Royal appeals from the magistrate

judge's* final judgment denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's final judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Royal v.

Hester, No. CA-95-554-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
## Summary Statement

In summary, BrockWilkerson seeks an exemption from the FARs set forth above and inAppendixA to allow commercial operations of a small unmanned vehicle conducting aerial video/photographs

, mapping and inspections of cell towers, power transmission lines, bridges and video/photographs of commercial properties.Approval ofthe exemption allowing commercial operations ofthe DJI Inspire 1 for aerial video/photographs will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional aerial video/ photography operations, using conventional aircraft, present risks associated with vehicles that weigh several thousand pounds, carry large quantities offuel and passengers. Such aircraft must fly to and from the survey location. Rountine cell tower, power transmission line and bridge inspections present a large amount of risk to personnel and is considered one of the most dangerous occupations today. In contrast, a DJI Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs and powered by batteries, eliminates a portion of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The Inspire 1 is carried to the survey location, not flown there.The Inspire 1 will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose any individuals to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. Additionally, no national security issue is raised by the grant ofthe requested exemptions. Given the size, load carrying capacity, speed at which it operates, and the fact that it carries no explosives or other dangerous materials, the Inspire 1 poses no threat to national security. The operation ofthe Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs, for aerial video/photography

, mapping and infrastucutre inspections is in accordance with the strict conditions outlined above, and will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant ofthe exemptions requested herein, including exempting Brock Wilkerson from the requirements of Part 21.
###### 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.

#### § 1.991 Merger of concurrent reissue application and *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

If a reissue application and an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding on which an order pursuant to § 1.931 has been mailed are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision may be made to merge the two proceedings or to suspend one of the two proceedings. Where merger of a reissue application and an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding is ordered, the merged proceeding will be conducted in accordance with §§ 1.171 through 1.179, and the patent owner will be required to place and maintain the same claims in the reissue application and the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding during the pendency of the merged proceeding. In a merged proceeding the third party requester may participate to the extent provided under §§ 1.902 through 1.997 and 41.60 through 41.81, except that such participation shall be limited to issues within the scope of *inter partes* reexamination. The examiner's actions and any responses by the patent owner or third party requester in a merged proceeding will apply to both the reissue application and the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding and be physically entered into both files. Any *inter partes* reexamination proceeding merged with a reissue application shall be concluded by the grant of the reissued patent.

[72 FR 18907, Apr. 16, 2007]

###### 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.
###### 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 Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.143 [Reserved]

###### 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.
§ 81.1 Purpose and Authority. ( a ) The purpose of this regulation is to establish guidelines DOL will apply to adjudicate cancer claims for covered employees seeking compensation for cancer, other than as members of the Special Exposure Cohort seeking compensation for a specified cancer. To award a claim, DOL must first determine that it is at least as likely as not that the cancer of the employee was caused by radiation doses incurred by the employee in the performance of duty. These guidelines provide the procedures DOL must apply and identify the information DOL will use.
( b ) Section 7384(n)(b) of EEOICPA requires the President to promulgate these guidelines. Executive Order 13179 assigned responsibility for promulgating these guidelines to the Secretary of HHS.
###### 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.

#### § 42.62 Applicability of the Federal rules of evidence.

(a) *Generally.* Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to a proceeding.

(b) *Exclusions.* Those portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to criminal proceedings, juries, and other matters not relevant to proceedings under this subpart shall not apply.

(c) *Modifications in terminology.* Unless otherwise clear from context, the following terms of the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed as indicated:

*Appellate court* means United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

*Civil action, civil proceeding,* and *action* mean a proceeding before the Board under part 42.

*Courts of the United States, U.S. Magistrate,* *court, trial court,* *trier of fact,* and *judge* mean Board.

*Hearing* means, as defined in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(5), the time for taking testimony.

*Judicial notice* means official notice.

*Trial* or *hearing* in Federal Rule of Evidence 807 means the time for taking testimony.

(d) In determining foreign law, the Board may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5280-N-37]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 25, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                    *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: September 17, 2009.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E9-22873 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### George Whitman, Respondent, *v.*William Seibert, Appellant.

J. H. Damnhol¿, for appellant.

F. Solinger, for respondent.

McCarthy, J.

In view of the circumstances surrounding this transaction, I think the order appealed. from was right. Particularly for the reason assigned by the Special, Term justice, in his opinion appearing on page 16 of. printed record. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Schuchmah, J., .concurs.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
§ 93.313 Institutional investigation report. The final institutional investigation report must be in writing and include: ( a ) *Allegations.* Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct.
( b ) *PHS support.* Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support.
( c ) *Institutional charge.* Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation.
( d ) *Policies and procedures.* If not already provided to ORI with the inquiry report, include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
( e ) *Research records and evidence.* Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed.
( f ) *Statement of findings.* For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, and if so— ( 1 ) Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;
( 2 ) Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;
( 3 ) Identify the specific PHS support;
( 4 ) Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
( 5 ) Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
( 6 ) List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies.
( g ) *Comments.* Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.
( h ) *Maintain and provide records.* Maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of the institution's research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews.