alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42429.

#### WATERS v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Where an employee suffers an injury which results in a partial or total disability (industrial handicap) to one member of his body only with no. super-added injury, he is entitled only to compensation for an industrial handicap as provided by *Code Ann.*§ 114-406, irrespective of his earning ability after the accident is sustained. *Godbee v. Amer. Mut. &c. Ins. Co.,*95 Ga. App. 86 (96 SE2d 648); *Armour & Co. v. Walker,*99 Ga. App. 64, *74565 (107 SE2d 691); *General Motors Corp. v. Sligh,*108 Ga. App. 354, 355 (133 SE2d 56).

Submitted November 8, 1966

Decided December 5, 1966.

*Albert E. Butler,*for appellant.

*Thomas & Howard', Hubert H. Howard,*for appellees.

Accordingly, where the claimant had been receiving compensation under an award not appealed from based on *Code Ann.*§ 114-406 (o) for a 25% loss of use of his left leg, with a finding that there was no permanent disability to his left hand, and where, on a subsequent change in condition hearing requested by claimant, the evidence authorized the finding that claimant’s condition had improved, the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation properly denied any additional compensation, under *Code Ann.*§ 114-405 or otherwise. The superior court did not err in affirming such award.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO. v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 880; 270 U. S. 628]

Decided January 25, 1926.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal it was decided:

*Per curiam:*

*Affirmed,*without opinion, for lack of any substantial reason for appeal; *Louisville Bedding Co. et al.*v. *United States,*269 U. S. 533.
41789.

#### FRIEDMAN et al. v. GOODMAN et al.

Decided November 29, 1966

Rehearing denied December 20, 1966

*Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McElmurray, Cornelius B. Thurmond, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Hull, Towill & Norman, R. Lawton Jordan, W. Barry Williams, Congdon & Williams,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

The opinion of this court in *Friedman v. Goodman,*113 Ga. App. 416 (148 SE2d 183) affirming the judgment of Richmond Superior Court was dated March 8, 1966, and the motion for rehearing denied on April 1, 1966. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on June 9, 1966, but on July 21, 1966, the Supreme Court reversed itself and granted certiorari. In its opinion dated October 6, 1966, and written by Justice Quillian, Chief Justice Duckworth dissenting *(Friedman v. Goodman,*222 Ga. 613 (151 SE2d 455), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court dated ■ March 8, 1966, and denied a motion for rehearing on October 20, 1966.

Therefore, pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court, the judgment of this court affirming the trial court is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is

*Reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

On Motion for Rehearing.

In our judgment this motion has merit, and were we not bound by the decision of the Supreme Court which renders us powerless to correct what we conceive to be error, we should grant it. However, we must bow to the authority of our highest court. The correction of any error now lies exclusively within the domain of the Supreme Court.

*Motion denied.*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. CALEB JOSEPH PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-30327 D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00209-HA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 8, 2012 Portland, Oregon Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Caleb Joseph Price appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release on the ground that the revocation violated his due process right to confront witnesses against him. We have juri sdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
reverse. 

# FILED
MAY 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 In supervised release revocation proceedings, a releasee “enjoys a due process right to confront witnesses against him.” United States v. Hall , 419 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 2005). To determine “whether the admission of hearsay evidence violates the releasee’s right to con frontation in a particular case, the court must weigh the releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against the Government’s good cause for denying it.” United States v. Comito , 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999). Price had a strong interest in confronting Keisha Kagawa, the key witness against him. The evidence of Kagawa’s statements to the police officer, probation officer, Price’s neighbor, and Price’s boss was crucial to the court’s ultimate finding; it was the government’s only evidence that Price was responsible for the assault. See Hall , 419 F.3d at 987; Comito , 177 F.3d at 1171. Moreover, Kagawa’s statements were oral and unswo rn, the “least reliable form of hearsay,” Comito , 177 F.3d at 1171. The government made no showing of good cause to justify denying Price his right to confront Kagawa. It made no e fforts to produce Kagawa at the hearing; it did not explain to the district court its failure to produce her; and its post-hearing unsworn representations in a brief to the court could not establish good cause. See Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 268 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.3 2001) (“[U]nsubstantiated versions of even ts proffered by counsel on appeal are, of course, not evidence.”). Accordingly, th e absence of Kagawa at the revocation hearing violated Price’s due process right to confrontation. The violation was not harmless. Without the hearsay evidence, there was evidence only that Kagawa had been assau lted – not that Price was the culprit. See Comito , 177 F.3d at 1170-71, 1173. The order of the district court revoking Price’s supervised release is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED.
#### §§ 1008.403-1008.405 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2728 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2728

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2007

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol located at 
  25762 Madison Avenue in Murrieta, California, as the ``Theodore L. 
        Newton, Jr. and George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The station of the United States Border Patrol located at 25762 
Madison Avenue in Murrieta, California, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and George F. Azrak Border Patrol 
Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the station referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and 
George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 29, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 1016.16 Protection of Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to modify, limit, or supersede the operation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 *et seq.*), and no inference shall be drawn on the basis of the provisions of this part regarding whether information is transaction or experience information under section 603 of that Act.
# C_2012031EN.01001001.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/10

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 31/06

| Member State | Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | La Gomera–Tenerife Norte
  La Gomera–(Tenerife Norte)–Gran Canaria
  El Hierro–Gran Canaria
  Gran Canaria–Tenerife Sur |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | Date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Ministerio de Fomento |
| Dirección General de Aviación Civil |
| Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo |
| Paseo de la Castellana, 67 |
| 28071 Madrid |
| ESPAÑA |
| Tel. +34 915978454 |
| Fax +34 915978643 |
| E-mail: registrotarifas@fomento.es |

Member State

Spain

Route concerned

La Gomera–Tenerife Norte

La Gomera–(Tenerife Norte)–Gran Canaria

El Hierro–Gran Canaria

Gran Canaria–Tenerife Sur

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

Date of publication of this notice

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Ministerio de Fomento

Dirección General de Aviación Civil

Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo

Paseo de la Castellana, 67

28071 Madrid

ESPAÑA

Tel. +34 915978454

Fax +34 915978643

E-mail: registrotarifas@fomento.es

---
Exhibit 32.1




     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the filing of the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for
the  Quarter  Ended  June 30,  2003 (the  "Report")  by NHP  Retirement  Housing
Partners I Limited Partnership ("Registrant"),  the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

         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 Registrant.


                                              /s/ Robert Lankford
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert Lankford
                                             Chief executive officer and Chief
                                             financial officer of the
                                             General Partner
                                             August 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from registrant's
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                   68,590
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            25,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                               2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         96,002
<PP&E>                                                                   87,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            3,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          508,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    88,127
<BONDS>                                                                 435,805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                 26,554
<OTHER-SE>                                                              (51,976)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            508,052
<SALES>                                                                  75,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         75,433
<CGS>                                                                    31,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            31,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        357,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        2,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (315,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (315,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (315,287)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                              (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              (.01)




</TABLE>
HomeTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program...Reward for Information: ALPHV/Blackcat Ransomware as a Service

# 									Reward for Information: ALPHV/Blackcat Ransomware as a Service							

Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program

February 15, 2024

**REWARD FOR INFORMATION: ALPHV/BLACKCAT RANSOMWARE AS A SERVICE – REWARDS OF UP TO $15 MILLION**

## REWARD OF UP TO $15 MILLION

****

**NAME:****ALPHV/Blackcat** Ransomware as a Service (RaaS)**NATIONALITY:**Various (Unknown)**CITIZENSHIP:**Various (Unknown)

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **reward of up to $10,000,000** for information leading to the identification or location of any individual(s) who hold a key leadership position in the Transnational Organized Crime group behind the ALPHV/Blackcat ransomware variant.  In addition, a **reward offer of up to $5,000,000** is offered for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction in any country of any individual conspiring to participate in or attempting to participate in ALPHV/Blackcat ransomware activities.

On December 19, 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI announcement of cooperation with an international group of law enforcement agencies from the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Denmark, to conduct a disruption campaign against the notorious ransomware gang ALPHV/Blackcat.  FBI identified ALPHV/Blackcat actors as having compromised over 1,000 victim entities in the United States and elsewhere, including prominent government entities (e.g., municipal governments, defense contractors, and critical infrastructure organizations). To date, the FBI has worked with dozens of victims in the United States and internationally to disseminate a decryption tool to restore victim systems and prevent ransom demand payments of approximately $99 million.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software, or malware, that prevents a user from accessing computer files, systems, or networks until a ransom is paid for their return.  Ransomware incidents can cause costly disruptions to operations and the loss of critical information and data.

The FBI does not support the payment of a ransom in response to a ransomware attack.  Paying ransom demands encourages more ransomware incidents and provides an incentive to become involved in this type of illegal activity.  If you are the victim of a ransomware incident, please visit stopransomware.gov.

Please direct information in response to the reward offer through the following Tor-based tip line (Tor browser required):**he5dybnt7sr6cm32xt77pazmtm65flqy6irivtflruqfc5ep7eiodiad.onion**.  If you are located outside of the United States, please contact the nearest U.S. Embassy/Consulate.  If in the United States, please contact the local FBI office in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCrimeRewards for JusticeTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program Targets

Back to Top
HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2021…Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

# 					Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea			

 In this section										

                -  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

## Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

On November 20, 2017, the Secretary of State designated the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.  The Secretary determined that the DPRK government repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, as the DPRK was implicated in assassinations on foreign soil.

The DPRK was previously designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1988 primarily because of its involvement in the 1987 bombing of a Korean Airlines passenger flight.  The DPRK’s designation was rescinded in 2008 after a thorough review found that North Korea met the statutory criteria for rescission.  In 2017, the Secretary of State determined the DPRK had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism since its State Sponsor of Terrorism designation was rescinded in 2008.  The DPRK also has failed to take action to address historical support for acts of international terrorism.  Four Japanese Red Army members wanted by the Japanese government for participating in a 1970 Japan Airlines hijacking continue to shelter in the DPRK.  The Japanese government also continues to seek a full accounting of the fate of numerous Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities in the 1970s and 1980s; only five such abductees have been repatriated to Japan since 2002.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsCountering TerrorismCountering Violent ExtremismCounterterrorismNorth KoreaTerrorism

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
#### Stearns *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1912.

58 South. 124.)

1. *Indictment and Information; Offenses Included;*Oowoiction.— Under Section 33, Acts 1909, p. 94, where a person was indicted for unlawfully selling liquor, he may be convicted of acting in the sale as an assisting ■ friend.

2. *Trial; Findings; Province of Jury.*— Although the facts in a cause are undisputed, yet if they are such that reasonable men may conscientiously arrive at different conclusions therefrom, the determination of their effect is for the jury.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Ben Stearne.was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Milo Moody, for appellant.

No brief reached the Reporter.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The defendant was properly convicted under the evidence on the *indictment.*— Winter *v. The State,*132 Ala. 32; *Bond v. The State,*130 Ala. 117; *Darrington v. The State,*162 Ala. 60; *Rayfield v. The State,*167 Ala. 94; Section 33, Acts 1909, p. 94.

*155db GRAFFENRIED, J.

It has been frequently held that when the facts, although undisputed, are such that reasonable men may reasonably and conscientiously arrive at opposite conclusions from them, such facts present, not a question of law for the court, but a question of fact for the determination of the *jury.*—Luke *v. Calhoun County,*52 Ala. 115; *Cole v. Propst,*119 Ala. 99, 24 South. 884; *Abbott v. Mobile,*119 Ala. 595, 24 South. 565.

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the defendant, shows that he was the assisting friend of either the buyer or the seller of the liquor, and the *assisting friend*in such a transaction may now be convicted upon evidence showing that he was *merely such assisting friend,*upon an indictment charging him with an unlawful sale of liquor.—General and Local Acts Special Session 1909, p. 94, § 33; *Andrew Boyd v. State,*3 Ala. App. 178, 57 South. 1019. The court, therefore, properly refused to give to the jury the general affirmative charge requested in writing by the defendant.—*Medley v. State,*156 Ala. 78, 47 South. 218; *Griffin v. State,*150 Ala. 49, 43 South. 197; *McCormack Co. v. Lowe,*151 Ala. 313, 44 South. 47.

The judgment of the court beloiv is affirmed.

Affirmed.