alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Jornal Oficial L 73/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2601
  doi:10.3000/17252601.L_2011.073.por |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | L 73 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Legislação | 54.o ano18 de Março de 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2601

doi:10.3000/17252601.L_2011.073.por

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

L 73

Edição em língua portuguesa

Legislação

54.o ano18 de Março de 2011

---

| Índice | | II   Actos não legislativos | Página |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACORDOS INTERNACIONAIS |
| | * | Informação sobre a data de entrada em vigor do Acordo de Parceria no domínio da pesca entre a União Europeia e as Ilhas Salomão | 1 |

Índice

II   Actos não legislativos

Página

ACORDOS INTERNACIONAIS

*

Informação sobre a data de entrada em vigor do Acordo de Parceria no domínio da pesca entre a União Europeia e as Ilhas Salomão

1

| PT | Os actos cujos títulos são impressos em tipo fino são actos de gestão corrente adoptados no âmbito da política agrícola e que têm, em geral, um período de validade limitado.
  Os actos cujos títulos são impressos em tipo negro e precedidos de um asterisco são todos os restantes. |
| --- | --- |

PT

Os actos cujos títulos são impressos em tipo fino são actos de gestão corrente adoptados no âmbito da política agrícola e que têm, em geral, um período de validade limitado.

Os actos cujos títulos são impressos em tipo negro e precedidos de um asterisco são todos os restantes.

---

II Actos não legislativos

ACORDOS INTERNACIONAIS

| 18.3.2011 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | L 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2011

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

L 73/1

---

Informação sobre a data de entrada em vigor do Acordo de Parceria no domínio da pesca entre a União Europeia e as Ilhas Salomão

Em 7 de Dezembro de 2010, a União Europeia notificou as Ilhas Salomão de que o Conselho havia concluído, em nome da União Europeia, os procedimentos necessários à entrada em vigor do Acordo em epígrafe, assinado em Bruxelas a 21 de Outubro de 2010.

De igual modo, em 9 de Março de 2011 as Ilhas Salomão notificaram a União Europeia do cumprimento dos respectivos procedimentos de conclusão.

Por conseguinte, o Acordo entrou em vigor em 9 de Março de 2011, nos termos do seu artigo 18.o.

---
#### Yorks v. Mosher, appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. .The action was brought by William A. Yorks against Howell Mosher, to recover for barley sold.

*H. L. Comstock,*for appellant.

*E. A. Nash,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

Only a question of fact was involved.

*Judgment affirmed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND : 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Civil Action No.: 15-2038 (RC) 

 v. : 

 : Re Document Nos.: 19, 20 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion separately and 

contemporaneously issued, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) is DENIED

and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. It is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2017 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cv-02038-RC Document 26 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 1
§ 73.735-802 Executive order prohibitions. ( a ) *Basic prohibition of Executive Order 11222.* ( 1 ) An employee shall not have a direct or indirect financial interest that conflicts substantially, or appears to conflict substantially, with his or her duties as a Federal employee.
( 2 ) An employee need not have a financial interest that actually conflicts with his or her duties to violate the prohibition of E.O. 11222. Any financial interest that could reasonably be viewed as an interest which might compromise the employee's integrity, whether or not this is in fact true, is subject to this prohibition.
( 3 ) Except as provided in § 73.735-802 (b) and (c), an employee who has an indirect financial interest in a business entity through the ownership of shares in a widely-held mutual fund or other regulated investment company will not violate E.O. 11222. Stocks in business entities held by an intermediary such as a mutual fund are generally too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of an employee's services.
( b ) *Employees in regulatory activities.* ( 1 ) An employee who is working in a regulatory activity shall not have a financial interest in any company whose business activities are subject to the regulations of the particular activity with which the employee is associated, unless the regulated activities of the company are an insignificant part of its total business operations.
( 2 ) An employee working in a regulatory activity may not hold shares in a mutual fund or other regulated investment company which specializes in holdings in industries that are regulated by the particular activity in which he or she is employed. Example: An employee working for the Bureau of Laboratories, Centers for Disease Control, may not hold shares in a regulated investment company which specializes in holdings that include medical testing laboratories.
( c ) *Employees having procurement or contracting responsibilities.* ( 1 ) An employee who serves as a procurement or contracting officer shall not have a financial interest in a company or companies with which he or she in the course of his or her official duties would be likely to have procurement or contracting relationships.
( 2 ) A procurement or contracting officer may not hold shares in a mutual fund or other regulated investment company that specializes in holdings in industries with which such officer would be likely to have procurement or contracting relationships.
Example: A contracting officer in the Social Security Administration owns shares in the XYZ Mutual Fund which specializes in stock in firms manufacturing electronic data processing equipment. Ownership of XYZ Mutual Fund shares would be prohibited in this instance. On the other hand, a contracting officer for a Public Health Service hospital, who is not likely to have responsibility for major contracts relating to electronic data processing, could hold such shares.
EX-34 (d)

(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
300 Madison Avenue
New York NY 10017
Telephone (646) 471-3000
www.pwc.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of Residential Capital, LLC:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1122
Servicing Criteria, that GMAC Bank (the "Company"), a subsidiary of Residential
Capital, LLC, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the GMAC Bank
Platform (the "Platform"), as of and for the year then ended December 31, 2006,
excluding criteria 1122(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv); 1122(d)(2)(i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), (v), (vi), (vii); 1122(d)(3) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv); and 1122(d)(4)(iii),
(iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities
performed by it with respect to the Platform. Appendix A to management's
assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities
defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, for the GMAC Bank Platform is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 6, 2007
§ 96.41 General determination. ( a ) The Department has determined that, with the exception of the circumstances addressed in paragraph (c) of this section, Indian tribes and tribal organizations would be better served by means of grants provided directly by the Department to such tribes and organizations out of their State's allotment of block grant funds than if the State were awarded its entire allotment. Accordingly, with the exception of situations described in paragraph (c) of this section, the Department will, upon request of an eligible Indian tribe or tribal organization and where provided for by statute, reserve a portion of the allotment of the State(s) in which the tribe is located, and, upon receipt of a complete application and related submission meeting statutory and regulatory requirements, grant it directly to the tribe or organization.
( b ) An Indian tribe or tribal organization may request direct funding under a block grant program included in this subpart regardless of whether the State in which it is located is receiving funds under the block grant program.
( c ) The Department has determined that Indian tribal members eligible for the funds or services provided through the block grants would be better served by the State(s) in which the tribe is located rather than by the tribe, where: ( 1 ) The tribe has not used its block grant allotment substantially in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute(s); and
( 2 ) Following the procedures of 45 CFR 96.51, the Department has withheld tribal funds because of those deficiencies; and
( 3 ) The tribe has not provided sufficient evidence that it has removed or corrected the reason(s) for withholding. In these cases, block grant funds reserved or set aside for a direct grant to the Indian tribe will be awarded to the State(s), and the State(s) will provide block grant services to the service population of the tribe. Before awarding these funds to the State(s), the Department will allow as much time as it determines to be reasonable for the tribe to correct the conditions that led to withholding, consistent with provision of timely and meaningful services to the tribe's service population during the fiscal year. If a State(s) is awarded funds under this paragraph, the State(s) will receive all remaining funds set aside for the tribe for the Federal fiscal year for which the award is made. Where the Department has withheld funds from a tribe and the tribe has not taken satisfactory corrective action by the first day of the following fiscal year, all of the funds to serve the tribe's service population for the following fiscal year will be awarded to the State(s). The State(s) is responsible for providing services to the service population of the tribe in these cases. This paragraph also applies when funds are withheld from a tribal organization.
[47 FR 29486, July 6, 1982, as amended at 64 FR 55857, Oct. 15, 1999]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO PEREZ SILVA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70900

Agency No. A090

- 549

- 419

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Perez Silva, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application s for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) . Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de n ovo questions of law

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 70900

and claims of due process violations , and review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings

. Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.

2014). We d eny in part and d ismiss in part the petition for review.

Perez Silva’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over proceedings is

foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker , 9 13 F.3d 1158, 11 60 (9th Cir. 2019 )

.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Perez Silva’s conviction co nstitutes a particularly serious crime that bars

withholding of removal

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Pechenkov v. Holder , 705

F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdict ion to review particularly serious crime

determination where the re is no assertion o f legal or constitutional error and the

only challenge is that the IJ incorrectly weighed the facts ).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where Perez

Silva did not establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tort ured in

Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) ( speculative

possibility of torture do e s not establish eligibility for CAT relief )

.

Perez Silva’s due process claim fails because he has not established

prejudice from the alleged violation. See Padilla

- Martinez , 770 F.3d at 830

( requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
§ 95.1 Scope. ( a ) This subpart establishes a two year time limit (15 months in some cases) for a State to claim Federal financial participation in expenditures under State plans approved under the following titles of the Social Security Act: Title I—Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance and Medical Assistance for the Aged. Title IV-A—Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Dependent Children (except for Section 402(a)(19)(G) of the Act). Title IV-B—Child Welfare Services. Title IV-D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity. Title IV-E—Foster Care and Adoption Assistance. Title X—Grants to States for Aid to the Blind. Title XIV—Grants to States for Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled. Title XVI—Grants to States for Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD), or for Such Aid and Medical Assistance for the Aged. Title XIX—Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs. Title XX—Grants to States for Services. Title XXI—Grants to States for State Children's Health Insurance Programs.
( b ) This subpart also applies to claims for Federal financial participation by any State which are based on any provision of the Act that is enacted after issuance of these regulations and that provides, on an entitlement basis, for Federal financial participation in expenditures made under State plans or programs.
( c ) This subpart explains under what conditions the Secretary may decide to extend the time limit for filing claims when a State believes it has good cause for not meeting the time limit.
[46 FR 3529, Jan. 15, 1981, as amended at 65 FR 33632, May 24, 2000]
#### § 96.60 Scope.

The procedures in this subpart apply when opportunity for a hearing is provided for by § 96.51 of this part.
§ 73.735-1006 Reporting financial interests. ( a ) Consultants who will work more than 60 days in a calendar year are subject to the provisions of title II of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 when their rate of pay is equal to or greater than the basic rate for GS-16, Step 1. Such consultants are covered by the reporting requirements of § 73.735-901 of these regulations.
( b ) Consultants not subject to the Ethics in Government Act shall file statements of financial interests as provided by § 73.735-902 of these regulations.
#### Nathan T. Miser, *Respondent, v.*Joseph Miser, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Memorandum

March 31, 2011 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600 

From: Mary Kissell 

Re: Meetings and Telephone Conversations Between EPA and Other Federal 

Government Entities regarding RTR for Group I Polymers and Resins MACT, 

Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations MACT, Pharmaceuticals MACT, and 

Printing and Publishing MACT 

EPA discussed various aspects of the risk assessments, preamble and rule 

text, and other documents in meetings that included OMB, and sometimes 

SBA and the Navy, on March 16, March 23, March 25, and March 30. EPA 

also had several telephone conversations with OMB between March 8 and 

March 31, 2011.
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Gerald Vento, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of magicJack VocalTec Ltd.; and





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.




By: /s/ Gerald Vento
Gerald Vento

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)




Date: April 29, 2016
§ 2506.51 How will the Corporation request that my debt to the Corporation be collected by offset against some payment that another Federal agency owes me? The Chief Executive Officer may request that funds due and payable to you by another Federal agency instead be paid to the Corporation to satisfy a debt you owe to the Corporation. The Corporation will refer debts to the Treasury for centralized administrative offset in accordance with the FCCS and the procedures established by the Treasury. Where centralized offset is not available or appropriate, the Corporation may request offset directly from the Federal agency that is holding funds for you. In requesting administrative offset, the Corporation will certify in writing to the Federal agency that is holding funds for you: ( a ) That you owe the debt;
( b ) The amount and basis of the debt; and
( c ) That the Corporation has complied with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3716, its own administrative offset regulations in this subpart, the applicable administrative offset regulations of the agency holding the funds, and the applicable provisions of the FCCS with respect to providing you with due process.
§ 96.81 Carryover and reallotment. ( a ) *Scope.* Pursuant to section 2607(b) of Public Law 97-35 (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)), this section concerns procedures relating to carryover and reallotment of regular LIHEAP block grant funds authorized under section 2602(b) of Public Law 97-35 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)).
( b ) *Required carryover and reallotment report.* Each grantee must submit a report to the Department by August 1 of each year, containing the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. The Department shall make no payment to a grantee for a fiscal year unless the grantee has complied with this paragraph with respect to the prior fiscal year. ( 1 ) The amount of funds that the grantee requests to hold available for obligation in the next (following) fiscal year, not to exceed 10 percent of the funds payable to the grantee;
( 2 ) A statement of the reasons that this amount to remain available will not be used in the fiscal year for which it was allotted;
( 3 ) A description of the types of assistance to be provided with the amount held available; and
( 4 ) The amount of funds, if any, to be subject to reallotment.
( c ) *Conditions for reallotment.* If the total amount available for reallotment for a fiscal year is less than $25,000, the Department will not reallot such amount. If the total amount available for reallotment for a fiscal year is $25,000 or more, the Department will reallot such amount, except that the Department will not award less than $25 in reallotted funds to a grantee.
[64 FR 55858, Oct. 15, 1999]
§ 620.4 Deferral of service obligation. ( a ) A scholarship recipient whose CyberCorps SFS Scholarship Phase has ended may request, from the Director, a deferral of the five-year Commitment Phase for completion of the service obligation based on— ( 1 ) Enrollment in a program of study or engagement in approved professional activity that would contribute to further professional development and/or cybersecurity workforce readiness for the scholarship recipient;
( 2 ) A condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA);
( 3 ) A call to order to Federal or state active duty or active service as a member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5); or
( 4 ) Other exceptional circumstances significantly affecting the scholarship recipient's ability to serve as determined by the Director.
( b ) A scholarship recipient must apply for a deferral, by submitting a written request via the SFS program office, before the scholarship recipient's Commitment Phase has expired.
( c ) A scholarship recipient who applies for deferral must provide documentation supporting the request as well as current contact information including home address, email address, and telephone number.
( d ) The Director, or other official designated by the Director, will notify the scholarship recipient on the outcome of the application for deferral. If the deferral is denied, the scholarship recipient may submit a written request for reconsideration to the SFS program office. The request must be received no later than 30 calendar days after NSF sent notice of the denial to the recipient. The request must explain why the recipient believes the denial is based on an error or mistake of fact or law, or if there are any new facts or law that should be considered. The Director's determination on the request shall be final, with no further reconsideration.
#### John S. Jones, Appellant, *v.*George J. Gould et al., Respondents.

Reported below, 183 App. Div. 889.

(Submitted January 3, 1910;

decided January 18, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial *581department, entered July 20, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term in an action to recover for services.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment of the Appellate Division was void inasmuch as that court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; that if valid, such judgment was unanimous and, therefore, not appealable to the Court of Appeals except by permission, which had not been obtained.

*Rush Taggart, Lawrence Greer, Appleton D. Palmer*and *F. C. Nicodemus, Jr., for*motion.

*David McClure*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.