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

(2004/C 84 E/0821)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2376/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since 1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003. Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to death.

Does the Commission believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where they might be put to death?

What measures does the Commission intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In accordance with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union, ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ This is one of the principles that are common to the Member States and that the Commission must respect in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission would recall its answer of 29 January 2003 to Questions P-3821/02 by Mrs Paciotti and P-3826/02 by Mr Di Lello Finuoli (1) concerning this case and the absence at this stage of powers to intervene in the examination of any infringement of Article 19 of the Charter, the reason being that no Community provisions exist on asylum procedures and on determination of the need for international protection and the relevant statutes. The draft directives on these two matters are still being examined within the Council.

The Commission would also recall that interested parties may bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Court's Rules if they consider that provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights have not been complied with.

----

(1)  See page 707.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2040

YURI J. STOYANOV,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; STEPHAN W. PETRI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Acting Head of Co de 74 Carderock Division; JAMES H. KING, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; JOHN C. DAVIES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; MATHEW CRAUN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 722 Carderock Division; PAUL SHANG, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 72 Carderock Division; GERALD SMITH, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; ROGER FORD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014 Carderock Division; M. KATHLEEN FOWLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 709; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39; JOSEPHINE MCGRATH, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Complaints Manager/Acting Deputy EEO Chief Code 034,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06- cv-01244-AMD)

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 15, 2009Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 621 to 634 (2000), the Whisleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 1214, 1221 and 2302 (2006), and various state law tort

claims, as well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Winter , No. 1:06-cv-01244-AMD

(D. Md. Aug. 11, 2008; Aug. 27, 2008). 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
§ 570.61 Suspension system. ( a ) *Suspension condition.* Ball joint seals shall not be cut or cracked, other than superficial surface cracks. Ball joints and kingpins shall not be bent or damaged. Stabilizer bars shall be connected. Springs shall not be broken and coil springs shall not be extended by spacers. Shock absorber mountings, shackles, and U-bolts shall be securely attached. Rubber bushings shall not be cracked, extruded out from or missing from suspension joints. Radius rods shall not be missing or damaged. ( 1 ) *Inspection procedure.* Examine front and rear end suspension parts for the conditions indicated.
( b ) *Shock absorber condition.* There shall be no oil on the shock absorber housings attributable to leakage by the seal. ( 1 ) *Inspection procedure.* Examine shock absorbers for oil leakage from within.
From: Ketcham, Saunders @ New York [mailto:saunders.ketcham@cbre.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:27 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

February 24, 2011

By email delivery

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

Room N‐5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am pleased to submit this comment letter on the Department’s proposed regulation

(the “Proposed Rule”) regarding the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).

I am an Associate with an Investment Properties Team at a full service commercial real

estate company.   Because many of our clients include employee benefit plans and

various service providers to benefit plans that are subject to ERISA, I have an interest in

ensuring that the Proposed Rule will not unduly restrict these constituents from

engaging in routine business transactions with each other on arms‐length terms. I am

concerned that the Proposed Rule is overbroad and will most likely lead to increased

costs for benefit plans in need of real estate related services with little corresponding

benefit and hamper the ability of benefit plans to utilize the resources of trusted

advisers in the best and most cost effective way.  Additionally, given that in the real

estate sector benefit plans often retain experts or advisers through other consultants or

investment advisers, many real estate services providers will face significant difficulties

in determining if the ultimate client is a benefit plan.  To impose fiduciary status and its

consequences on inadvertent or otherwise unknowing “fiduciaries” seems an burden.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comment.

Respectfully,

Saunders Ketcham  

Saunders C. Ketcham | Associate

Investment Properties 

CB Richard Ellis | Capital Markets

200 Park Avenue, Suite 17 | New York, NY 10166

T 212 895 0935 | F 212 984 6660 

Saunders.ketcham@cbre.com
###### Editorial Note on Part 387

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 387.9 Financial responsibility, minimum levels.

The minimum levels of financial responsibility referred to in § 387.7 are hereby prescribed as follows:

| Type of carriage | Commodity transported | January 1, 1985 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) For-hire (In interstate or foreign commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) | Property (nonhazardous) | $750,000 |
| (2) For-hire and Private (In interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) | Hazardous substances, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, transported in bulk in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles with capacities in bulk; in bulk Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 materials; in bulk Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 2.1 or 2.2 material; or highway route controlled quantities of a Class 7 material, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 | 5,000,000 |
| (3) For-hire and Private (In interstate or foreign commerce, in any quantity; or in intrastate commerce, in bulk only; with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) | Oil listed in 49 CFR 172.101; hazardous waste, hazardous materials, or hazardous substances defined in 49 CFR 171.8 and listed in 49 CFR 172.101, but not mentioned in entry (2) or (4) of this table | 1,000,000 |
| (4) For-hire and Private (In interstate or foreign commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds) | In bulk Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 material; in bulk Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A material; or highway route controlled quantities of a Class 7 material as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 | 5,000,000 |

Table 1 to § 387.9—Schedule of Limits—Public Liability

[86 FR 57071, Oct. 14, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 80183, Nov. 17, 2023]
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-101928 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account Three, on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2004
relating to the statutory basis financial statements of Hartford Life and
Annuity Insurance Company as of and for the period ended December 31, 2003 and
2002, and of our report dated February 25, 2004, relating to the statements of
assets and liabilities of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate
Account Three as of December 31, 2003 and the related statements of operations
for the year ended and the statements of changes in net assets for each of the
two years ended December 31, 2003, appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is part of such Registration Statement, and to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
April 5, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Artesyn
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 26, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard J. Thompson, Chief 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, to my knowledge, 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.

/s/ RICHARD J. THOMPSON




Richard J. Thompson


Chief Financial Officer


March 10, 2004
#### § 825.35 Action after remand.

When a case has been remanded under § 825.30, a party shall retain all rights of review under 46 CFR part 5 and this part, as applicable.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 327

Providing for a committee of two Members to be appointed by the House

to inform the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 20, 2001

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for a committee of two Members to be appointed

by the House to inform the President.

1 Resolved, That a committee of two Members be ap2 pointed by the House to join a similar committee ap3 pointed by the Senate, to wait upon the President of the

4 United States and inform him that the two Houses have

5 completed their business of the session and are ready to

6 adjourn, unless the President has some other communica7 tion to make to them.

Æ
Contact Us

#   Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines

The EPA promulgated the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 439) in 1976 and amended the regulation in 1983, 1998 and 2003. The Effluent Guidelines are incorporated into NPDES permits for direct dischargersdirect dischargersA point source that discharges pollutants to waters of the United States, such as streams, lakes, or oceans., and permits or other control mechanisms for indirect dischargersindirect dischargersA facility that discharges pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works (municipal sewage treatment plant). (refer to Pretreatment Program).

## Facilities Covered

                - Fermentation Products
                - Extraction Products
                - Chemical Synthesis Products
                - Mixing/Compounding and Formulation
                - Research

----

## Guidance and Analytical Methods Documents

                - Guidance Document  (2006)  	Assists permit writers and pretreatment coordinators in developing appropriate NPDES permits and pretreatment requirements for pharmaceutical facilities
                - Approved Analytical Methods for Pharmaceutical Pollutants

----

## Rulemaking History

### 2003 Amendment

                - Partial withdrawal of Direct Final Rule  (June 11, 2003)  	Corrections regarding compliance dates
                - Direct Final Rule  (March 13, 2003)  	Clarification of compliance dates; correction to effluent limitations; additional definitions

### 1998 Amendment

                - Final Rule  (September 21, 1998)
                - Development Document  	Describes industry processes, pollutants generated, available control and treatment technologies, the technical basis for the final rule, and costs of the rule
                - Economic Analysis

### 1983 Amendment

                - Final Rule  (October 27, 1983)  	BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS; revised BPT

### 1976 Initial Rulemaking

                - Interim Final Rule  (November 17, 1976)  	Initial BPT limitations

----

## Additional Information

For additional information regarding Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines, please contact Meghan Hessenauer (hessenauer.meghan@epa.gov) or 202-566-1040.

          -  Effluent Guidelines Home 
          -  Industry Regulations & Studies 
          -  Learn about Effluent Guidelines 
          -  Effluent Guidelines Plan 
          -  Implementation & Compliance 
          -  Effluent Guidelines Database 
          -  Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database 

Contact Us
# CJTF-OIR, partner forces continue the fight, degrade ISIS capabilities

/ Published Dec. 4, 2018

December 4, 2018

Release # 20181204-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve and partner force, Syrian Democratic Forces, continue operations for phase three of Operation Roundup near Deir ez-Zor, Syria, located in the Middle Euphrates River Valley.

Between Nov. 24 and Nov. 30, ISIS attempted to exploit unfavorable weather conditions and maneuver within the battlefield by conducting harassing fires in an attempt to gain an advantage in the MERV. On multiple occasions, ISIS tried to regain possession of their equipment and attempted a counterattack. CJTF-OIR and partner forces responded to ISIS with combined fires through Iraq-based artillery and close air support.

“This past week, not only did we swiftly and persistently deny ISIS’s desperate attempts to capitalize on inclement weather, we denied them any chance of recovering their equipment and we prevented them from having any success in launching a counterattack,” said Maj. Gen. Patrick Roberson, Special Operations Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve Commanding General. 

Coalition strikes further degraded ISIS capabilities between Nov. 24 and Nov. 30 by denying ISIS terrain and destroying more than ten command and control centers, 16 weapons caches, eight fighting positions, and six staging facilities. 

“As we degrade their capabilities and push them into an ever smaller box, ISIS continues to employ more and more desperate measures,” Roberson stated. “These tactics won’t succeed.”

There are approximately 2,000 ISIS terrorists remaining in the MERV and they currently operate out of less than one percent of the territory they once held. The Coalition supports partner forces in order to contain ISIS within the last remaining territory they currently hold. The ground offensive will continue to clear ISIS remnants from the MERV. The Iraqi Security Forces continue to defend their shared border with Syria to prevent ISIS terrorists from escaping back into Iraq. 

Operation Roundup began May 1, 2018. Phase one concluded on May 15th after the successful clearance of ISIS near Baghuz in northeastern Syria. Phase two cleared ISIS from Dashisha, Syria.Phase three began on Aug. 4th with ground operations aimed to clear ISIS remnants from Hajin and the remaining Deir ez-Zor countryside east of the Euphrates River. Operation Roundup continues to enable forces to close in on the final remnants of ISIS.

CJTF-OIR, representing 74 nations and five international organizations, remains committed to the lasting defeat of ISIS. CJTF-OIR works by, with, and through partner forces to defeat ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria, and set conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability. 

#DefeatISIS

Editor’s Note: Video of a Coalition airstrike destroying an ISIS fuel truck in As Susah, Syria, Nov. 29 2018:
ISAF Joint Command in Afghanistan Formally Ceases Operations
 By From an International Security Assistance Force News Release
  **KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2014 –** International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, which has handled day-to-day operations in Afghanistan for five years, formally cased its colors during a ceremony today at the command’s headquarters at Kabul International Airport. The ceremony symbolizes the end of the ISAF Joint Command mission. "Today, IJC will be subsumed into a coalition that is soon downsizing to about 13,000 personnel," said Army Gen. John F. Campbell, ISAF commander. "This is a historic transformation and reflects the progress that our coalition has made with our Afghan partners. “As the Afghan National Security Forces have become increasingly capable,” he continued, “we shift our focus from combat operations to building [Afghan] systems and processes to ensure long-term sustainability.” **Full Partnership With Afghan, NATO Forces** Working in full partnership with Afghan national security forces and NATO partner nations, ISAF Joint Command’s mission was to conduct population-centric comprehensive operations to neutralize the insurgency and support improved governance and development to protect the Afghan people and provide a secure environment for sustainable peace. “You’ve done your job well -- so well that you’ve worked yourself out of a job,” Campbell told members of the joint command at the casing ceremony. The International Security Assistance Force is transitioning to the NATO-led Resolute Support mission, which begins Jan. 1. Resolute Support will focus on training, advising and assisting Afghan security institutions and Afghan national security forces at the ministerial, institutional and operational levels.
EXHIBIT 3.1





ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF


MAMMATHETICS CORP.


A FLORIDA CORPORATION




The undersigned, acting as incorporator of a Florida Corporation undertheFloridaGeneralCorporationAct 607FloridaStatutes,adoptsthefollowingArticlesofIncorporationforsuchcorporation:




ARTICLEI.NAHE




The name of the corporation is Mammathetics Corp.




ARTICLEII.DURATION




The corporation shall have perpetual existence.




ARTICLEIII. PURPOSE




The corporation is organized for the purpose of transacting any and all lawful business for which corporations may be incorporated in the State of Florida.




ARTICLEIV.CAPITALSTOCK




The corporation is authorized to issue two hundred million (200,000,000) shares of all of one class, of .0001 dollar par value common stock.




ARTICLEV.INITIALREGI&TEREDOFFICEANDAGENT




The street address of the initial registered office of the corporation is 1512 N.W. 7th Place, Gainesville, Florida 32603 and the name of the initial registered agent of the corporation at that address is Mark Goldstein.




ARTICLEVI.INITIALBOARDOFDIRECTORS




The corporation shall have one director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or decreased from time to time by the By-Lawsof the Corporation, but shall never be less than one. The name and address of the initial director of the corporation is:




Hark Goldstein


1512 N.W. 7th Place


Gainesville, Florida 32603




1




ARTICLE VII. LIMITATION OF REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS





The shareholders of the corporation shall not entitled to remove any director from office during his term without cause.




ARTICLEVIII.INCORPORATOR





The name and address of the person signing these Articles is:




Joel Berman


5961 S.W. 16 Court


Plantation, Florida 33317




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of Incorporation this 2nd day of November 1981 at 10:00 a.m.






Incorporator














2