alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Division Home
- About Us
- Contact Us

HomeCivil Air Transport Agreements...Current Air Transport Agreements

# 						Current Air Transport Agreements					

54 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021202020192018201720162008

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAngolaArgentinaAustraliaBangladeshBelarusCanadaColombiaEcuadorGermanyGrenadaGuineaIcelandJamaicaJapanKazakhstanKenyaMoldovaMongoliaMozambiqueNamibiaNetherlandsNorwayRepublic of the CongoSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSint MaartenSri LankaSurinameTanzaniaThe BahamasUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States

Select a Release TypeAir Transport Agreement

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for Transportation Affairs

          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Belarus Memorandum of Consultations of December 3, 2019	  December 3, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Belarus Air Transport Agreement (initialed December 3, 2019)	  December 3, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		Twenty-first Meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee Record of Meeting	  September 13, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Guinea Air Transport Agreement of September 13, 2019	  September 13, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		Agreement To Remove Time Constraints on Air Carrier Leases of Aircraft With Crew Between the U.S., EU, Iceland, and Norway	  August 27, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Japan Record of Discussions of August 21, 2019	  August 21, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S. Diplomatic Note Extending Annex I to US-Ecuador Air Transport Agreement Until June 30, 2021	  June 28, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Argentina Memorandum of Consultations of June 26, 2019	  June 26, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		Protocol of Amendment to the Air Transport Services Agreement Between the U.S. and Argentina	  June 26, 2019 
          -    Air Transport Agreement  		U.S.-Suriname Air Transport Agreement of March 25, 2019	  March 25, 2019 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
39977.

#### WHEAT v. FRAKER.

Decided February 7, 1963.

*J. Paxson Amis,*for plaintiff in error.

*McCamy, Minor & Vining, John T. Minor, III,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge:

> “Foul, foul play,” the defendant cried;

> “That I by kinsman be not trammelled,

> Let the issue again be tried

> Before another jury impanelled.

> Remember how from John at Runnymede

> The Charta was forced and wrested

> *319That no matter what the issue or the deed

> By my peers it must be tried and tested. With juror mine adversary durst

> Try the cause, whose wife is second cousin to my wife And to plaintiff’s wife a first.

> A new trial, sire, I demand to settle strife.”

> “No foul play do I find or see,”

> The judge replied. “Foreman’s wife to thine And to plaintiff’s wife may kinsman be,

> But to Doug and thee no kinship do I find.1

> Thus, it doth not appear

> For any cause or reason told

> That the juror was not thy peer

> The case to try and verdict mold.

> Moreover, when kinships we sought to learn

> It doth not appear that as best befits

> One who would a kinsman spurn

> Thou revealedst that ‘cousin’ did on the panel sit.2

> Thy day in court thou hast had,”

> The judge asserted, “and law commands That, no error made., whether good or bad,

> The issued tried and settled stands.”

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*

1

“The groom and bride each comes within

The circle of the other’s kin;

But kiii and kin are still no more

Related than they were before.”

*Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Roberts,*91 Ga. 513, 517 (18 SE 315); *Garrett v. State,*203 Ga. 756, 768 (5) (48 SE2d 377); and see *Everett v. Culberson,*215 Ga. 577 (8) (111 SE2d 367); *Smith v. State, 2*Ga. App. 574 (59 SE 311).

2

See *Jennings v. Autry,*94 Ga. App. 344 (5) (94 SE2d 629); *Joyner v. State,*208 Ga. 435 (2) (67 SE2d 221).
# L_2020213EN.01002301.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 213/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 213/23

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2019/753 of 30 March 2020 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 186 of 12 June 2020
  )

On the cover page and on page 1, the Decision number in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision (EU) 2019/753 ...’,

read:

‘Council Decision (EU) 2020/753 ...’.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7567

ANTHONY BUSSIE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. T. SCARANTINO, Warden , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:20

- ct

- 03224

- D )

Submitted : April 26 , 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Bussie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Bussie appeals the district court’s order di smissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed eral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bussie’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### §§ 1029.310-1029.315 [Reserved]
39674.

#### WALKER v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant, Inez Walker, was jointly indicted with Lacy Hampton and Johnnie Marsh Hampton for the murder of James Anthony. In a separate trial the codefendants were convicted of voluntary manslaughter. See *Hampton v. State,*102 Ga. App. 511 (116 SE2d 649). In the present case the defendant was convicted *542of voluntary manslaughter. The defendant’s motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds and 2 special grounds, was overruled and error is now assigned on such judgment. *Held:*

Decided September 18, 1962.

*Walton Hardin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kenneth E. Goolsby, Solicitor General,*contra.

1. While the evidence was in sharp conflict the verdict was authorized and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant a new trial on the usual general grounds. See *Hampton v. State,*102 Ga. App. 511, supra, and citations.

2. “Conspiracy consists in a corrupt agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, the existence of which agreement may be established by direct proof, or by inference, as a deduction from acts and conduct, which disclose a common design on their part to act together for the accomplishment of the unlawful purpose. In this case the jury was authorized to find by reasonable deductions from the acts and conduct of this defendant and his coindictees that they corruptly agreed with each other to do the unlawful act for which they were jointly indicted; and that, while acting together, each aiding and abetting the other, they accomplished their unlawful purpose. See, in this connection, *Chappell v. State,*209 Ga. 701 (75 SE2d 417), and citations.” *Fincher v. State,*211 Ga. 89 (4) (84 SE2d 76). The evidence as to the acts done by the defendant and her co-indictees authorized the charge on conspiracy and it is not necessary to allege conspiracy in an indictment before proof of conspiracy may be admitted in evidence.

3. The charge on manslaughter, assigned as error in the second special ground of the motion for new trial, when considered with the remainder of the court’s instruction on such subject, was not confusing or misleading to the jury, was correct as an abstract principle of law, and no further charge defining the charge given was necessary in the absence of a timely written request.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1114

To authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions of the Fair

Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age

to load materials into balers and compacters that meet appropriate American National Standards Institute design safety standards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1995

Mr. EWING (for himself, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. KLINK, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr.

MARTINEZ, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. FAWELL, and Mr. BONILLA) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions

of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are

under 18 years of age to load materials into balers

and compacters that meet appropriate American National

Standards Institute design safety standards.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1114 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO LOAD MATERIALS

2 INTO BALERS AND COMPACTORS.

3 In the administration of the child labor provisions of

4 the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, minors under 18

5 years of age shall be permitted to—

6 (1) load materials into baling equipment that is

7 in compliance with the American National Standards

8 Institute safety standard ANSI Z245.5 1990, and

9 (2) load materials into a compactor that is in

10 compliance with the American National Standards

11 Institute safety standard ANSI Z245.2 1992.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of our knowledge that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of Gateway Tax Credit Fund II, Ltd. for the period ended June 30, 2010 containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M. Diner

Ronald M. Diner

President

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

August 13, 2010/s/ Toni S. Matthews

Toni S. Matthews

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

August 13, 2010
#### § 19.25 How is this part organized?

(a) This part is subdivided into ten subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities, as shown in the following table:

| In subpart . . . | You will find provisions related to . . . |
| --- | --- |
| A | general information about this rule. |
| B | the types of Department of the Treasury transactions that are covered by the Governmentwide nonprocurement suspension and debarment system. |
| C | the responsibilities of persons who participate in covered transactions. |
| D | the responsibilities of Department of the Treasury officials who are authorized to enter into covered transactions. |
| E | the responsibilities of Federal agencies for the *Excluded Parties List System* (Disseminated by the General Services Administration). |
| F | the general principles governing suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion and settlement. |
| G | suspension actions. |
| H | debarment actions. |
| I | definitions of terms used in this part. |
| J | [Reserved] |

(b) The following table shows which subparts may be of special interest to you, depending on who you are:

| If you are . . . | See subpart(s) . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) a participant or principal in a nonprocurement transaction | A, B, C, and I. |
| (2) a respondent in a suspension action | A, B, F, G and I. |
| (3) a respondent in a debarment action | A, B, F, H and I. |
| (4) a suspending official | A, B, D, E, F, G and I. |
| (5) a debarring official | A, B, D, E, F, H and I. |
| (6) a (n) Department of the Treasury official authorized to enter into a covered transaction | A, B, D, E and I. |
| (7) Reserved | J. |
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 240.4 Presentment guarantees. The guarantors of a check presented to the Treasury for payment are deemed to guarantee to the Treasury all of the following: ( a ) *Indorsements.* That all prior indorsements are genuine, whether or not an express guarantee is placed on the check. When the first indorsement has been made by one other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the indorsers are deemed to guarantee to the Treasury, in addition to other guarantees, that the person who so indorsed had unqualified capacity and authority to indorse the check on behalf of the payee.
( b ) *Alterations.* That the check has not been materially altered.
( c ) *Drawer's signature.* That the guarantors have no knowledge that the signature of the drawer is forged or unauthorized.
( d ) *Authenticity and validity.* That the guarantors have made all reasonable efforts to ensure that a check is both an authentic Treasury check (*i.e.,* it is not a counterfeit check) and a valid Treasury check (*i.e.,* it has not been previously negotiated or canceled).
( e ) *Electronic check.* If the check is an electronic check, that— ( 1 ) The check accurately represents all of the information on the front and back of the original or substitute check that was truncated and meets the technical requirements for sending electronic items to a Federal Reserve Bank as set forth in the Federal Reserve Banks' operating circulars;
( 2 ) Treasury will not receive presentment of, or otherwise be charged for, the electronic check, the original check, or a substitute check (or a paper or electronic reproduction of any of the foregoing) such that Treasury will be asked to make payment based on a check it already has paid; and
( 3 ) Treasury's receipt of the electronic check instead of the original or substitute check will not result in the loss of Treasury's ability to determine whether the check contains a material defect or alteration.
( f ) *Substitute check.* If the check is a substitute check, that the guarantors make the warranties set forth at 12 CFR 229.52(a)(1) and (2) and the indemnity set forth at 12 CFR 229.53.
[69 FR 61568, Oct. 19, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 74889, Nov. 1, 2023]
exv10w7wiv



 





Exhibit 10.7(iv)




	 	 	 
	

	 	TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.






	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Date: January 7th, 2007

	Mr. Erez Golan
	 	 






Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement




Dear Sir,



We are pleased to inform you that on January 7, 2007 the stockholders of TopSpin Medical (Israel)
Ltd. (the “Company”) and the Board of Directors of the Company approved, following the
recommendation and the approval of the ESOP and Compensation Committee, the Audit Committee and
Board of Directors of TopSpin Medical, Inc., the Company’s parent company (the “Corporation”) on
November 17, 2007 and the approval of the stockholders of the Corporation on January 7, 2007, to
amend the terms of your employment with the Company in accordance with the following:





	1.	 	Salary: notwithstanding Section 5 of the Employment Agreement between you and the
Company, dated as of December 9, 2002, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”; all
capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement), your monthly Salary shall be amended to a
total of NIS 55,000, to be linked to the increase of the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) from
the CPI known on November 17, 2006 to the CPI as known on the date of payment of the Salary.
	 
	2.	 	Cash Bonus: you shall be entitled to receive a cash bonus to be calculated on the
basis of the Corporations revenues from sales of the Corporation’s IVMRI catheter system for
the cardiology field during the year 2007 (the “Revenues”), such cash bonus equaling 10% of
the Revenues grossed by the Corporation over US$ 250,000 and up to US$ 500,000 and 5% of the
Revenues grossed by the Corporation over US$ 500,000. The accumulated Revenues shall be
reviewed at the end of each calendar quarter of 2007. The cash bonus shall be calculated and
paid with respect to Revenues accumulated as of January 1, 2007 and until the end of each
quarter (after deduction of any amount paid on account of the cash bonus on the preceding
quarters). The cash bonus shall be paid with in 14 days following the approval of the
quarterly financial statements by the Board.
	 
	3.	 	Options: you shall be entitled to receive option to purchase Common Stock of the
Corporation with a par value of US$ 0.001 each, in the number and under the terms and
conditions set forth in the Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
	 
	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement not specifically amended herein
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
	 
	5.	 	Please confirm your consent to the abovementioned by returning an executed copy of this
letter.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	/s/ Michael Berman   /s/ Eyal Kolka	 	 
	 

	 	 

TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.
	 	 






 









 





Agreed and confirmed:




	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael Berman   /s/ Eyal Kolka
	 	 
	 

TopSpin Medical, Inc.

	 	 






I confirm and agree to the above:




	 	 	 
	/s/ Erez Golan
	 	 
	 

Erez Golan
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Winton Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Robert L. Bollin, the President 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 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/Robert L. Bollin
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Robert L. Bollin
                                      President
                                      (Chief Executive Officer)

                                      Date: February 12, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Winton Financial Corporation and will be retained by Winton
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41420-41421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19610]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13411-000]


Clean River Power MR-6, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 6, 2009.
    On March 25, 2009, Clean River Power MR-6, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Rokeby Lock and Dam Water 
Power Project, to be located at the State of Ohio's Rokeby lock and dam 
on the Muskingum River in Morgan County, Ohio.
    The proposed Rokeby Lock and Dam Project would consist of: (1) The 
existing 20-foot-high, 525-foot-long concrete dam; (2) the existing 
615-acre reservoir with a 4,576 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a new 
150-foot-long, 140-foot-wide intake structure; (4) a 150-foot-long, 
140-foot-wide power canal; (5) a new powerhouse containing six proposed 
generating units with a total installed capacity of 2.8 megawatts; (6) 
a new 100-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new switchyard containing a single 
three-phase step-up transformer; and (8) a new 1,200-foot-long, 34.5-
kilovolt overhead transmission line. The project would have an 
estimated average annual generation of 11,400 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Skelly, 8425 Beechmont Avenue, 
Cincinnati, OH 45255, phone (513) 375-9242.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the

[[Page 41421]]

``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may 
be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be 
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more 
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the 
Commission's Web site located at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13411) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19610 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
§ 51.1 Overview. ( a ) The regulations in this part 51 are designated “Branded Prescription Drug Fee Regulations.”
( b ) The regulations in this part 51 provide guidance on the annual fee imposed on covered entities engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs by section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)). All references in these regulations to section 9008 are references to section 9008 of the ACA, as amended by section 1404 of HCERA. Unless otherwise indicated, all other section references are to sections in the Internal Revenue Code. All references to “fee” in these regulations are references to the fee imposed by section 9008.
( c ) Section 9008(b)(4) sets an applicable fee amount for each year, beginning with 2011, that will be apportioned among covered entities with aggregate branded prescription drug sales of over $5 million to government programs or pursuant to coverage under such programs. Generally, each covered entity is liable for a fee in each fee year that is based on its sales of branded prescription drugs in the sales year that corresponds to the fee year in an amount determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the rules of this part.
[T.D. 9684, 79 FR 43639, July 28, 2014]