alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.511 Demand letters. Except as provided in § 29.516(e), before starting collection action to recover an overpayment, the Benefits Administrator must send a demand letter that informs the debtor in writing— ( a ) That an overpayment has occurred, the amount of the overpayment, and the facts giving rise to the overpayment;
( b ) The date by which payment of the debt should be made to avoid additional charges (*i.e.*, interest, penalties and administrative costs) permitted by the FCCS and enforced collection;
( c ) The requirement that any overpayment debt delinquent for more than 180 days be transferred to the Department of the Treasury's Financial Management Service for collection;
( d ) The name, address, and phone number of the appropriate person or office the debtor may contact about the debt;
( e ) The remedies which may be used to enforce payment of the debt, including assessment of interest, administrative costs and penalties; administrative wage garnishment; the use of collection agencies; Federal salary offset; tax refund offset; administrative offset; and litigation.
( f ) Whether offset is available and, if so, the types of payment(s) to be offset or eligible for offset, the repayment schedule (if any), the right to request an adjustment in the repayment schedule, and the right to request a voluntary repayment agreement in lieu of offset;
( g ) An explanation of the Department's policy on interest, penalties, and administrative costs as set forth in 31 CFR part 5, the FCCS, and 31 U.S.C. 3717, including a statement that such assessments must be made unless excused in accordance with the FCCS;
( h ) The debtor's opportunity to request repayment in installments if the debtor can show an inability to repay the debt in one lump sum;
( i ) The debtor's opportunity to inspect and/or receive a copy of the records relating to the overpayment;
( j ) The method and time period (60 calendar days) for requesting reconsideration, waiver, and/or compromise of the overpayment;
( k ) That all requests for waiver or compromise must be accompanied by a disclosure of the debtor's financial condition and ability to pay the debt;
( l ) The standards used by the Department in deciding requests for waiver (set forth in §§ 29.521 through 29.526) and compromise (set forth in 31 CFR 902.2); and
( m ) The fact that a timely filing of a request for reconsideration, waiver and/or compromise, or a subsequent timely appeal of a reconsideration decision, will stop collection proceedings, unless— ( 1 ) Failure to take the offset would substantially prejudice the Federal Government's ability to collect the debt; and
( 2 ) The time before the payment is to be made does not reasonably permit the completion of these procedures.
#### § 19.710 When does a suspension take effect?

A suspension is effective when the suspending official signs the decision to suspend.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EVERTON BARTLEY, a/k/a Frederick Alexander Martin, a/k/a 

John,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00210-FDW-4)

Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everton Bartley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Everton Bartley appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Bartley, No. 3:00-cr-00210-

FDW-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00198-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has this day considered the Relators’ emergency motion for stay of underlying 

proceedings and concludes that the motion should be GRANTED. The 205th District Court of El 

Paso County, Texas is ordered to stay all proceedings in cause number 20170D02097, styled The 

State of Texas v. James Heredia., pending resolution of this original proceeding or further order of 

this Court. Further, the Court has determined that no action will be taken on the Relator’s Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus pending a response from the Real Party in Interest. The response is 

requested to be filed on or before August 28, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 2127** 

H. JAY SPIEGEL & ASSOCIATES , P.C.,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
STEVEN M. SPIEGEL , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00949

- JCC

- TRJ )

Submitted : October 1 4 , 2010 Decided: November 8, 2010

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per cu riam opinion

.
H. Jay Spiegel, Appellant Pro Se. Steven M. Spiegel, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: H. Jay Spiegel appeals the district court ’ s order entering judgment against him on his t rademark infringement
claim . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. H. Jay Spiegel & Assocs. v. Spiegel , No. 1:08

-

cv - 00949

- JCC

- TRJ (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2009) . We disp ense 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
#### Edward B. Harper, Appellant, *against*Albert G. Goodall, Respondent.

(Decided December 5th, 1881.)

The employment of a broker to rent the premises in which the family lives is not within the scope of the ordinary agency of a wife; and an action cannot be maintained by a broker for commissions for such services rendered at the request of the wife and daughter of the defendant, where no special authority from or ratification by him is shown.

Appeal from, a judgment of the district court in the City of Hew York for the Sixth Judicial District.

The action was brought to recover commissions claimed by the plaintiff, as broker, for procuring tenants for Ho. 339 West 34th Street, Hew York. The justice dismissed the complaint and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. From the judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

*Henry T. Dewey*and *George W. Brush,*for appellant.

*-D. M.*Porter, for respondent.

J. F. Daly, J.

The plaintiff had no personal transaction with defendant, neither had his clerks and agents. The latter acted upon the assumption that defendant’s wife and daughter had authority to employ them. Ho authority can be assumed in a case like the present. The employment of a real estate broker to rent the premises in which the family lives is not within the scope of the ordinary agency of the wife, and special authority or ratification must be shown. There was no ratification, for defendant is not shown to have accepted the fruits of plaintiff’s efforts with full knowledge of the facts.

The proper course for plaintiff would have been to secure a direct employment from defendant, or direct authority from him to treat with the latter’s wife or daughter on the subject. It would be too severe to hold the head of the family respon*270sible for such admissions and declarations as a shrewd broker, or his active clerk, who is *“*working up the case,” may be able to extort from a wife and daughter or other members of the family.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Van Hoesen, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 340.0 Authority for sale of Treasury bonds through competitive bidding.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may, from time to time, by public notice, offer Treasury bonds for sale and invite bids therefor. The bonds so offered and the bids made will be subject to the terms and conditions and the rules and regulations herein set forth, except as they may be modified in the public notice or notices issued by the Secretary in connection with particular offerings.[1] The bonds will be subject also to the general rules and regulations of the Treasury Department, now or hereafter prescribed, governing United States securities. They will be issued pursuant to the authority of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended.

(b) The terms *public notice, notices,* or *announcement* as used in this part mean the *Public Notice of Invitation to Bid* on Treasury bonds and any supplementary or amendatory notices or announcements with respect thereto, including, but not limited to any statement released to the press by the Secretary of the Treasury and notices sent to those who have filed notices of intent to bid or who have filed bids.

###### Footnotes -
  340.0

[1] These regulations do not apply to Treasury bills, which are governed by Department Circular No. 418, Revised, and do not constitute a specific offering of bonds.
§ 3.30 Policy. ( a ) The Department of the Treasury may indemnify, in whole or in part, a Department employee (which for purposes of this regulation shall include a former employee) for any verdict, judgment or other monetary award rendered against such employee, provided the Secretary or his or her designee determines that ( 1 ) the conduct giving rise to such verdict, judgment or award was within the scope of his or her employment and
( 2 ) such indemnification is in the interest of the Department of the Treasury.
( b ) The Department of the Treasury may pay for the settlement or compromise of a claim against a Department employee at any time, provided the Secretary or his or her designee determines that ( 1 ) the alleged conduct giving rise to the claim was within the scope of the employee's employment and
( 2 ) such settlement or compromise is in the interest of the Department of the Treasury.
( c ) Absent exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Secretary or his or her designee, the Department will not entertain a request to indemnify or to pay for settlement of a claim before entry of an adverse judgment, verdict or other determination.
( d ) When a Department employee becomes aware that he or she has been named as a party in a proceeding in his or her individual capacity as a result of conduct within the scope of his or her employment, the employee should immediately notify his or her supervisor that such an action is pending. The supervisor shall promptly thereafter notify the chief legal officer of the employee's employing component. The employee shall immediately apprise the chief legal officer of his or her employing component of any offer to settle the proceeding.
( e ) A Department employee may request indemnification to satisfy a verdict, judgment or monetary award entered against the employee or to compromise a claim pending against the employee. The employee shall submit a written request, with appropriate documentation including a copy of the verdict, judgment, award or other order or settlement proposal, in a timely manner to the Secretary or his or her designee for decision.
( f ) Any payment under this section either to indemnify a Department employee or to settle a claim shall be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds for the payment of salaries and expenses of the employing component.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics

HomeEnvironment...About Us

# 									About Us							

Office of Environmental Quality

Pollution of air, water, soil and biota take a toll on our economy and on the overall welfare of the American people.  Contamination by toxic chemicals, some capable of crossing borders by traveling thousands of miles from their source, can also damage our long-term physical well-being and relations with neighbors.

To help combat these threats, ENV works within multilateral agreements such as the Montreal Protocol and multilateral organizations such as the UN Environment Program and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to enhance protection of the environment and promote prosperity, national security, health and safety.  ENV also contributes to the integration of environmental considerations into the work of multilateral development banks, and promotes progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  These efforts bring health and economic benefits to the United States and the global community.

We also work with free trade agreement partners to strengthen their laws and improve enforcement, helping ensure that businesses in these countries are regulated by similar environmental rules as U.S. businesses.

Back to Top
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


CONTINGENT ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT



 


THIS IS PREPARED WITH THE CONTINGENCY OF THE RENTAL OF THE FOLLOWING MENTIONED PROPERTY. ADDENDUM TO LEASE DATED MARCH 1, 2009 (LEASE AGREEMENT ) WITH A MOVE IN DATE OF APRIL 1, 2012 BETWEEN HENRY AMALGAMATED LLC, (LESSOR) AND ANGIE’S LIST, INC., (LESSEE).


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into the lease agreement dated March 1, 2009 for office space.


 


NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Lease Agreement is hereby modified and amended in the following respects to be effective April 1, 2012 with a move in date of April 1, 2012. WIT:


 



	  	
1.

	
Paragraph (1) (Description of Premises) Lessor hereby leases additional space known as the following to the lessee:  934 E Washington Street Suite B, Indianapolis, IN 46202













	  	
2.

	
Paragraph (4) (Rent) The amount for the additional office space with square footage of 4,600 will be $5,418.40 a month.







 


Except as specifically mentioned herein, all other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain the same and unchanged


 


Henry Amalgamated LLC


Lessor



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Karl Northern

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
4/10/2012







 


Angie’s List, Inc


Lessee



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Robert R. Millard

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
4/10/2012
40124.

#### BOLTON v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of cruelty to an animal. His amended motion for new trial was denied and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

1. The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the finding that the defendant wilfully and without justification shot and killed a dog, the property of Yirge Lovell, Sr., as charged in the accusation; and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit. *May v. State,*120 Ga. 497 (2) (48 SE 153); *Moore v. State,*121 Ga. 194 (48 SE 919).

2. “In the absence of a proper and pertinent written request for instructions thereon, the court is not bound to give in charge the law of a theory of the case arising solely from the statement of the accused.” *Hardin v. State,*107 Ga. 718 (3) (33 SE 700); *Richards v. State,*114 Ga. 834 (40 SE 1001); *Smith v. State,*117 Ga. 259 (43 SE 703); *Jackson v. State,*201 Ga. 364 (39 SE2d 756); *Davis v. State,*205 Ga. 248, 251 (3) (53 SE2d 545). Special grounds 1 and 2 which assign error on the failure of the court to give in charge to the jury without request certain enumerated instructions relating to the defendant’s contention (as raised solely in his unsworn statement to the jury) that he was justified in killing the dog, are without merit.

3. “A fact established by the record must prevail over a recital of fact in contradiction therewith in an approved ground of the *884motion for a new trial.” *Aspinwall v. Holland,*39 Ga. App. 603 (1) (147 SE 897). Special ground 3 which assigns error on a purported excerpt from the charge of the court, is without merit since the excerpt complained of cannot be found in the charge of court as it appears of record, the same having been approved by the trial court as being a “true, correct and complete copy of the charge given.” *Halbrook v. Oakley,*96 Ga. App. 21 (2) (99 SE2d 323); *Searles v. State,*107 Ga. App. 412 (1) (130 SE2d 253).

Decided June 4, 1963.

*Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert F. Oliver, Solicitor, Jack M. Gunter, Irwin R. Kimzey,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Belgium, Brunei, Thailand, and Laos

# 											Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Belgium, Brunei, Thailand, and Laos									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 29, 2023

Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs William Russo will travel to Belgium, Brunei, Thailand, and Laos from November 29 to December 8, 2023.  His trip will prioritize working with U.S. embassies on policy and messaging priorities and engaging with partners in the information space.  Assistant Secretary Russo will meet with government officials, local and international media outlets, students, journalists, non-governmental organizations, and U.S. embassy staff. 

In Belgium, Assistant Secretary Russo will be the Head of Delegation for the United States to the 2023 NATO Senior Communicators Conference.  This conference will focus on the challenge of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference and discuss Alliance communications efforts and messaging related to the NATO Washington Summit to be held in July 2024.  While there, he will meet with several counterparts among our NATO Allies, in addition to engaging with tri-mission staff.  

In Brunei, Assistant Secretary Russo will meet with Bruneian officials, including the Minster of Primary Resources and Tourism.  He will also speak with alumni of U.S. exchange programs and Bruneian journalists as we prepare to commemorate the 40th anniversary of U.S.-Brunei diplomatic relations in 2024. 

In Thailand, Assistant Secretary Russo will meet with Thai government officials, visit the Asia Pacific Media Hub, and meet with embassy staff.  He will also speak with journalists and media partners to discuss modern communications and the media environment.   

In Laos, Assistant Secretary Russo will meet with Lao PDR officials and visit the embassy.  He will also engage with journalists and media contacts to discuss the Lao PDR government’s plans and media preparations and support for the 2024 ASEAN Chair Year, as well as modern strategic communications and countering disinformation. 

Follow along on Twitter/X at @GPA_AS for more updates from the trip. 

Tags

BelgiumBruneiBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Global Public AffairsDisinformationEmbassies and ConsulatesLaosOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelThailand

Back to Top
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2020245DE.01003101.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.7.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 245/31 |

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2020/954 des Rates vom 25. Juni 2020 über den im Namen der Europäischen Union in der Internationalen Zivilluftfahrt-Organisation zu vertretenden Standpunkt in Bezug auf die Mitteilung über die freiwillige Teilnahme am System zur Verrechnung und Verringerung von Kohlenstoffdioxid für die internationale Luftfahrt (CORSIA) ab dem 1. Januar 2021 und die für die Berechnung der Kompensationspflichten der Flugzeugbetreiber im Zeitraum 2021-2023 gewählte Option

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 212 vom 3. Juli 2020](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2020_212_R_TOC)
)

Seite 15, Erwägungsgrund 6, erster Satz:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(6) | 2017 wurde die Verordnung (EU) 2017/2392 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (3) durch die Richtlinie 2003/87/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (4) geändert.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(6) | 2017 wurde durch die Verordnung (EU) 2017/2392 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (3) die Richtlinie 2003/87/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (4) geändert.“ |

---
§ 1021.610 Due diligence programs for correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.610 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
Home...Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Participation in the Future Minerals Forum

# 									Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Participation in the Future Minerals Forum							

Office of the Spokesperson

January 9, 2024

Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGI) Helaina Matza will travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia January 9-11 to participate in the Future Minerals Forum.  In Riyadh, Acting Special Coordinator Matza will meet with government officials as well as private sector partners to continue ongoing PGI efforts to advance investment in clean energy supply chains.

To learn more about PGI’s priority areas, economic corridors, and investments thus far please visit our website.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsEconomic AffairsInvestmentsOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and InvestmentSaudi ArabiaTravel

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 328.1 Scope of regulations. The regulations in this part are applicable only to U.S. bearer securities[1] presented: ( a ) By or through banks for payment at or after their maturity or call date, or in exchange for any securities under any exchange offering,
( b ) By banks for conversion to book-entry securities,
( c ) By or through banks at any time prior to their maturity or call date for redemption at par and application of the entire proceeds in payment of Federal estate taxes, provided said securities by the terms of their issue are eligible for such redemption, and
( d ) By Service Center Directors and District Directors, Internal Revenue Service, for redemption, with the proceeds to be applied in payment of taxes (other than securities presented under paragraph (c) of this section).
These regulations do not apply to bearer securities presented for any other transactions, or to registered securities assigned in blank, or to bearer, or so assigned as to become, in effect, payable to bearer. Footnotes -
328.1
[1] Certain agencies of the United States and certain Government and Government-sponsored corporations also authorize the restrictive endorsement of bearer securities.