alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 20.205 What must I include in my drug-free workplace statement? You must publish a statement that— ( a ) Tells your employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in your workplace;
( b ) Specifies the actions that you will take against employees for violating that prohibition; and
( c ) Lets each employee know that, as a condition of employment under any award, he or she: ( 1 ) Will abide by the terms of the statement; and
( 2 ) Must notify you in writing if he or she is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace and must do so no more than five calendar days after the conviction.
§ 54.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters. ( a ) *In general.* For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under § 1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78459, Dec. 22, 2008]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Newark, Delaware

# 									Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Newark, Delaware							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 15, 2023

As part of International Education Week, Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs (GPA), Bill Russo, will travel to Newark, DE and the University of Delaware, on November 15. During this visit, Assistant Secretary Russo will emphasize the important role of international education and exchange as the University commemorates the 100th anniversary of its study abroad program, the oldest in the nation.

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

Tags

Bureau of Global Public AffairsDelawareEducationOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic TravelStudent Programs

Back to Top
### NUMBER 13 - 1 8 - 00 488 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JESUS GARZA , A ppellant ,
v. MARIO V. RIOS , A ppellee
.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 275 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant, Jesus Garza , attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 275 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C

- 6403

- 13

- E

. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.2

Judgment in this cause was signed on May 23, 2018 and a motion for new trial

was timely filed. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2018. On September 6, 2018 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appea red that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive. Appellant responded by filing a motion to extend tim e to file notice of appeal

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26. 1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26. 1 (a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed

. Id. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notic e of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by r ule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

- 18, 619 (1997). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 26.1, appellant ’ s notice of appeal was due on August 21, 2018, but was not filed until September 6, 2018. Although appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, the notice of appeal was filed beyond the fifteen

- day g race period. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3; Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617

– 18. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, th e Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1.3

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, appellant’s motion to extend time to file notice of appeal is DENIED and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(a).

GINA M. BENAVIDES , Justice
D elivered and filed the 25t h day of October , 20 1 8

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Faamanatu TAUALII, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-17297.

D.C. No. CV-01-00394-DAE.

D.C. No. CR-93-01075-DAE.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 20, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Faamanatu Taualii appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Tauaulii contends that *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), renders his sentence unconstitutional. We recently held that the rule announced in *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review. *United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002). The district court’s order is therefore

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 359.2 [Reserved]
§ 29.343 Disability benefits. ( a ) The general rule that Federal Benefit Payments are calculated under the applicable retirement plan as though the employee were eligible for optional retirement and separated on June 30, 1997, does not apply to disability benefits prior to optional retirement age.
( b ) In cases involving disability benefits prior to optional retirement age, no Federal Benefit Payment is payable until the retiree reaches the age of eligibility to receive a deferred annuity (age 55 under the Police and Firefighters Plan and age 62 under the Teachers Plan). When the age for deferred annuity is reached, the Federal Benefit Payment is paid using creditable service accrued as of June 30, 1997, and average salary (computed under the rules for the applicable plan) as of the date of separation. (See examples 6 and 7 of appendix A of this subpart.)
( c ) In no case will the amount of the Federal Benefit Payment exceed the amount of the total disability annuity.
39820.

#### LINDSEY v. THE STATE.

Frankum, Judge.

“ ‘One essential element in the offense of cheating and swindling by false representations is that the representations must relate to an existing fact or past event. A representation, even though false and fraudulent, relating to the future can not be the basis of a prosecution for cheating and swindling. *Ryan v. State,*45 Ga. 128; *Miller v. State,*99 Ga. 207 (25 SE 169); *Dickerson v. State,*113 Ga. 1035 (39 SE 426); *Edge v. State,*114 Ga. 113 (39 SE 889); *Goddard v. State,*2 Ga. App. 154 (58 SE 304); *Meacham v. State, 7*Ga. App. 713 (2) (68 SE 52). *Vaughan v. State,*36 Ga. App. 675 (137 SE 854).” *Gilligan v. State,*64 Ga. App. 311 (13 SE2d 112).

The language of the accusation in the instant case shows that the alleged false representations relied upon by the prosecutor related to an act that the accused promised to perform in • the future. As stated in *Meacham v. State, 7*Ga. App. 713, 716, supra: “The reason of the rule [that false representa- . tions which afford the basis of a prosecution for cheating and swindling must relate to events in the present or in the past] is that if the party to whom the representation was made had full knowledge of the real condition of affairs, *or chose to rely upon the promise as to a future contingency,*he is not deceived by deceitful means or artful practice (because he knows all of the facts in their true relation), *but his loss re-*
      *113
      *suits from his absolute confidence in .the party making the promise.”*(Emphasis ours).

Decided December 5, 1962.

*Sumner & Boatright, J. Laddie. Boatright,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. H. White, Solicitor,*contra.

The court erred in overruling the accused’s demurrer to the accusation, and all further proceedings against the accused were rendered nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
# L_2019329EN.01009701.xml

| 19.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 329/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 329/97

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1891 of 11 November 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela

(Official Journal of the European Union L 291 of 12 November 2019)

On page 15, Annex, Table, entry 3, second column (‘Name’):

for:

‘Tibisay LucenaRamírez’,

read:

‘Tibisay Lucena Ramírez’.

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

§ 225.6 Payment of interest. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in this section and § 225.7(b), interest accruing upon Government obligations pledged to a bond official's agency in accordance with this part will be remitted to the obligor or a depositary acting as agent or sub-agent for the obligor.
( b ) *Default.* If the bond official determines that the obligor has defaulted, the bond official will retain any interest accruing upon Government obligations pledged to the bond official's agency or direct the custodian, in accordance with this part, to retain such interest. Unless otherwise provided by law, such interest will be available to satisfy any costs incurred by the United States related to the default, and any excess proceeds will be available to satisfy any other claim of the United States against the obligor.
# L_2021440DE.01001201.xml

| 9.12.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 440/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 440/12

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2020/359 der Kommission vom 4. März 2020 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011 zur Festlegung technischer Vorschriften und von Verwaltungsverfahren in Bezug auf das fliegende Personal in der Zivilluftfahrt gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 216/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 67 vom 5. März 2020
  )

Seite 88, Anhang I Nummer 7 Buchstabe b zur Änderung von Anhang I Teil-FCL Abschnitt A Punkt FCL.055 Buchstabe e der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011:

Anstatt:

| „e) | ‚Der Nachweis der Sprachkenntnisse und des Gebrauchs der englischen Sprache für IR-Inhaber erfolgt nach einer von der zuständigen Behörde festgelegten Bewertungsmethode.‘
  “ |
| --- | --- |

„e)

‚Der Nachweis der Sprachkenntnisse und des Gebrauchs der englischen Sprache für IR-Inhaber erfolgt nach einer von der zuständigen Behörde festgelegten Bewertungsmethode.‘
  “

muss es heißen:

| „e) | ‚Der Nachweis der Sprachkenntnisse und des Gebrauchs der englischen Sprache für IR-Inhaber erfolgt nach einer von einer zuständigen Behörde festgelegten Bewertungsmethode.‘
  “ |
| --- | --- |

„e)

‚Der Nachweis der Sprachkenntnisse und des Gebrauchs der englischen Sprache für IR-Inhaber erfolgt nach einer von einer zuständigen Behörde festgelegten Bewertungsmethode.‘
  “

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Vietnam report.
 
SuDoc Number: PREX7.13: | PREX 7.16/5:
Item Number: 1067-L-12(online)
CGP systemNumber: 000924909
 
 
1982
May 
n2366_25_May_1982.pdf
n2367_26_May_1982.pdf
 

 
June
n2368_2_Jun_1982.pdf
n2369_3_Jun_1982.pdf
n2370_15_Jun_1982.pdf
n2371_17_Jun_1982.pdf
n2372_23_Jun_1982.pdf
n2373_28_Jun_1982.pdf
n2374_29_Jun_1982.pdf
 

 
July
n2375_2_Jul_1982.pdf
n2376_6_Jul_1982.pdf
n2377_13_Jul_1982.pdf
n2378_15_Jul_1982.pdf
n2379_22_Jul_1982.pdf
n2380_23_Jul_1982.pdf
n2381_23_Jul_1982.pdf
n2382_26_Jul_1982.pdf
n2383_29_Jul_1982.pdf
n2384_30_Jul_1982.pdf
 

 
August
n2385_5_Aug_1982.pdf
n2386_10_Aug_1982.pdf
n2387_17_Aug1982.pdf
n2388_20_Aug_1982.pdf
n2389_30_Aug_1982.pdf
 

 
September
N2393_14_Sep_1982.pdf
n2391_9_Sep_1982.pdf
n2392_13_Sep_1982.pdf
n2394_21_Sep_1982.pdf
n2395_23_Sep_1982.pdf
n2396_28_Sep_1982.pdf
n2397_29_Sep_1982.pdf
 

 
October
n2398_7_Oct_1982.pdf
n2399_13_Oct_1982.pdf
n2400_15_Oct_1982.pdf
n2401_20_Oct_1982.pdf
n2402_20_Oct_1982.pdf
n2403_22_Oct_1982.pdf
n2404_26_Oct_1982.pdf
 

 
November
n2407_4_Nov_1982.pdf
n2408_10_Nov_1982.pdf
n2409_16_Nov_1982.pdf
n2410_26_Nov_1982.pdf
 

 
December
n2411_2_Dec_1982.pdf
n2412_3_Dec_1982.pdf
n2413_9_Dec_1982.pdf
n2414_14_Dec_1982.pdf
n2415_16_Dec_1982.pdf
n2416_20_Dec_1982.pdf
n2417_27_Dec_1982.pdf
 

 
 
January 4, 2018
 **
# LI2020225EN.01000301.xml

| 14.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 225/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 225/3

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/512 of 7 April 2020 amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 113 of 8 April 2020
  )

On page 35, the Annex, Persons, entry 74, first column (‘Name’):

for:

‘REZVANMA- NESH Ali’,

read:

‘REZVANMA-NESH Ali’.

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

§ 351.26 What are the interest rates and redemption values for bonds with issue dates from May 1, 1995 through April 1, 1997, during semiannual rate periods that begin 5 years or more after issue date? ( a ) *Interest rates.* The interest rate for a Series EE bond bearing an issue date of May 1, 1995, through April 1, 1997, for semiannual earning periods beginning 5 years from issue date through original maturity, is the long-term savings bond rate as defined in § 351.12.
( b ) *Redemption values.* We calculate redemption values for semiannual accrual dates occurring after 5 years from issue date, through original maturity, in accordance with § 351.28, except that the redemption value at the date of original maturity shall not be less than the denomination (face amount or face value).
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

###### Editorial Note on Part 356

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 70 FR 57439, Sept. 30, 2005.

#### § 356.21 How are awards at the high yield, discount rate, or discount margin calculated?

(a) *Awards to submitters.* We generally prorate bids at the highest accepted yield, discount rate, or discount margin under § 356.20(a)(2) of this part. For example, if 80.15% is the announced percentage at the highest yield, discount rate, or discount margin, we award 80.15% of the amount of each bid at that yield, discount rate, or discount margin. A bid for $100 million at the highest accepted yield, discount rate, or discount margin would be awarded $80,150,000 in this example. We always make awards for at least the minimum to bid, and above that amount we make awards in the appropriate multiple to bid. For example, Treasury bills may be issued with a minimum to bid of $100 and multiples to bid of $100. Say we accept an $18,000 bid at the high discount rate, and the percent awarded at the high discount rate is 88.27%. We would award $15,900 to that bidder, which is an upward adjustment from $15,888.60 ($18,000 × .8827) to the nearest multiple of $100. If we were to award 4.65% of bids at the highest accepted rate, for example, the award for a $100 bid at that rate would be $100, rather than $4.65, in order to meet the minimum to bid for a bill issue.

(b) *Awards to customers.* The same prorating rules apply to customers as apply to submitters. Depository institutions and dealers, whether submitters or intermediaries, are responsible for prorating awards for their customers at the same percentage that we announce. For example, if 80.15% is the announced percentage at the highest yield, discount rate, or discount margin, then each customer bid at that yield, discount rate, or discount margin must be awarded 80.15%.

[69 FR 45202, July 28, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 26086, June 1, 2009; 78 FR 46430, July 31, 2013]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS JAVIER MONTANEZ SOTO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72080

Agency No. A095

- 763

- 017

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Javier Montanez Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

* 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

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72080

denial of a motion to reo pen. Martinez

- Hernandez v. Holder , 778 F.3d 1086, 1088

(9th Cir. 2015)

. We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Montanez Soto’s motion

to reope n as untimely, where he conceded the motion was filed past the 90

- day

filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he provided no evidence of due

diligence for equitable tolling of the deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder

, 646 F.3d

672, 679 (9 th Cir. 2011) ( equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented

from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as

the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances) ; Carrillo

Gonzalez v. INS , 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) ( statemen ts by counsel are

not evidence)

.

In light of this disposition , we do not address Montanez Soto’s contentions

regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA DOCKET NO. 2014NM070012 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

# RECEIVED AUG 2 52014 

## HEARING DOCKET

DMSNO.FAA-NOTYETASSIGNED

### ~6 

# N· 0 5Z)d,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: NOT YETASIGNED REQUEST FORHEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16 COMES NOW, Respondent, AirMedical Resource Group, Inc., by and through undersigned counselpursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16, and hereby requests a hearing concerniug the allegations raised in the Complainant's Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated August 6, 2014, which proposes to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$12,000.00. Respondent denies the violations alleged inthe Complainant's Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty and prays that it be reversed. Respondent requests that a hearing be held in South Jordan, UT. A hearing is expected to lasttwo (2) full days.Dated: August 18, 2014

2 The vi ti awFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Counsel forRespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify thatI have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original and one (1) copy ofthe foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Federal Aviation Administration Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 And, further, that I have this date servedby regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to:

Dated: Jeffrey M. Harper Federal Aviation Administration NorthwestMountainRegion Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 August 18, 2014

S. WINTON, ESQ. T e Av· tion LawFirm

997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Counsel for Respondent

3
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1359 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1359

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                 coastwise trade for the vessel TRIAD.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1995

Mr. Torkildsen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                 coastwise trade for the vessel TRIAD.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,  That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel TRIAD (United States 
official number 988602).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 19.440 What method do I use to communicate those requirements to participants?

To communicate the requirements, you must include a term or condition in the transaction requiring the participants' compliance with subpart C of this part and requiring them to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.

[68 FR 66607, Nov. 26, 2003]