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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 162

To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for

Mexico during fiscal year 1996.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1996

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. ZELIFF, and Mr. MCCOLLUM) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

To disapprove the certification of the President under section

490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding

foreign assistance for Mexico during fiscal year 1996.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That pursuant to subsection (d) of section 490 of the For4 eign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), Congress

5 disapproves the determination of the President with re6 spect to Mexico for fiscal year 1996 that is contained in

7 the certification (transmittal No. 96–13) submitted to
2

•HJ 162 IH

1 Congress by the President under subsection (b) of that

2 section on March 1, 1996.

Æ
(November 17, 2005)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Fernandez, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 81]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered December 17, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 19 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that the verdict convicting defendant of depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) was not based on legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review. Were we to review it, we would reject it. The evidence established that defendant walked over to an ongoing fight between the victim and the codefendant, beat the victim on the head with a club-like metal flashlight for at least 20 to 45 seconds, hit him with sufficient force to split open his head with one blow and crack his skull with another, and then left *253him alone, lying in the middle of oncoming traffic. There was a valid line of reasoning from which a rational person could have concluded that defendant acted recklessly and with depraved indifference to human life rather than with the intent to cause death *(see People v Sanchez,*98 NY2d 373 [2002]; *People v Atkinson,*21 AD3d 145 [2005]).

Defendant’s constitutional argument concerning the relationship between depraved indifference murder and reckless manslaughter requires preservation *(see e.g. People v Iannelli,*69 NY2d 684 [1986]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it *(see United States v Batchelder,*442 US 114, 123-124 [1979]; *People v Mannix,*302 AD2d 297 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 622 [2003]).

Our determination that defendant was properly convicted of murder renders his remaining argument academic. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 342.1 Definition of words and terms used in this part. ( a ) *Payroll savings plan* refers to a voluntary program maintained by an employer whereby its participating officers and employees authorize regular withholdings from their salaries or wages for the purchase of savings bonds.
( b ) *Quarter* refers to a 3-month period of a year, as follows: January-February-March, April-May-June, July-August-September, or October-November-December.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Ambassador Hussain Travels to Morocco, The Gambia, and Senegal

# 									Ambassador Hussain Travels to Morocco, The Gambia, and Senegal							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 28, 2022

U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain will travel to Morocco, The Gambia, and Senegal from November 28 through December 1, 2022.  

On November 28, Ambassador Hussain will travel to Rabat and Casablanca, Morocco to meet with officials from the Moroccan government and civil society leaders.

On November 30, Ambassador Hussain will deliver keynote remarks at the 4th International Conference of Deaf Muslims in Banjul, The Gambia.  Ambassador Hussain will also meet with civil society leaders, youth organizations, and members of faith communities while in Banjul.

On December 1, Ambassador Hussain will travel to Dakar, Senegal to meet with government officials, non-governmental organizations, and faith communities. 

Follow the Ambassador’s travel on Twitter (@IRF_Ambassador and @StateIRF) and Facebook.com/DOSIRF. 

For media inquiries, please contact IRFPress@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyMoroccoOffice of International Religious FreedomOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelReligious FreedomSenegalThe Gambia

Back to Top
40301.

#### GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. SLIGH.

Hall, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court denying the appeal of the employer from a workmen’s compensation award in favor of the claimant. The evidence *355would clearly support the award of the hearing director based on a finding that the claimant had sustained a 35% disability to his right arm. Two surgeons testified. One was of the opinion that the disability to the claimant’s arm was 40%, the other that it was 20%. The question presented, however, is whether the award shows that the director’s evaluation of the evidence was based on an erroneous conclusion of law. The director noted in the award that the surgeon testifying to the 20% disability admitted that his disability rating “did not take into consideration claimant’s occupation but was based on the physical improvement that the patient had, which he could measure and see and evaluate as a physician,” and found “considering he was a laboring man on the assembly line with no physical impairment prior to his accidental injury the claimant has a 35% permanent partial disability to his right arm. . .” *Held:*

Decided September 20, 1963.

An award for an industrial handicap as specifically provided for by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, *Code Ann.*§ 114-406, is based on impairment to the member, “irrespective of the earning ability of a claimant after an accident is sustained.” *Roddy v. Hartford Acc. &c. Co.,*65 Ga. App. 632, 635, 639 (16 SE2d 81); accord, *Godbee v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,*95 Ga. App. 86, 88 (96 SE2d 648); *Brazier v. U. S. Fidelity &c. Co.,*99 Ga. App. 588, 591 (109 SE2d 309); 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 58.10; 99 CJS 1123, § 311; see 58 Am. Jur. 782, § 287; 786, § 293.

While the language of the director’s finding of fact quoted above might be considered surplusage, *Anderson v. Martin,*107 Ga. App. 309, 310 (130 SE2d 174), his comment on the testimony of the physician who gave the opinion of 20% disability shows that the director proceeded upon an erroneous theory in arriving at the award. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board with instructions to make findings of fact and enter an award applying the law in conformity with this opinion. *Carter v. Georgia Power Co.,*107 Ga. App. 380, 381 (130 SE2d 156); *Pike v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*107 Ga. App. 49, 52 (129 SE2d 78).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

*356*King & Spalding, Richard A. Denny, Jr., William H. Izlar, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bruce B. Edwards,*contra.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL COMER, :

 :

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 09-2455 (RMU)

:

v. :

:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF : Re Document Nos.: 15, 16, 22, 25, 38, 41,

INVESTIGATION et al., : 42, 43

: 

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LIFTING THE STAY AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

The pro se plaintiff, previously incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton,

South Dakota (“FPC Yankton”), filed a complaint on December 31, 2009, “seeking the

expedited processing and release of agency records” allegedly in the defendants’ possession. 

Compl. at 1. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Locator, the plaintiff was

released from custody on June 29, 2010, see http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp (last

visited Sept. 20, 2010), and mail sent to him at his current address of record, FPC Yankton, has

been returned to the Clerk of the Court as undeliverable.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(e)(1), the plaintiff was required to file a notice of any

change in his address within fourteen days after the change. See LCvR 5.1(e)(1). To date, he

has not done so. Nor has the plaintiff responded to any of the defendants’ pending dispositive

motions, notwithstanding a court order in each instance directing the plaintiff to file an

opposition by a date certain and advising him that his failure to respond could result in the

1
motions being granted as conceded. See Orders (April 6, 2010; March 30, 2010; March 18,

2010).

On August 12, 2010, the court issued an order to show cause directing the plaintiff to

notify the Clerk of Court of his change of address or, alternatively, of his intention not to

prosecute this case. Order (Aug. 12, 2010). The order set a deadline of September 15, 2010, and

to date, plaintiff has not responded. Id. 

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice

because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629 (1962). Because the plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s show cause order

and failed to prosecute this case, the court dismisses this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41 and Local Civil Rule 83.23. 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and

contemporaneously issued this 20th day of October, 2010.

RICARDO M. URBINA

 United States District Judge

2
§ 19.420 May I approve a transaction with an excluded or disqualified person at a lower tier? If a transaction at a lower tier is subject to your approval, you as an agency official may not approve— ( a ) A covered transaction with a person who is currently excluded, unless you obtain an exception under § 19.120; or
( b ) A transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you obtain a waiver or exception under the statute, Executive order, or regulation that is the basis for the person's disqualification.
#### MELVIN BOOTH, ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[Not reported in C. Cls. R. nor TJ. S. R.]

*On the defendants’ appeal.*

No opinion was delivered by the court below, but judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed January 17, 1916.
40414.

#### FREEMAN v. EHLERS.

Decided November 13, 1963.

*S. S. Robinson, E. E. Moore, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Howard & Storey, James C. Howard, Albert T. Ehlers, Ben J. Smith, Jr.,*contra.

Russell, Judge.

Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., p. 342 *(Code Ann.*§ 3-512) provides that as to all pending suits “in which no written order is taken for a period of five years the same shall automatically stand dismissed with costs to be taxed against the party plaintiff.” Its provisions are mandatory. *Bowen v. Morrison,*103 Ga. App. 632 (120 SE2d 57). Its purpose is to prevent the cluttering of court records with unresolved and inactive litigation. *Lewis v. Price,*104 Ga. App. 473, 476 (122 SE2d 129). Where no order is taken, the dismissal results automatically. *Dupriest v. Reese,*104 Ga. App. 805 (123 SE2d 161). An automatic dismissal is one which results as a matter of law from the occurrence of a condition specified in a statute or order of the court, and without any further action on the part of anybody. Cf. *Coffee v. Foote,*66 Ga. App. 701 (18 SE2d 782), where it was held that a petition as to which an order had been entered that it stood dismissed unless amended within a given time, was automatically dismissed by the lapse of time and could not be revived by a subsequent amendment.

The present suit having been pending, without any written order taken therein, for over five years after the effective date of *Code Ann.*§ 3-512 was automatically dismissed by operation of law, and the action of the clerk of court in entering an order of dismissal thereon was a purely ministerial act. The trial court did not err, on a subsequent motion of counsel for the plaintiff to reinstate the case, in holding that the dismissal was mandatory and he had no discretion to order it reinstated. Tire plaintiff’s remedy, provided he was not barred by the statute of limitation or some other cause, would be to bring the action over. *City of Chamblee v. Village of North Atlanta,*217 Ga. 517 (123 SE2d 663).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE **DAVID L. ALFORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County**  **No. 109725 Bobby R. McGee, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No. E2017**  **- 00436**  **- CCA** **- R3**  **- ECN** 

**___________________________________** The pro se petitioner, David L. Alford, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s judgment summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’ s judgment pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s position is well

- taken and affirm the judgment of the trial court. **Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgment of the**  **Criminal Cour t Affirmed** 

**Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crim inal Appeals.**  JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY THOMAS , JR ., and ROBERT H. M ONTGOMERY , JR . , JJ., joined. David L. Alford , Pro Se, Tiptonville , Tennessee
. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle , Assistant Attorney General ; and Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. **OPINION**

On June 25 , 201 5 , the petitioner pleaded guilty in Knox County Criminal Court to sale of less than .5 gram of cocaine, receiving a sentence of 5 years’ incarceration. On January 18 , 201 7 , the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging that a July 10, 2016 letter that he received from the District Attorney General concerning criminal charges brought against one of the officers involved in his case constituted newly discovered evidence that, had it been known at the time of trial, would have resulted in a different outcome relative to the petitioner ’s guilty plea
. The petitioner also asserted that the newly discovered evidence cast doubt on the voluntariness of his guilty plea. On February 10, 2017, the trial court summarily- 2
-

dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner had failed to allege a colorable claim for coram nobis relief. The petitioner f iled a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment. The State correctly asserts that the trial court’s summary dismissal should be affirmed because a writ of error coram nobis is not an available procedure to challenge a conviction arising from a guilty plea
. Frazier v. State , 495 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Tenn. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

_________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WIT, JR., JUDGE
39318.

#### BYINGTON v. THE STATE.

Decided November 28, 1962.

*Covington, Kilpatrick '& Storey, J. S. Kilpatrick, Sell & Comer, E. S. Sell, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wayne W. Gammon, Solicitor,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

The judgment of this court in *Byington v. State,*106 Ga. App. 247 (126 SE2d 698), has been reversed by the Supreme Court, and, in so doing, that court held: “The indictment charged the defendant with no violation of a public law. The holding of the Court of Appeals to the contrary and the defendant’s conviction are accordingly reversed.” *Byington v. State,*218 Ga. 440 (128 SE2d 329). Therefore, the said judgment of this court is hereby vacated and set aside, and the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the indictment is reversed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 342.7 Payment or redemption. ( a ) *General.* A savings note is redeemable any time one year or more after the issue date upon its presentation and surrender, with a duly executed request for payment, to any Federal Reserve Bank or Branch referred to in § 342.9, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, or to any financial institution designated as a paying agent of savings bonds.
( b ) *Judgment creditors.* Payment of a savings note to the purchaser at a sale under a levy, or to the officer authorized to levy upon the property of the owner under appropriate process to satisfy a money judgment, could not be made until one year after the issue date of the note.
[57 FR 14282, Apr. 17, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 10540, Mar. 4, 1994]
Note to Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0837

At 10 a.m. on Dec ember 9 , 2010, at 1310 L Street, Washington, D.C., EPA representatives Ragan Tate (OGC) , John Schakenbach (OAR), and Bob Vollaro (OAR) met with L auren Freeman of Hunton & Williams representing the Ut ility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and Lisa Jaeger of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP representing Air L iquide in settlement discussions related to the Petition for Review filed b y UARG , and the Petition for Review and Petition for Reconsideration filed by Air Liquide relating to January 24, 2008 amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing provisions of 40 CFR Part 75.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0346]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38438). The document announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Tomatoes.” The document was published with an incorrect date for submitting written or electronic comments on the draft guidance. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle A. Smith, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2024.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. E9-18453, appearing on page 38438 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 3, 2009, the following correction is made:                

                    1. On page 38438, in the third column, in the “                    **DATES**                    ” section, in the eighth line, “October 2, 2009” is corrected to read “November 2, 2009”.                

Dated: August 17, 2009.

David Horowitz,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-20103 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
§ 23.50 Exhaustion of administrative remedies. ( a ) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if: ( 1 ) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and Treasury has made no finding with regard to the complainant; or
( 2 ) Treasury issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
( b ) If Treasury fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, Treasury shall: ( 1 ) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact; and
( 2 ) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action for injunctive relief; and
( 3 ) Inform the complainant: ( i ) That the complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States district court for the district in which the recipient is found or transacts business;
( ii ) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fee, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint.
( iii ) That before commencing the action the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Secretary, the Secretary of HHS, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient.
( iv ) That the notice must state: The alleged violation of the Act; the relief requested; the court in which the complainant is bringing the action; and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
( v ) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.