alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Lu’s Travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh

# 									Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Lu’s Travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 9, 2024

Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu will travel to India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh May 10—15. His trip will strengthen bilateral cooperation with each country and demonstrate U.S. support for a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.

In Chennai, Assistant Secretary Lu will meet with Consulate personnel to bolster bilateral engagement in southern India.

He will then travel to Colombo to engage with officials from across the political spectrum and deepen the United States’ partnership with Sri Lanka. In his meetings, he will reaffirm the United States’ support for Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, as well as the importance of a robust civil society as a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

Assistant Secretary Lu will conclude his trip in Dhaka, where he will meet with government officials, civil society leaders, and other Bangladeshis to discuss U.S.-Bangladesh cooperation, including on addressing the climate crisis and deepening economic ties.

Tags

BangladeshBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsIndiaOffice of the SpokespersonSri Lanka

Back to Top
(S20)5-81 (NW SON

UNITED STATES

BATHYMETRIC MAP

SALISBURY, MD.; DEL) Ny VA,

at

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ATIGNAL OCEANK: AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
MATIGNAL CCTAN SURVEY
W975
Pane ot Warhorgrye, DC
he

UNITED STATES OEPARTMENST OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

eee MERCATOR PRUE TOM
, Some SOND

Citvalionet
Shit atone aes tap, moe
ih sont eee oe
HomeAssisted Schools...Bamako, Mali: American International School of Bamako: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Bamako, Mali: American International School of Bamako: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

March 1, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +223-93-03-6492 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: aisb@aisbmali.org | Website: www.aisbmali.org 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile**(Bamako- 2024 Special Needs- Mali [175 KB]) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

The**American International School of Bamako** (AISB) is an independent, coeducational private day school which offers a full U.S. educational program from prekindergarten (age two) through grade 12 and a complete high school program including Advanced Placement (AP) courses. The school was established in 1977 to serve the needs of American and international community students seeking an English-language education. The school year is divided into two semesters which begin in mid-August and in late January. There are 180 days in the school year.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

MaliOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6660

JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CA-02-1430-9-22)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Harrison Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Harrison Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here,

a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Singletary has not made the requisite

showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 136 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 136

   To require random drug testing within the executive branch of the 
                              Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require random drug testing within the executive branch of the 
                              Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Executive Branch Drug Testing Act''.

SEC. 2. RANDOM DRUG TESTING.

    (a) In General.--All officers and employees within the executive 
branch of the Government shall be subject to random drug testing in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the President.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``drug'' means 
a controlled substance, as defined by section 102(6) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Any regulations necessary to carry out this Act shall be issued in 
time so that they may be implemented beginning not later than the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 160 (Thursday, August 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42130-42131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20014]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) Subcommittee will 
hold a meeting on September 9, 2009, Commissioners' Conference Room, 
11555 Rockville Pike, O1-F16 Rockville, Maryland.
    The meeting will be open to public attendance, with exception of a 
portion that may be closed to discuss proprietary information pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review Topical Reports concerning the EPR 
Design Certification Application Review. The Subcommittee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of AREVA, 
the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the Full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-7366, E-mail: [email protected]) 
5 days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation 
or handout should be provided to the Designated Federal Official 30 
minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each 
presentation should be e-mailed to the Designated Federal Official 1 
day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within 
this timeframe, presenters should provide the Designated Federal 
Official with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes 
before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed 
procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were

[[Page 42131]]

published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-
58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least 2 working days prior to the meeting to 
be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: August 13, 2009.
Antonio Dias,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-20014 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
#### John F. Wallace *et*al., Respondents, *against*Michael Feely *el al.:*Daniel Daly, Appellant.

(Decided January 4th, 1882.)

Section 1678 of the Code of Civil Procedure, regulating foreclosure sales, prescribes only a rule of proceeding, to render available the judgment of foreclosure; and therefore the amendment of 1881 (L. 1881, c. 682) allowing two or more buildings situated on the same city lot to be sold together, is effectual, pursuant to its provisions, to render valid sales, previously made which would be lawful according to its terms.

*332Appeal from an order of this court denying a motion by a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to be relieved from his purchase.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*David McClure,*for appellant.

*William B. Putney,*for respondents.

Beach, J.

The petitioner moved in the court below to be relieved of his purchase, made at a foreclosure sale, of premises in this city, consisting of three distinct buildings on one city lot, because sold in one parcel. The relief was denied, and the petitioner appealed from the order. The minor objections to the title seem to have been readily cured, leaving only for consideration, the one relating to the sale of the premises in gross. Subsequent thereto, the legislature passed an act, approved July 26th, 1881, amending section 1678 of the Code of Civil Procedure, declaring valid any sales theretofore made, which would be lawful according to the terms of the act.

The question hero may therefore be disposed of under this legislation, if effectual, without deciding upon the regularity of the sale. The section of the code prescribes only a rule of proceeding, to render available the judgment of foreclosure *(Cunningham*v. *Cassidy,*17 N. Y. 276). Although this rule may have been violated by the mode of sale, I am of opinion the legislature had power to validate the proceeding. The principle has thus been stated: *“*where a court or its officers, in a case of which the court has full jurisdiction, have failed to observe strictly the rules of procedure, which are prescribed for the orderly conduct of affairs, and in consequence thereof, a party who was in no way injured by the irregularity, is nevertheless in position to take advantage of the error to avoid the proceedings, it is often not only just, but highly proper, that the legislature should interfere and cure the defect by validating the proceedings” (2 Story on the Constitution, 674; *Matter of Palmer,*40 N. Y. 561; *Chandler*v. *Northrop,*24 Barb. 129).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

*333Van Hoesen, J.

Section 1678 of the Code, as it now reads, expressly provides that “ two or more buildings situated on the same city lot may be sold together.” It further provides that any sale, made prior to the passage of the act amending section 1678, should be valid, if it would be lawful if it had been made subsequently to the passage of the act.

I agree with Judge Beach, that the act referred to validated the sale from which the purchaser asks to be relieved.

The order should be affirmed with costs.

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

§ 315.35 Payment (redemption). ( a ) *General.* Payment of a savings bond will be made to the person or persons entitled under the provisions of these regulations, except that checks in payment will not be delivered to addresses in areas with respect to which the Department of the Treasury restricts or regulates the delivery of checks drawn against funds of the United States. See Department of the Treasury Circular No. 655, current revision (31 CFR part 211). Payment will be made without regard to any notice of adverse claims to a bond and no notification of stoppage or caveat against payment of a bond will be made.
( b ) *Series A, B, C, D, F, and J.* A bond of Series A, B, C, D, F, or J will be paid at face value.
( c ) *Series E and Savings Notes.* A Series E bond will be paid at any time after two months from issue date at the appropriate redemption value shown in Department of the Treasury Circular No. 653 (31 CFR part 316), current revision. A savings note will be paid at anytime at the appropriate redemption value shown in Department of the Treasury Circular, Fiscal Service Series No. 3-67, current revision (31 CFR part 342).
( d ) *Series G and K.* A bond of Series G or K will be paid at face value plus the final semiannual interest due. For Series G bonds, the final interest paid with principal is $1.25 per $100; for Series K bonds, the final interest is $6.90 per $500.
( e ) *Series H.* A Series H bond will be redeemed at face value at any time after six (6) months from issue date. In any case where Series H bonds are surrendered to a designated Federal Reserve Bank or Branch or the Department of the Treasury for redemption in the month prior to an interest payment date, redemption will not be deferred but will be made in regular course, unless the presenter specifically requests that the transaction be delayed until that date. A request to defer redemption made more than one month preceding the interest payment date will not be accepted.
[45 FR 64091, Sept. 26, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 23753, July 1, 1986; 59 FR 10535, Mar. 4, 1994]
#### NATIONAL COALITION FOR REDRESS/REPARATIONS; Joe M. Suzuki, on behalf of himself and others deprived of redress by defendants' breach of fiduciary duty Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Janet Reno, Attorney General; Robert E. Rubin, U.S. Treasury Secretary Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15154.

D.C. No. CV-98-03932-CAL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 11, 2000.

Decided Feb. 15, 2001.

*398Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, NOONAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Appellants Joe M. Suzuki and National Coalition for Redress/Reparations (NCRR) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims. We dismiss Appellant Suzuki’s appeal as moot. We affirm the judgment of the district court as to Appellant NCRR.

Appellant Suzuki is one of a number of Japanese Latin Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes in Latin America and interned in the United States during World War II. He is also part of the class that settled their claims against the government in *Mochizuki v. United States,*43 Fed.Cl. 97 (1999). Under that settlement, he was paid $5000 in December 1999, while this case was on appeal. Suzuki’s only claim in this case was for his payment of $5000. Because he has already received the compensation he sought in this case, his appeal is moot.

Appellant NCRR’s only claim pertains to its loss due to the government’s alleged failure to invest funds allocated to the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. That claim is not redressable because the fund has been terminated and its administering board no longer exists. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of NCRR’s suit for lack of standing.

Appellant Suzuki’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. The judgment of the district court as to Appellant NCRR is AFFIRMED.

1

. 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.

§ 240.10 Offset. ( a ) If a reclamation debt remains unpaid for 120 days after the reclamation date, Treasury will refer the reclamation debt, if eligible, to Treasury's centralized offset program (see 31 CFR part 285) or another Federal agency for offset in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716. Prior to making a referral for offset, Treasury, in accordance with § 240.9(a)(3), will send at least one monthly statement to the reclamation debtor informing the reclamation debtor that Treasury intends to collect the reclamation debt by administrative offset and Treasury Check Offset.
( b ) If a reclamation debtor wishes to make payment on a reclamation debt referred for offset, the reclamation debtor should contact Treasury at the address listed in § 240.9(b) to resolve the debt and avoid offset.
( c ) If Treasury is unable to collect a reclamation debt by use of the offset described in paragraph (a) of this section, Treasury shall take such action against the reclamation debtor as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States, including, but not limited to, Treasury Check Offset in accordance with § 240.11, or referral to the Department of Justice.
( d ) If Treasury effects offset under this section and it is later determined that the reclamation debtor already had paid the amount of the reclamation debt, or that a reclamation debtor which had timely filed a protest was not liable for the amount of the reclamation, Treasury will promptly refund to the reclamation debtor the amount of its payment. Treasury may refund the amount either by applying the amount to another reclamation debt owed by the reclamation debtor in accordance with this part or other applicable law, or by returning the amount to the reclamation debtor.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Arizona Resident Indicted for Federal Bank Fraud

# 									Arizona Resident Indicted for Federal Bank Fraud							

Department of Justice Release

January 16, 2024

For Immediate Release – January 16, 2024

Click here to read more about this

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyArizonaCorruptionDSS ReleasesEconomic AffairsFinanceFraudLouisianaUnited States

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID CLARENCE WARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:02-cr-00063-MR-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Clarence Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Clarence Ward appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his motion to reopen his criminal case. Ward 

asserted that his felon in possession of a firearm conviction 

was a lesser included offense of his armed bank robbery 

conviction. However, neither the federal statutes nor the Rules 

of Criminal and Appellate Procedure provide for a motion to 

reopen or a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case. Ward 

must seek relief under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2255 (West Supp.

2012). United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 530–31 (4th Cir.

1985). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

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
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               BIRCH BRANCH, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Schumacher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
November 13, 2006





                                       12
###### 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 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### §§ 363.48-363.49 [Reserved]