alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAssisted Schools...Dhaka, Bangladesh: American International School Dhaka: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Dhaka, Bangladesh: American International School Dhaka: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 23, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +880-241-081-837 | Overseas School Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Mike Emborsky 
        -  E-mail: aisdadmissions@aisdhaka.org | Website: www.aisdhaka.org| Special needs information can be found here. 
        -  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** (Dhaka- 2024 Special Needs- Bangladesh) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

The **American International School Dhaka**(AISD) is an independent, coeducational day school, which offers an educational program from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 for students of all nationalities. The school was founded in 1972. The school year comprises two semesters extending from August 16 to December 15 and from January 8 to June 8.

*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

BangladeshOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
#### Gary SOSHINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-7974.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 26, 2001.

*114Kathryn A. Strodel, Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse, NY; Paul F. Kelly, Esq. and Pia W. Smith on the brief; Timothy A. Clune, Esq., Disability Advocates, Inc., on the brief, for appellant.

Evan L. Gordon, Esq., New York, NY, for appellee.

Present GRAAFEILAND, KEARSE and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Gary Soshinsky appeals from a grant of summary judgment rejecting his claim that defendant-appellee First Unum Life Insurance Company discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of, *inter alia,*the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, *et seq.*The basis for Soshinsky’s complaint is that the disability insurance policy issued to him by First Unum provided two years of benefits for those who become disabled due to “sickness” but lifetime benefits for those who become disabled due to “injury,” which, Soshinsky alleges, violates Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, *et seq.*

On appeal, Soshinsky claims the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment for defendant, (2) not making findings on whether First Unum fell under the “safe harbor” in the ADA, 42 U.S .C. § 12201(c), and (3) staying discovery pending the disposition of the summary judgment motion.

We find no merit in Soshinsky’s first claim because the policy that he challenges does not discriminate “on the basis of disability,” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The differentiation between disability due to “sickness” and disability due to “injury” is a distinction based on the *cause*of a disability; not the disability itself. There is therefore no discrimination “on the basis of disability,” as required by the ADA.

Soshinsky’s second and third claims misapprehend the nature of the safe harbor provision of the ADA. The safe harbor shields insurance companies from liability under the ADA if they can show that the challenged practices of underwriting, classifying, or administering risks are “based on or not inconsistent with state law,” 42 U.S.C. § 12201(c)(1) & (2). A defendant need not satisfy the requirement of the safe harbor in order to prevail; the defendant alternatively can prevail simply by not having done what the ADA prohibits. Here, because there is no prima facie violation of the ADA, there was no need for the district court to assess, or allow discovery on the question, whether First Unum had complied with state law.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30521

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL J. RILEY, SR., individually

and on behalf of the class,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIG INSURANCE CO.; VALCO-USA CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-2267

- - - - - - - - - -

May 28, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael J. Riley, Sr., appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendants. The record indicates

that the mortgage debt exceeded the amount of loss, thus

precluding recovery by Riley. See American General Fire &

Casualty Co. v. Reese, 853 F.2d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 1988); 

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 514 So. 2d
No. 96-30521

- 2 -

245, 247 (La. Ct. App. 1987). As Riley has no continuing

interest in the property, he would not benefit from any

extinguishment of debt or additional repairs that might be made

if additional sums were paid to the mortgagee. To the extent

Riley claims reimbursement for prior expenses based upon his

reliance interest in a policy of insurance, his claim is to no

avail as the district court correctly held that he could not have

reasonably relied upon the certificate of insurance when it

explicitly referenced the master policy and when no document

named Riley as an insured at the time of the loss. Furthermore,

Riley failed to submit evidence to the district court regarding

sums expended as a result of his reliance. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Donald-Blaine BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff ROMERO, Second Judicial District Attorney; Irma Pluemer, Assistant District Attorney; Ronald Grenko, New Mexico Bar licensed attorney; Patricia A. Madrid, New Mexico Attorney General, all officially and individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2233.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2001.

Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

*637ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Donald-Blaine: Bailey, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Plaintiff commenced his action in federal district court by filing an “Emergency Request for Hearing; Temporary Restraining Order; and Declaratory Judgment.” Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against the district attorney’s office to stay proceedings in his state criminal case until it was finally determined whether he was a United States citizen, and if he was found not to be a United States citizen, “whether or not [plaintiff] is still amenable to procedural due process as is mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Record, Doc. 1 at 19. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on immunity and failure to state a claim. Defendants also raised a comity argument by asserting the court should not exercise its jurisdiction given the pendency of the state court criminal action. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed a suggestion of mootness with this court on November 6, 2000. Attached to the pleading is a copy of the state district court’s order of August 1, 2000, dismissing the state criminal action because plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial.

We agree with defendants’ suggestion and dismiss this appeal as moot. *See F.E.R. v. Valdez,*58 F.3d 1530, 1533 (10th Cir.1995) (dismissing claim as moot because the explicit objective of the proposed injunction had been met).

The appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
MEMORANDUM 

To: File 

From: Sasha Gerhard 

Subject: Meeting with National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 

Date: 7/31/09 

On May 21, 2009, EPA (Director of Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Division 

Director of Program Implementation and Information Division, staff from Office of Air Quality 

and Planning Standards, staff from Office of Water, and Office of General Counsel) met with 

Chris Hornback and Keith Jones of NACWA, Doug McWilliams and Karen Winters of Squire 

Sanders, legal counsel for NACWA, and Bob Dominak of Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer 

District, NACWA member. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comments submitted by NACWA in response to 

EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Specifically, NACWA provided 

additional information to EPA for sewage sludge incinerators such as: incinerator design and 

emission controls and the regulations currently applicable to sewage sludge incinerators. 

Several handouts were provided to meeting participants and are included as attachments. They 

are: “Biosolids Management” Handbook; “Improvements in Biosolids Quality Due to EPA’s 

Pretreatment and Biosolids Programs” conference paper; and “Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Fact 

Sheet.” Also, a list of participants, a meeting request letter from NACWA, and a post meeting 

letter from NACWA, accompanied by a spreadsheet containing additional emission data, are 

included. 

Attachments
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00391-CV

Michelle Kaplowitz, Appellant

v.

Lone Star Tan GP, LLC; LST Austin I, Ltd.; and Ashley Alvillar, Appellees

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 18-0550-C26, THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Michelle Kaplowitz has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this 

appeal. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 14, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         337,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,182,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                   265,000
<INVENTORY>                                    121,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,741,498
<PP&E>                                       2,007,681
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,041,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,527,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,944,873
<BONDS>                                      2,766,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,949
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,012
<OTHER-SE>                                     812,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,527,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,993,485
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,014,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               210,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                54,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             190,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (231,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HomeBiographies...Philip Laidlaw

# 				Philip Laidlaw			

															Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of Legislative Affairs												

				October 31, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

State Department Official

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1243 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1243

 To require the President to notify the Congress of certain arms sales 
 to Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding commercial disputes between 
    United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia are 
                               resolved.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 1995

  Mr. Andrews (for himself and Mr. Deutsch) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the President to notify the Congress of certain arms sales 
 to Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding commercial disputes between 
    United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia are 
                               resolved.

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

SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF ARMS SALES.

    Until the certification under section 2 is submitted to the 
Congress, section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act shall be 
applied to sales to Saudi Arabia by substituting in the first sentence 
``$10,000,000'' for ``$50,000,000'', ``$50,000,000'' for 
``$200,000,000'', and ``$2,000,000'' for ``$14,000,000''.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION.

    Section 1 shall cease to apply if and when the Secretary of State 
certifies and reports in writing to the Congress that the unpaid claims 
of American firms against the Government of Saudi Arabia that--
            (1) are described in the June 30, 1993, report by the 
        Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 9140(c) of the 
        Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-
        396; 106 Stat. 1939), or
            (2) are otherwise outstanding before the date of the 
        enactment of this Act and have been litigated fully in the 
        courts of Saudi Arabia but in the opinion of the Secretary of 
        State have not been resolved in accordance with standards of 
        fairness as determined by the Secretary of State,
including the additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce 
on page 2 of that report, have been resolved satisfactorily.
                                 <all>
```
BATHYMETRIC _MAP

ir

8Ol-OfSS1 SON

fran fFrcwmnt sorver

fugu fRicvent survey date

taeuffinient servey oat

NOS 15530-10B

sce 1200

serene

NOS SEAMAP SERIES
NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN

Psatarwrs a8 Wostnanen 9 &
U5. DEPARTMENT GF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
HATIONAL OCZAN SURVEY

as72

MERCATOR PROJECTION
Sean 1 yey (10.16)
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Willard  Fisher, Jr.

# 				Willard  Fisher, Jr.			

				Diplomatic Courier			

Deceased				March 29, 1953			

**U.S. Government image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialTanzania

Back to Top
EX-10.37



 Exhibit 10.37 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of January 17, 2011, to that Employment Agreement dated March 16, 2010 (the “Agreement”) by and between Jeffrey Laymon (the “Executive”) and
AMERICAN MEDIA OPERATIONS, INC. (the “Company”). 
 Effective as of the date first written above, the Agreement is
hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Paragraph 1a of the Agreement, as amended, is hereby deleted and the following
substituted therefore: 
 Employment Term. The company shall employ Executive until March 31, 2011 (the
“Employment Term”) on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Agreement. The Agreement shall be considered effective as of March 16, 2010 (the “Effective Time”). 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first written above. 

 

					
	AMERICAN MEDIA OPERATIONS, INC.
			
	By:	 	[illegible]	 	 
		 		 	Date
		
	/s/ Jeffrey Laymon	 	2/8/11
	Jeffery Laymon	 	Date
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1035

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage multiple employer

arrangements to provide basic health benefits through eliminating commonality of interest or geographic location requirement for tax exempt

trust status.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1995

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage

multiple employer arrangements to provide basic health

benefits through eliminating commonality of interest or

geographic location requirement for tax exempt trust

status.

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

•HR 1035 IH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATING COMMONALITY OF INTEREST OR

2 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR

3 TAX EXEMPT TRUST STATUS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (9) of section 501(c)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt

6 organizations) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(9)’’; and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(B) Any determination of whether—

10 ‘‘(i) an exempted multiple employer health

11 plan (as defined in section 701(9) of the Em12 ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,

13 as added by the ERISA Targeted Health Insur14 ance Reform Act of 1995), or

15 ‘‘(ii) a multiple employer welfare arrange16 ment (within the meaning of section 3(40) of

17 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

18 of 1974) under which coverage is fully insured

19 (within the meaning of section 701(8) of such

20 Act, as added by the ERISA Targeted Health

21 Insurance Reform Act of 1995) and consists of

22 medical care (as defined in section 213(d)),

23 is a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association

24 meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be

25 made without regard to any determination of com26 monality of interest or geographic location.’’.
3

•HR 1035 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to determinations

3 made on or after January 1, 1997.

Æ
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Bobby  Romero

# 				Bobby  Romero			

				U.S. Military–Marine Security Guard			

Deceased				March 1, 1978			

**U.S. Government image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialFrance

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.

###### 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.

#### § 363.210 Is there any period of time during which I will be unable to process certain transactions regarding my security?

A closed book period will be in effect for four business days prior to the date a marketable security interest and/or redemption payment is made. During the closed book period, you cannot change the registration of the security, change the payment destination of the proceeds, change the view or transaction rights, make transfers, or schedule, edit, or cancel a reinvestment. We will hold transactions requiring submission of a form for processing until the closed book period ends.

[75 FR 26091, May 11, 2010, as amended at 75 FR 78901, Dec. 17, 2010]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 3, L.P.
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000857850
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 3, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS

<CASH>                          19,594,360

<SECURITIES>                    1,839,454

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                21,433,814

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  21,433,814

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           815,752

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      20,618,062

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    21,433,814

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                659,396

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                877,343

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (217,947)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (1.88)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>