alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 411.1 Color illustrations authorized. ( a ) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 25 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, authority is hereby given for the printing, publishing or importation, or the making or importation of the necessary plates or items for such printing or publishing, of color illustrations of U.S. currency provided that: ( 1 ) The illustration be of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of any matter so illustrated;
( 2 ) The illustration be one-sided; and
( 3 ) All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof shall be destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use in accordance with this section.
( b ) [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 351.36-351.39 [Reserved]
exh10-3.htm










Exhibit 10.3


 


Power of Attorney












The Educational Organization:  Shanghai Fuyi Education Information Consulting Co. Ltd. (“FUYI”)












The shareholders: Fenglong Xu and Wei Xu







The  Attorney-in-fact: Hangzhou Kunjiang Education Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese company (“Party A”).







We, the Shareholders of FUYI, Chinese citizens, hereby irrevocably authorize Party A to exercise for and on behalf of me all voting rights that we have as FUYI Shareholders during the term of this Power of Attorney, including without limitation, proposing to convene a shareholders’ meeting, attending a shareholders’ meeting and exercising the voting rights at any and all shareholders’ meeting of FUYI.







Unless this Power of Attorney is expressly terminated by us in writing, this Power of Attorney shall be effective from the date it is signed for an indefinite period of time.












Fuyi Information Consulting USA Inc.







by:  /s/ Fenglong Xu









Great Holding Management Company Inc.







by:  /s/ Wei Xu









Effective date:  March 31, 2012
I, Scott Gessler, as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to the

records of this office,

Ironsides Motion LLC

is a Limited Liability Company formed or registered on 07/03/2014 under the law of Colorado, has complied with all applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been assigned entity identification number 20141410142.

This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper through 10/14/2014 that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office electronically through 10/15/2014 @ 15:09:03.

I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated, executed, authenticated, issued, delivered and communicated this official certificate at Denver, Colorado on 10/15/2014 @ 15:09:03 pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation
Number 8983439.

CERT_GS_D Revised 08/20/2008 Secretary of State of the State of Colorado
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Noyes’ Visit to Leesburg, VA

# 									Assistant Secretary Noyes’ Visit to Leesburg, VA							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 10, 2022

Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Julieta Valls Noyes will visit the National Conference Center (NCC) in Leesburg, Virginia, on May 11.  At the NCC, Assistant Secretary Noyes will welcome newly arrived Afghans to the United States and meet with staff and volunteers working to facilitate a smooth transition as they resettle into their new communities across the United States.

Tags

AfghanistanBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic TravelRefugeesVirginia

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeBiographies...Steven Gillen

# 				Steven Gillen			

															Deputy Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs												

				February 9, 2021 -									Present							

Tags

State Department Official

Back to Top
#### Kimberly Allen STITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kimberly BUSCH; Sandra Bono; Katherine Anderson; Robert Stevenson; Leona Salazar; Monica Neuman; Benigno Dehoyos; Eugene Siegel; James Neavitt; Stanley Parry; Collins, Collins, Muir & Traver; Paul Rupard; County of Los Angeles; State of California; Ronald George; Stanley Mosk; Ming Chin; Marvin Baxter; Kathryn Mickle Werdegar; Joyce L. Kennard; Janice Brown; Roger Boren; Morio Fukutu; Michael Nott; Charles S. Vogel; Norman Epstein; Fred J. Woods; William A. McLaughlin; John P. Farrell; Kenneth Freeman; Emily Stevens; Armondo Moreno, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-55177.

D.C. No. CV-99-06837-CAS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Stith’s request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM2

Kimberly Allen Stith appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to comply with a court order to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, see *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Because Stith’s second amended complaint failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing his action with prejudice. *See id.*

Stith’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We grant the County of Los Angeles’s request for judicial notice.

AFFIRMED.

2

. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Fellowships
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of the Science and Technology Adviser...About Us – Office of the Science and Technology Adviser

# 									About Us							

Office of the Science and Technology Adviser

The Office of the Science & Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State (STAS) was created in 2000 by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright in response to a 1999 study by the U.S. National Research Council on how the Department could incorporate science, technology, and health expertise in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

Building on over two decades of activities and through seven Science and Technology Advisers to the Secretary of State, STAS remains a vibrant resource to Department leadership, senior Foreign Service and Civil Service officials, and bureaus across the Department. STAS also serves as a central bridge between the Department and the vast STI community in the United States and throughout the world.

Tags

ScienceTechnology

Back to Top
2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-20-2010

USA v. Kenney

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-4318

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Kenney" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 733.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/733
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 December 3, 2009

No. 01-4318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

John Charles Kenney, Appellant

(M. D. Pa No. 99-cr-00280)

 

Present: HARDIMAN, GREENBERG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges*

1. Expedited Motion by Appellant to Recall the Mandate;

2. Appellant’s Addendum to Motion to Recall the Mandate;

3. Response by Appellee to Expedited Motion to Recall the Mandate.

4. Reply by Appellant to Response by Appellee in Opposition to

Appellant's Motion to Recall the Mandate

5. Exhibits in Support of Appellant’s Reply to Response by Appellee in

Opposition to Appellant’s Motion to Recall the Mandate

6. Exhibits in Support of Appellant’s Reply to Response by Appellee in

Opposition to Appellant’s Motion to Recall the Mandate

 

 

 /s/ Dana M. Moore 

Opinion and Judgment Issued on 11/7/02. Dana M. Moore, Legal Assistant

Mandate Issued 11/29/02. (267) 299-4927
 O R D E R 

The foregoing motion to recall the mandate is hereby DENIED. 

By the Court,

 /s/ Thomas M. Hardiman 

Circuit Judge

Dated: August 20, 2010

DMM/cc: Mr. John Charles Kenney

 Frederick E. Martin, Esq.

________________________________________

* The Honorable Robert J. Ward, United States District Judge for the Southern District of

New York, who was a member of the coram by designation, has since passed away. 

Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has been added to the coram.
#### § 23.47 Hearings, decisions, post-termination proceedings.

Treasury procedural provisions for hearings, decisions, and post-termination proceedings applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations within Title 31 of the CFR shall apply to Treasury enforcement of these regulations.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1269 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1269

   To amend the Act of June 22, 1974, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to prescribe by regulation the representation of ``Woodsy 
                                 Owl''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1995

Mr. Moorhead (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Bono, and 
 Mr. Boucher) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Act of June 22, 1974, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to prescribe by regulation the representation of ``Woodsy 
                                 Owl''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the 
Act entitled ``An Act to prevent the unauthorized manufacture and use 
of the character `Woodsy Owl', and for other purposes'', approved June 
22, 1974 (16 U.S.C. 580p), is amended--
            (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
            ``(1) the term `Woodsy Owl' means the name and 
        representation of a fanciful owl who furthers the slogan, `Give 
        a Hoot, Don't Pollute', originated by the Forest Service of the 
        United States Department of Agriculture;''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''.
                                 <all>
```
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 360
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 360 appear at 79 FR 8860, Feb. 14, 2014.

§ 360.64 Payment or reinvestment—voluntary guardian of an incapacitated person. ( a ) *Payment of bonds.* ( 1 ) When an adult owner of bonds is incapable of requesting payment as a result of incapacity and there is no other person legally qualified to do so, the relative, or other person, responsible for the owner's care and support may submit an application for recognition as voluntary guardian for the purpose of redeeming the owner's bonds, if the total redemption value of all of the owner's bonds does not exceed $20,000. The bonds and application should be submitted to a designated Federal Reserve Bank or the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
( 2 ) The redemption value of the bonds shall be determined as of the date the bonds are received, accompanied by an appropriate request for payment. If the total redemption value exceeds $20,000, a legal representative must be appointed, as set forth in § 360.60.
( b ) *Reinvestment of bonds.* ( 1 ) If the bonds have matured and ceased earning interest, they may be redeemed and the proceeds reinvested in any other savings bonds available. The new bonds must be registered in the name of the incapacitated person, followed by words showing that he or she is under voluntary guardianship; for example, “John Jones 123-45-6789, under voluntary guardianship”. A living coowner or beneficiary named on the matured bonds must be designated on the new bonds, unless such person furnishes a certified statement consenting to omission of his or her name.
( 2 ) If an amount insufficient to purchase an additional bond of any authorized denomination of savings bond remains after the reinvestment, the voluntary guardian may furnish additional funds sufficient to purchase another savings bond of the lowest available denomination. If additional funds are not furnished, the remaining amount will be paid to the voluntary guardian for the use and benefit of the incapacitated person.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. (the “ Company ”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (“ Form 10-K ”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.








Date: March 23, 2018  By: /s/ Christopher A. Wright


Christopher A. Wright


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
www.gpo.gov

### §466. Additional rights and remedies; exclusive jurisdiction of district court; res judicata

The rights and remedies provided by this subchapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies at law or in equity: *Provided*, That upon the filing of a complaint by the Secretary the jurisdiction of the district court over such trusteeship shall be exclusive and the final judgment shall be res judicata.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title III, §306, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 532.)
HomeAgenda for PEPFAR’s Scientific Advisory Board Meeting – October 2, 2023

# 									Agenda for PEPFAR’s Scientific Advisory Board Meeting – October 2, 2023							

Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy

November 3, 2023

**Agenda for PEPFAR’s Scientific Advisory Board Meeting****Date: October 2****, 0900-1530****Location:**https://statedept.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItduChrTkrHOg_6xa7hBM0O6nxJptBtAc.

**Welcome**Time: [0900-0910]
        - Call to order, FACA compliance: Nicole Espy
        - Welcome and other formalities: Mike Reid & Chair del Rio

**Session 1: Global Health Security and Diplomacy and PEPFAR**: **Introduction to New Bureau**Time: [0910-10.15]
        - Opening remarks, Ambassador Nkengasong
        - Presentation on the new bureau and PEPFAR’s strategic priorities (Dr. Becky Bunnell, acting PDAS, PEPFAR-GHSD)
        - Q&A  – Open discussion with the Scientific Advisory Board members (SAB) and Ambassador Nkengasong

**Session 2: Updates in Prevention**: **Review of prevention science and update on CAB-LA rollout**Time: [10.15-11.00]
        - Summary of ongoing relevant prevention research (Mr. Mitchell Warren, AVAC)
        - Status update on CAB-LA rollout (Dr. Robyn Eakle, PEPFAR-GHSD)
        - Q&A  – How should PEPFAR be prioritizing prevention strategies?

**Session 3(a): Optimizing Cardiovascular Outcomes for PLHIV: Role of Statin Therapy for PLHIV in PEPFAR Programs**Time: [11.10-11.30]
        - Presentation of data from the REPRIEVE trial on statin therapy for people living with HIV (PLHIV) in PEPFAR programs (Prof. Steve Grinspoon, Harvard University)

**Session 3(b): Optimizing Cardiovascular Outcomes for PLHIV: Feasibility of Integrating CVD Disease Management into HIV Care**Time: [11.30-12.00]
        - Presentation of implementation science research findings from Uganda (Prof. Semitala, Makerere University).
        - Q&A  – SAB discussion on both presentations (3a and 3b) and implications for PEPFAR programs

**Session 4:****UNAIDS technical consultation on defining and sustaining HIV epidemic control in SSA**Time: [12.30-13.30]
        - Reviewing Epidemiology and Modeling from UNAIDS Consultation on HIV beyond 2030
        - Presentation of UNAIDS modeling data (Dr. Jeff Imai-Eaton, Harvard University)
        - Q&A  – SAB discussion on presentation and implications for PEPFAR programs.

**Session 5: Sustainability Agenda**: **Discussion of PEPFAR’s Sustainability roadmaps**Time: [13.30-14.30]
        - Presentation on PEPFAR’s sustainability agenda (Mr Mike Ruffner, PEPFAR-GHSD)
        - Q&A  – SAB discussion on presentation and implications for PEPFAR programs.

**Session 6: Open Comment**Time: [14.30 – 15.00]
        - Moderated by Mike Reid & Carlos del Rio
        - Summary of key insights and action items from the meeting.
        - GHSD leadership provides summary comments and closing.

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Acting Special Envoy Center’s Participation in the Inaugural U.S.-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technology Dialogue

# 									Acting Special Envoy Center’s Participation in the Inaugural U.S.-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technology Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 13, 2023

Acting Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging Technology Dr. Seth Center participated in the inaugural U.S.-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technology (CET) Dialogue today in Washington, D.C, along with U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Singaporean Foreign Minister Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, and Minister for Communications and Information Josephine Teo.  Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong provided opening remarks.  The dialogue affirmed both sides’ shared commitment to bolster research, innovation, and commercial ties to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge, promote prosperity, and deliver public goods to the Indo-Pacific region, especially ASEAN partners. Participants discussed areas of interest for bilateral cooperation, including artificial intelligence, critical infrastructure and supply chains, the digital economy, and defense innovation.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDefenseEconomic AffairsIndo-PacificOffice of Science and Technology CooperationOffice of the SpokespersonResearchScientific and Technological CooperationSingapore

Back to Top
#### FRANK G. FARNHAM v. THE UNITED STATES.

(49 O. Ols. R., 19; 240 U. S. R., 537.)

*On the plaintiff appeal.*

This is a suit to recover the net profits on a patented postage-stamp holder in use by the Post Office Department for a number of years.

The court below decides:

The circumstances attending a transaction involving the use of a patented device about which an implied contract therefor arises must indicate much more than mere consent to its use upon the part of the patentee.

Where the defendants disclaim having used the patented article and follow this assertion with a positive .claim of invention upon their part, declining to concede either use or ownership in the article used by the plaintiff, the elements of mutuality are lacking.

Where the existence of the essential elements out of which an implied contract arises is a subject of disputation, the defendants can not be precluded, simply because the United States is involved, from showing by positive proof a situation that in itself precludes the idea of mutuality or recognition of plaintiff’s patent.

This court is without jurisdiction to invalidate a patent; its judgments do not assume to do so.

Where the invention claimed is no more than the employment of elements old in the art to accomplish a new purpose or result, the invention is limited specifically to the details of one’s claims.

To he patentable an idea or discovery must not only possess novelty and utility but it must be the product of inventive faculties as well.

*490Where the jurisdiction of the court, as well as plaintiff’s right to recover, depends upon the use of the alleged invention under such circumstances as to warrant an implied contract therefor, the use of the plaintiff’s invention must be established.

The decision of the court below is affirmed, the Supreme Court holding that the judgment, however, should be without prejudice to the presentation of any claim petitioner may have under the act of June 25,1910, 36 Stat. L., 851.

Mr. Justice Hughes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 3, 1916.
ATLANTIC OCEAN
CORSAIR CANYON

BATHYMETRIC MAP

.

Prblones of Weahinger, D.C
US. DEPARTMENT DE COMmueace

CORSAIR CANYON

NOS NK 19-9

Ea}

on eect

rasecreeam ste
#### Jean Kashmer, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Metropolitan 810 7th Ave. LLC, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 241]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Metropolitan 810 7th Ave. LLC (Metropolitan) to vacate an order, entered December 15, 2004, on default, striking its answer and setting the action down for an assessment of damages, and granted plaintiffs cross motion to preclude defendant from conducting a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Metropolitan’s motion was properly denied since it failed to present a reasonable excuse for its default. The court also properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from conducting an independent medical examination of plaintiff. Defendant waived its right to the examination by failing without excuse to comply with court-imposed discovery deadlines; it made no showing that its noncompliance was attributable to any unusual or unanticipated circumstance *(see Quintanna v Rogers,*306 AD2d 167 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.