alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39886.

#### GRIFFIE v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

Johnnie Henry Griffie, Jr., under an indictment charging him with the offense of larceny of an automobile, was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Fulton County. His amended motion for new trial on the general and four special grounds was denied and the excepton is to that judgment. *Held:*

1. The trial court did not err, as contended in special ground 1, in allowing a witness for the State to testify in regard to certain facts disclosed to him in a telephone conversation, over the objection of the defendant’s counsel that said testimony constituted hearsay. The testimony was admissible under the provisions of Code § 38-302 for the purpose of illustrating and explaining the subsequent conduct of the witness, *Coleman v. State,*127 Ga. 282 (56 SE 417); and the trial judge specifically instructed the jury that said testimony was admitted “for the sole purpose of illustrating the conduct of the witness, if it does so illustrate his conduct and for no other purpose,” and further cautioned the jury to “consider it for no other purpose.”

2. The evidence in this case authorized the jury to find that an alleged accomplice, speaking in the presence and hearing of the defendant, had admitted that they, that is—the defendant and himself, had stolen the automobile in question; and that the defendant had remained silent and thus acquiesced in said statement. Under these circumstances it was not error for the court to give in charge to the jury the principles *357of law relating to admissions by silence or acquiescence, *Davis v. State,*114 Ga. 104, 109 (39 SE 906); *Mathis v. State, 55*Ga. App. 727 (191 SE 272); and special ground 2, which assigns error on an excerpt from the charge of the court on such matter as being unwarranted by the evidence, is without merit.

Decided February 14, 1963.

*Sylvia Levitt, Ben S. Atkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Paul Webb, Solicitor General, Thomas B. Luck, Jr., Eugene L. Tiller,*contra.

3. An objection to evidence as being irrelevant, immaterial and without probative value is too general to raise a question for determination by this court. *Kent v. State,*105 Ga. App. 312, 314 (124 SE2d 296). Special grounds 3 and 4, which assign error on the admission of evidence over such objection, are therefore without merit.

4. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict and the general grounds are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, 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.

#### § 256.20 How does an agency indicate that a debt is to be offset from a Judgment Fund payment?

The submitting agency must identify on the appropriate Judgment Fund form any known debt owed to the United States that Fiscal Service is expected to collect by setoff against the award. Such a debt will be offset pursuant to the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3728.
UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP

haaine _ ne! . ; BLOCK CANYON
° NOS NI 19-1

METERS TO He METER GERI
THOME AD METRES TCD mea.

anon ae rer WARE

Hater aencaton ramen
Seame 1.280,000
Co
eres it, Deve 1 IGE Aten Tate |-4 9 men te te

Cee | are me oot omen by Se ieee Mhmegemgns or
See aoe -
42 6GS Ciel hee egos mete bem te Mme hemp . a
Woe nk nb WFD MATER PTR
DTN ANY LOWER cre WaT
TOMAR MURR ION FEELECTEON
‘Seale 7.750000
#### Municipality of Arecibo, Appellant, *v.*Registrar of Property of Arecibo, Respondent.

No. 1016.

Submitted February 1, 1938.

Decided February 11, 1938.

*Luis Mercader*for appellant. The registrar appeared by brief.

Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The possessory title to a parcel of land was recorded in the name of Manuel Lugo without prejudice to third persons who might have a better right. In 1928, Lugo and his wife conveyed the property to the Municipality of Arecibo. In November 1937, the municipality requested that by virtue of the deed from Lugo and his wife, the property should be recorded in the name of the municipality as absolute owner thereof in accordance with the provisions of subdivision *Q.*of Article 2 of the Mortgage Law, and Articles 31 and 33 of the Regulations for the enforcement thereof. The registrar refused to comply with this request because of the possessory character of Lugo’s recorded title and because of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 1 of an act approved July 7, 1923 (Laws, p. 216).

Article 2 of the Mortgage Law provides for the record of “Deeds of acquisition of real property and real rights possessed or administered by the State, or by civil or ecclesiastical corporations subject to the provisions of laws or regulations.”

Articles 31 and 33 of the Regulations reads as follows:

> “Article 31.—Real property or property rights held or administered by the State and civil corporations, shall be recorded at once *648in. tbe registries of property of tbe judicial districts in which they may be situated.

> "Article 33.—Whenever a written title exists of the ownership by the State or corporation of the property to be recorded in accordance with the provisions of article 31,'it shall be'filed in the proper registry and a record of ownership shall be applied for by virtue thereof in favor of the person appearing to be the owner, which record must be entered, if proper, in accordance with the rules established for records of private individuals.”

None of these articles requires the registrar of property to record as a dominion title a deed of conveyance executed by a vendor who has a possessory title only. Lugo could not confer upon the municipality and the municipality could not acquire from him any other or better title than his own.

The registrar’s ruling must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Córdova Dávila took no part in the decision of this case.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 391.1 General. ( a ) *Waiver of late charges.* Late charges may be waived: ( 1 ) When the underlying claim is compromised in accordance with 4 CFR part 103;
( 2 ) Where the underlying claim is not compromised but it is appropriate to waive late charges under the criteria of 4 CFR part 103 relating to enforcement policy;
( 3 ) When collection of the underlying claim is terminated in accordance with 4 CFR part 104;
( 4 ) When a claim is suspended in accordance with 4 CFR part 104.
( 5 ) Where the cost of collecting the unpaid late charges would approach or exceed the amount of unpaid late charges to be collected and the amount of late charges does not qualify for referral to a collection agency or the Department of Justice;
( 6 ) Where the late charges pertain to claims involving savings bonds and notes arising under 31 U.S.C. 3105 and 3106 which are replaced pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3126;
( 7 ) For reasons of equity or good conscience as provided in § 391.2.
( b ) *Partial waiver.* Late charges may be waived in full or in part.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 102 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 102

 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water 
        degradation systems from subtitle C permit requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water 
        degradation systems from subtitle C permit requirements.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM SUBTITLE C PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PESTICIDE 
              RINSE WATER DEGRADATION SYSTEMS.

    Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6925) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Pesticide Rinse Water Degradation Systems.--(1) 
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, any person owning or 
operating a pesticide rinse water degradation system that meets the 
criteria set forth in paragraph (2) is not subject to the requirement 
to obtain a permit under this section for the treatment or disposal of 
pesticide rinse water in such system.
    ``(2) To qualify for the exemption under paragraph (1), a pesticide 
rinse water degradation system must meet the following criteria:
            ``(A) The system uses evaporation and biological 
        degradation to treat or dispose of pesticide rinse water.
            ``(B) The system contains an above-ground tank or double-
        walled tank that can be inspected for leaks and that is a tank 
        within the meaning of such term as used in this subtitle or the 
        regulations promulgated under this subtitle.
            ``(C) The system includes a secondary containment system 
        capable of collecting and containing any leaks from the tank.
            ``(D) There is no discharge of fluid from the system.
            ``(E) The system, including the secondary containment 
        system, is protected from rainfall.
            ``(F) When the system is dismantled or any matrix or media 
        used in the tank is replaced, if the matrix or media contains 
        any hazardous waste, the matrix or media is treated, stored, or 
        disposed of in accordance with this subtitle and regulations 
        promulgated under this subtitle.
    ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `pesticide rinse 
water degradation system' means a system for treating or disposing of 
water used to rinse pesticide application equipment.
    ``(4) This subsection shall apply with respect to pesticide rinse 
water degradation systems in operation as of January 1, 1987.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1
                                                               ------------

                    SLADE'S FERRY BANCORP. AND SUBSIDIARY
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        Nine months ended           Three months ended
                                           September 30                September 30
                                        2004          2003          2004          2003
                                     ------------------------    ------------------------


                                  <c>           <c>           <c>           <c>
Net income                           $2,286,804    $1,625,681    $1,076,457    $  749,993
                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Average shares outstanding            4,038,499     3,963,167     4,058,086     3,976,557
                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Basic earnings per share             $     0.57    $     0.41    $     0.27    $     0.19
                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========


Average shares outstanding            4,038,499     3,963,167     4,038,499     3,963,167

Net effect dilutive stock options        47,196        31,344        43,137        46,247
                                     ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

Adjusted shares outstanding           4,086,415     3,994,511     4,101,223     4,022,804
                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings per share           $     0.56    $     0.41    $     0.26    $     0.19
                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
HomeAssisted Schools...Budapest, Hungary: American International School of Budapest: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Budapest, Hungary: American International School of Budapest: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 26, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +36-26-556-000 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: info@aisb.hu | Website: www.aisb.hu 
        -  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** (Budapest 2024 Special Needs Profile Hungary) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **American International School of Budapest**is an independent, coeducational, nonprofit day school, which offers an educational program from multiage 3 through grade 12 for students (three to 18-year-olds) of all nationalities. The school was founded in 1973.

*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

HungaryOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
Request for Additional Information - Skyline Photography LLC 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Dalton: 

 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2361). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include 

the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request 

any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/10/2015. If we do not 

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us (202) 267-9677.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jake Troutman

 

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:02 PM 

To: skylinephotographyllc@gmail.com 

Cc: May, Rick (FAA) 

 

Request for Additional Information - Skyline Photography LLC Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note... 8/26/2015
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1326

To authorize and request the President to award the Congressional Medal

of Honor posthumously to Brevet Brigadier General Strong Vincent

for his actions in the defense of Little Round Top at the Battle of

Gettysburg, July 2, 1863.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 1995

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To authorize and request the President to award the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Brevet Brigadier General Strong Vincent for his actions in the defense of Little Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg,

July 2, 1863.

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

3 That the President is authorized and requested to award

4 (in accordance with award criteria applicable at the time)

5 the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Brevet

6 Brigadier General Strong Vincent, of the State of Penn7 sylvania, for his actions in the defense of Little Round
2

•HR 1326 IH

1 Top at the Battle of Gettysburg on July 2, 1863. Such

2 an award may be made under without regard to the

3 provisons of section 3744 of title 10, United States Code.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 215.1 Scope of part.

This part relates to agreements between the Secretary of the Treasury and States (including the District of Columbia), cities or counties for withholding of State, city or county income or employment taxes from the compensation of civilian Federal employees, and for the withholding of State income taxes from the compensation of members of the Armed Forces. Subpart A contains general information and definitions. Subpart B prescribes the procedures to be followed in entering into an agreement for the withholding of State, city or county income or employment taxes. Subpart C is the Withholding Agreement which the Secretary will enter into with any State, city or county which qualifies to have the tax withheld.

[71 FR 2150, Jan. 13, 2006]
8 BERING SEA
NORTON SOUND

UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP

es — 2 OO | nee STIEECT NTT EC NT 2 + ~ a) !
: aad | |
| ;
NORTON SOUND
| pie
| ’
fa
| 3 : , |

NORTON SOUND
NOS NP 31
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000857644
<NAME> TEPPCO PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          39,146
<SECURITIES>                                     1,013
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,609
<PP&E>                                         979,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                 235,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,093,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          276,066
<BONDS>                                        389,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    105,754
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,093,899
<SALES>                                      1,372,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,498,396
<CGS>                                        1,360,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,447,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,451
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of JMAR Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), C. Neil Beer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Dennis E.Valentine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of ourknowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         By:                                                            /s/ C. Neil Beer    C. Neil Beer    Chief Executive Officer       By:  /s/ Dennis E. Valentine    Dennis E. Valentine    Chief Financial Officer   November 13, 2006
HomeBiographies...Nancy Izzo Jackson

# 				Nancy Izzo Jackson			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary for India						Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs												

				March 30, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41242 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNIE GONZALES GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-119-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Johnnie Gonzales Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. We have independently reviewed the brief and the record and have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.