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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1366 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 237
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1366

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the extension of time limitation for the FERC-issued 
       hydroelectric license for the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FERC PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 9401 
(and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with the 
good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of such 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction of such 
project until August 3, 1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 237

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1366

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the extension of time limitation for the FERC-issued 
       hydroelectric license for the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 321.2 Eligible organizations. ( a ) Organizations eligible to apply for qualification and to serve as paying agents are commercial banks, trust companies, savings banks, savings and loan associations, building and loan associations (including cooperative banks), credit unions, cash depositories, industrial banks, or similar financial institutions which: ( 1 ) Are incorporated under Federal law or the laws of a State, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
( 2 ) In the usual course of business accept, subject to withdrawal, funds for desposit or the purchase of shares;
( 3 ) Are under the supervision of a federal or state regulatory agency or equivalent authority; and
( 4 ) Maintain regular offices for the transaction of business.
( b ) An organization that desires to redeem securities must first qualify as a paying agent. An organization that has qualified and is serving as a paying agent must: ( 1 ) Submit redeemed securities directly to a Federal Reserve Processing Site in accordance with the Federal Reserve Operating Circular; and
( 2 ) Have the ability to receive payment of applicable fees by ACH, or arrange to obtain one or more of these services from another financial institution.
[53 FR 37511, Sept. 26, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 10536, Mar. 4, 1994; 77 FR 16166, Mar. 20, 2012]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joey Suarez, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 5]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John N. Byrne, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered January 29, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed the agreed-upon prison sentence without conducting a hearing after defendant concededly violated the conditions of his plea agreement by failing to complete a drug treatment program and had to be returned *283four months later after issuance of a warrant. Although defendant contested certain allegations made against him by the drug program, the court instead relied upon uncontested facts (see *People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714 [2004]; *compare Torres v Berbary,*340 F3d 63 [2d Cir 2003]). Despite the opportunity afforded him at sentencing, defendant did not provide any satisfactory explanation for his failure to advise the treatment program or the court of his problems instead of absconding (see *People v Cruz,*15 AD3d 240 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 852 [2005]; *People v Watson,*272 AD2d 270 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 909 [2000]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Edward  Maalouf

# 				Edward  Maalouf			

				Local Guard Force			

Deceased				September 20, 1984			

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

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialLebanon

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 42877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent to Grant a Partially Exclusive Patent License; 
Sanofi Pasteur S.A.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Sanofi Pasteur S.A., a revocable, nonassignable, partially 
exclusive license to practice worldwide the Government owned inventions 
described in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/340,003 with 
inventor Stephen J. Savarino filed on 10 January 2006, entitled 
``Adhesin as Immunogen Against Enterotoxigenic E. coli'' and its 
related PCT/US2006/000660 National Phase applications in Australia, 
Canada, Europe, Japan and India filed 11 July 2007; and U.S. Patent 
Application Serial No. 11/988,598 with inventors Stephen J. Savarino, 
Randall K. Holmes and Michael Jobling filed on 11 January 2007, 
entitled ``Adhesin-Enterotoxin Chimera Based Composition Against 
Enterotoxigenic E. coli'' and its related PCT/US2007/000712 National 
Phase applications in Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan filed 10 
January 2008 in the field of ``Protection against ETEC (Enterotoxigenic 
Escherichia Coli) associated diarrhea in both endemic zones and for 
travelers, including the military.''

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written 
objections along with supporting evidence, if any. Written objections 
are to be filed with the Office of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical 
Research Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500, 
telephone (301) 319-7428.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Office of 
Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant 
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles Schlagel, Director, Office 
of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant 
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500, telephone (301) 319-7428.

    Dated: August 18, 2009.
A.M. Vallandingham,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-20363 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
### Principles of logic and the use of digital geographic information systems

By: Charles Joseph Robinove

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir977

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Robin K. SCHLESIER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-399

957 S.W.2d 186

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 15, 1998

Per Curiam.

On December 11, 1997, the Honorable Robert Dudley was appointed the master to conduct the hearing in this contempt proceeding. It is necessary that a substitute master be appointed, and we hereby appoint the Honorable Jack L. Lessenberry to succeed Justice Dudley as the master in this matter. After the hearing, we direct the master to make findings of fact and file them with the court. Upon receiving the master’s findings, we will decide whether Nila J. Keels should be held in contempt.
HSEEP Exercise Evaluation Training – States

Date Location States Hotel Information

February 11-13 Miami, FL AL, FL, GA, MS,

NC, PR, SC, VI

Miami Airport Marriot

1201 NW LeJeune Road

Miami, FL 33126

Phone: (305) 649-5000

Fax: (305) 642-3369

February 18-20 New Orleans, La AR, KS, LA, NE,

OK, TX, MI

New Orleans Marriott

555 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Phone: (504) 553-5642

Fax: (504) 581-5749

February 25-27 Washington, DC DC, MD, NJ, NY,

PA, VA, WV

Marriott Metro Center

775 12th Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 737-2200

Fax: (202) 347-5886

March 10-12 La Jolla, CA

(San Diego) 

AK, CA, OR, NV,

WA

San Diego Marriott La Jolla

4240 La Jolla Village Drive

La Jolla, CA 92037

Phone: (858) 597-6388 

Fax: (858) 457-5153

March 15-17 Denver, CO CO, ID, MT, MO,

NB, SD, UT, WY

Hyatt Regency Denver

1750 Welton Street

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: (303) 295-1234

Fax: (303) 295-5718

March 24-26 Chicago, IL IA, IL, IN, KY,

MN, OH, TN, WI,

NM

Hyatt Regency ChicagoOn The Riverwalk

151 E. Wacker Dr.

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 565 1234

Fax: (312) 565 2966

April 21-23 Honolulu, HI HI, AZ, American

Soma, Guam,

Northern

Marianas

Hyatt Regency Waikiki

Resort & Spa

Phone: (808) 921-6057

Fax: (808) 923-7935

April 28-30 Boston, MA CT, DE, ME, MA,

NH, RI, VT

Boston Marriott Long Wharf

296 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Phone: (617) 227-0800

Fax: (617) 227-2867
40242.

#### ALLEN et al. v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al.

Hall, Judge.

The Safeco Insurance Company brought an action for declaratory judgment naming as defendants the plaintiffs and the defendants in two automobile negligence actions. Two of the defendants in the negligence actions were Safeco’s insured, Mrs. Robert L. Timbs, and her son, Robert M, Timbs, who allegedly was negligent in operating, with permission of the owner, the automobile of Ralph A. Heaton, one of the codefendants. Safeco sought a declaration of rights- as to whether or not its insurance contract with Mrs. Timbs imposed upon it a duty to defend the negligence actions and to pay any damages awarded therein against the Timbses. Safeco thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs in the negligence actions filed an answer. After hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment that Safeco had no duty to defend the Timbses and no liability to the plaintiffs and codefendants in the negligence actions. The plaintiffs in the negligence actions filed a writ of error in this court assigning error on the.judgment of the trial court, naming Safeco, the Timbses and their codefendants in the negligence actions as defendants in error. *Held:*

The insurance policy issued to Mrs. Robert L. Timbs by Safeco provides: “The following are insured under the liability Section: . . . (b) with respect to a non-owned auto*279mobile (1) the named insured. (2) Any relative, but only with respect to a private passenger automobile or trailer, *provided the actual use thereof is with the permission of the owner.”*(Emphasis supplied). The question here on summary judgment is whether or not there is a genuine issue that Robert M. Timbs (son of the insured) had the permission of Ralph A. Heaton (owner of the vehicle) to drive the vehicle at the time of the collision. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Safeco submitted affidavits of Ralph A. Heaton and his wife Hettie Sue Heaton. Each stated that the affiant had never at any time given Robert M. Timbs permission to use the automobile involved in the collision. The affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs in error in no way refute this fact. It follows that the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. *Code Ann.*§ 110-1203.

Decided September 4, 1963.

*Gmbbs & Prosser, Jordan H. Prosser,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Reed, Ingram, Flournoy & Custer, Lawrence B. Custer, Jean E. Johnson, Sr., Luther C. Hames, Jr.,*contra.

The plaintiffs in error contend in their brief that the judgment is erroneous for the reason that the policy of insurance in question was not attached to the petition for declaratory judgment. However, in order for this court to consider such an objection it must have been raised in the trial court prior to the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. *Planters Rural Tel. Co-Op. Inc. v. Chance,*107 Ga. App. 116 (129 SE2d 384); *Burns v. Great A. & P. Tea Co.,*105 Ga. App. 823 (1) (125 SE2d 687).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Bell, 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.

Editorial Note on Part 353
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 353 appear at 79 FR 8859, Feb. 14, 2014.

§ 353.70 General rules governing entitlement. The following rules govern ownership or entitlement where one or both of the persons named on a bond have died without the bond having been surrendered for payment or reissue: ( a ) *Single owner bond.* If the owner of a bond registered in single ownership form has died, the bond becomes the property of that decedent's estate, and payment or reissue will be made as provided in this subpart.
( b ) *Coowner bond* — ( 1 ) *One coowner deceased.* If one of the coowners named on a bond has died, the surviving coowner will be recognized as the sole and absolute owner, and payment or reissue will be made as though the bond were registered in the name of the survivor alone. Any request for reissue by the surviving coowner must be supported by proof of death of the other coowner.
( 2 ) *Both coowners deceased.* If both coowners named on a bond have died, the bond becomes the property of the estate of the coowner who died last, and payment or reissue will be made as if the bond were registered in the name of the last deceased coowner alone. Proof of death of both coowners will be required to establish the order of death.
( 3 ) *Simultaneously death of both coowners.* If both coowners die under conditions where it cannot be established, either by presumption of law or otherwise, which coowner died first, the bond becomes the property of both equally, and payment or reissue will be made accordingly.
( c ) *Beneficiary bond* — ( 1 ) *Owner deceased.* If the owner of a bond registered in beneficiary form has died and is survived by the beneficiary, upon proof of death of the owner, the beneficiary will be recognized as the sole and absolute owner of the bond. Payment or reissue will be made as though the bond were registered in the survivor's name alone. A request for payment or reissue by the beneficiary must be supported by proof of death of the owner.
( 2 ) *Beneficiary deceased.* If the beneficiary's death occurs before, or simultaneously with, that of the registered owner, payment or reissue will be made as though the bond were registered in the owner's name alone. Proof of death of the owner and beneficiary is required to establish the order of death.
( d ) *Nonresident aliens.* If the person who becomes entitled to a bond because of the death of an owner is an alien who is a resident of an area with respect to which the Department of the Treasury restricts or regulates the delivery of checks drawn against funds of the United States or its agencies or instrumentalities, delivery of the redemption check will not be made so long as the restriction applies. See Department of the Treasury Circular No. 655, current revision (31 CFR part 211).
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 315.80 Payment to corporations or unincorporated associations.

A bond registered in the name of a private corporation or an unincorporated association will be paid to the corporation or unincorporated association upon a request for payment on its behalf by an authorized officer. The signature to the request should be in the form, for example, “The Jones Coal Company, a corporation, by John Jones, President”, or “The Lotus Club, an unincorporated association, by William A. Smith, Treasurer”. A request for payment so signed and certified will ordinarily be accepted without further evidence of the officer's authority.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AVANIR Pharmaceuticals (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory P. Hanson, 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:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/  GREGORY P. HANSON, CMA
----------------------------
     Gregory P. Hanson, CMA
     Chief Financial Officer
     February 13, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AVANIR Pharmaceuticals and will
be retained by AVANIR Pharmaceuticals and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Jill M. Burke, the 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:

         1. The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
         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/ Jill M. Burke
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jill M. Burke
                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                     Date:  August 16, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Winton Financial Corporation and will be retained by Winton
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
HomeBiographies...Elizabeth Stickney

# 				Elizabeth Stickney			

															London Hub Director and Arabic Language Spokesperson						London International Media Hub												

				July 26, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

State Department Official

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.

#### § 306.68 Nontransferable securities.

The provisions of this subpart, so far as applicable, govern transactions in Treasury Bonds, Investment Series B-1975-80.
#### James Hickey, Plaintiff, *against*John J. O’Brien, Appellant, and Maria Kiralfy *et al.,*Respondents.

(Decided December 4th, 1882.)

In proceedings to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, if the plaintiff fails to establish the alleged lien, no personal judgment can be rendered.

Appeal from a judgment of this court entered upon the report of a referee.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*James*Stikeman, for appellant.

*Richard S.*Newcombe, for respondents.

Beach, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to enforce a lien claimed as sub-contractor against premises owned by the respondents, whereon O’Brien had contracted with them to do certain repairs. The plaintiff failed to establish any lien, but the referee adjudicated between the owners and contractor, rendering judgment against the latter, who brings this appeal. I am unable to find any authorization for this result. Where the lien is established, the court may regulate by judgment the rights of the parties properly before it, in the proceeding. But to do this a lien must *293exist, and if none, the complaint should be dismissed. The proceeding is a statutory one, given to enforce mechanics’ liens, and upon failure to show any, it cannot be turned into a procedure equivalent to an ordinary action for the enforcement of rights between parties thus brought before the court, without good reason.

I see no distinction between the case at bar and *Weye*v. *Beach*(79 N. Y. 409). There, notwithstanding the absence of any lien, the court below rendered a personal judgment against the owner upon a verbal agreement relative to the subject matter, found to have been made by him with one of the claimants. This was held irregular, the learned court saying: “ Where no lien exists this form of proceeding cannot be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing a mere personal contract between parties, and the unfounded allegation of the existence of the lien does not authorize the substitution of this proceeding in place of the common law action.”

Van Hoesen, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new-trial ordered, with costs to abide event.