alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,639,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,133,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,547
<INVENTORY>                                  4,497,679
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,453,432
<PP&E>                                       5,572,015
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,853,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,816,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,948,650
<BONDS>                                        570,613
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       181,566
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,115,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,816,635
<SALES>                                     16,162,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,162,974
<CGS>                                        9,902,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,902,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,605,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                619,141
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            619,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   619,141
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 345.0 Offering of certificates.

The Secretary of the Treasury, under the authority of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, offers to borrowers from the Rural Electrification Administration and Rural Telephone Bank, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 5 Percent Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness—R.E.A. Series. This offering will continue until terminated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
#### § 19.225 How do I know if a transaction in which I may participate is a covered transaction?

As a participant in a transaction, you will know that it is a covered transaction because the agency regulations governing the transaction, the appropriate agency official, or participant at the next higher tier who enters into the transaction with you, will tell you that you must comply with applicable portions of this part.
HomeBiographies...Kerry Porter

# 				Kerry Porter			

															Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of Global Public Affairs												

				April 8, 2024 -									Present							

Kerry Porter is the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy, Outreach, and Events in the Department of State’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA).  Prior to this role, Kerry served as Director of GPA’s Office of Global Communications Strategy.  A civil servant since 2014, Kerry previously spent seven years in the Office of International Media Engagement, joining as a Presidential Management Fellow and completing rotations in Embassy Baku’s political section and the Africa Regional Media Hub.  Before joining the Department of State, Kerry supported research, communications, and business development at the Education Development Center and was an educator in areas as diverse as inner-city Baltimore and rural China.  She holds an MA in International Development Studies (George Washington University/DC), an MA in Written and Verbal Arts (University of Ulster/Northern Ireland), and a BA in English and Communication Studies (Alfred University/NY).  She originally hails from Rockland County, NY.

Tags

State Department Official

Back to Top
39884.

#### ANDERSON v. DeKALB COUNTY.

*329Decided February 8, 1963.

*330
      *E. T. Hendon, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*George P. Dillard, Hubert O. Edwards, Robert E. Mozley,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

“A county is not liable to suit for any cause of action unless made so by statute” *(Code*§ 23-1502); and where suit is instituted against a county, the petition must show the county’s statutory liability in order to set forth a cause of action. *Seymore v. Elbert County,*116 Ga. 371 (42 SE 727); *Newberry v. Hall County,*52 Ga. App. 472 (183 SE 664).

*331It is contended by counsel for the defendant that the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer to the petition for the reason that the plaintiff’s right to maintain this action is predicated upon the DeKalb County Merit System Act (Ga. L. 1956, p. 3111), and that such act does not give the right to sue the county directly without proceeding through the administrative procedures outlined therein, which under the allegations of the petition, has not been done by the plaintiff in this case.

With this contention we must agree. Section 2(a) of said act, supra, p. 3112, authorized the establishment by the governing authority of DeKalb County of a merit system council and section 4(b) of the act, supra, p. 3114, provided that said council shall hear appeals from any employee, coming within the provisions of said act, who claims to have been improperly dismissed; and section 5 of said act, supra, p. 3115, specifically provides that such employee shall have the right of appeal to the merit system council and states that the decision of the council shall be binding upon the governing authority of DeKalb County as to whether such dismissal was for proper cause. While the act makes no express provisions for review by the courts of this State of the decisions of this council, the Supreme Court in the recent case of *Anderson v. McMurry,*217 Ga. 145 (121 SE2d 22), held that the writ of certiorari lies to review the rulings and findings of such body. Accordingly, it is our opinion that, since the DeKalb County Merit System Act, supra, is the authority upon which the plaintiff’s right of redress against the county is predicated, the plaintiff must pursue the remedies set forth in said act and cannot bring this action at law to recover the alleged damages sustained by him as a result of his dismissal by the defendant through its Department of Public Safety.

The fact that the plaintiff was not notified in writing of the reasons for his discharge by the appropriate department head as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the governing body of DeKalb County pursuant to the provisions of said act would only afford grounds for review of the plaintiff’s dismissal by the merit system council and would not, as contended by the plaintiff, deny him the right of review by said council and obviate the necessity of complying with the administrative *332procedures set forth in said act. The trial court did not err therefore in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
40497.

#### AKINS v. FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT & HARDWARE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Decided January 22, 1964.

*Carl Fredericks, William I. Aynes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux,*contra.

Russell, Judge.

“The mere fact that one event chronologically follows another is alone insufficient to establish a causal *873relation between them. Post hoc non propter hoc. Evidence that a woman suffered a pain in her heart and other physical ailments after having swallowed a liquid ... is, in the absence of evidence as to any facts tending to show a causal relation between the woman’s physical condition and the swallowing of the liquid, insufficient to authorize an inference of fact that her condition was caused by the swallowing and the ill tasting effects of the liquid.” *Payne v. Chandler,*41 Ga. App. 385 (2) (153 SE 96). There is in this record nothing to show that the eating of the food caused the “spontaneous rupture” of the esophagus or in any way contributed to the disability which followed, except the mere fact that the two events are closely connected in time. We are cognizant of the reiterated statement that the distinction between proximate and remote causes is not to be too rigorously pressed in the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, *Thomas v. U. S. Cas. Co.,*218 Ga. 493 (3) (128 SE2d 749), *U. S. Cas. Co. v. Smith,*162 Ga. 130, 137 (133 SE 851), but, even in heart cases, this court has consistently held that where there is an attack there must be some evidence, either of exertion sufficient in itself to suggest a causal connection or opinion evidence to this effect, to obliterate the probability of mere coincidence. See *Carpenter v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,*93 Ga. App. 213 (91 SE2d 199).

Since the evidence certainly does not demand a finding that the food the claimant was eating in the course of his employment was a contributing proximate cause of his injury, the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award denying compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
§ 501.807 Procedures governing delisting from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List or any other list of sanctioned persons or property maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. A person may submit a petition for administrative reconsideration pursuant to the procedures outlined below in order to seek removal of a person or property (e.g., a vessel) from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) or any other list or identification of sanctioned persons or property maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC): ( a ) A person blocked under the provisions of any part of this chapter, including a specially designated national, specially designated terrorist, specially designated narcotics trafficker, or a person otherwise subject to sanctions pursuant to the provisions of any part of this chapter (each, a “sanctioned person”), or a person owning a majority interest in property (e.g., a vessel) that is blocked or otherwise subject to sanctions may submit arguments or evidence that the person believes establishes that insufficient basis exists for the sanction or that the circumstances resulting in the sanction no longer apply. The sanctioned person also may propose remedial steps on the person's part, such as corporate reorganization, resignation of persons from positions in a blocked entity, or similar steps, which the person believes would negate the basis for the sanction. A person owning a majority interest in property (e.g., a vessel) that is blocked or otherwise subject to sanctions may propose the sale of the vessel, with the proceeds to be placed into a blocked interest-bearing account after deducting the costs incurred while the vessel was blocked and the costs of the sale. This submission must be made via email to *OFAC.Reconsideration@treasury.gov .*
( b ) For purposes of reconsideration petitions relating to persons or property sanctioned by OFAC: ( 1 ) The information submitted by the person seeking removal of a person or property from the SDN List or any other list or identification of sanctioned persons or property maintained by OFAC will be reviewed by OFAC, which may request clarifying, corroborating, or other additional information.
( 2 ) A person seeking removal of a person or property from the SDN List or any other list or identification of sanctioned persons or property maintained by OFAC may request a meeting with OFAC; however, such meetings are not required, and the office may, at its discretion, decline to conduct such meetings prior to completing a review pursuant to this section.
( 3 ) After OFAC has conducted a review of the request for reconsideration, it will provide a written decision to the person seeking the removal of a person or property from the SDN List or any other list or identification of sanctioned persons or property maintained by OFAC.
[89 FR 40378, May 10, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 223.13-223.14 [RESERVED]
## Memorandum

DATE: February 2, 2015

TO: Department of Energy ( expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov )

FROM: Chip Yost

CC: John Cymbalsky

SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communications, Docket EERE

– 2014

– BT

– TP

– 0014 / RIN 1904

– AD22

On January 23, 2015, representatives from the commercial portable air conditioner and spot cooler industry and the National Association of Manufacturers participated in a conference call with the Department of Energy’s Office of Building Technologies Program regarding the Notice of Data Availability for Portable Air Conditioners, Docket No. EERE

- 2014

- BT

- TP

- 0014, RIN 1904

- AD22.

In summary, we discussed th e difference between commercial portable air conditioning units and residential portable air conditioning units.

The participants were as follows:

John Cymbalsky

- Office of Building Technologies Program Troy Watson

- Navigant (DOE) Len Swatkowski

- Ocean A ire Inc. Marlin Spencer

- AirP ac Inc. Ed LoCasio

- Temp

- Air Inc. Chip Yost

- National Association of Manufacturers Jack Gerard

- National Association of Manufacturers
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,437,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,665,638
<PP&E>                                         829,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                (468,599)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,958,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,308,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          619,949
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    61,608,619
<OTHER-SE>                                 (60,578,165)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,958,806
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,268
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,092,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,962,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (6,962,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,962,177)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
## ATTACHMENT 2-2 THESE DIMENSIONS ARE CENTRALIA ABOVE SEA LEVEL ORIS CODE: 03845 A 

## NADB BOILER ID: BW21 CEMS/DAHS ( 

## CEMS/DAHS 

# ,**~** SCHEMATIC

# ~---- -­ SCHEMATIC

------­ 

## EI. 690'-0" EI. 691'-0" r-.... 

## """ \<b.r-.... """ 

# ® "

----­ r

## IQ! 

# Q@O 

# SB---­ o@'o**~--** 0

J A E A



## TOP OF

ELBOW 0

G

BYPASS FGD STACK STACK
SCRUBBER

# ~J -""" 

## - - - - - - . ­ '- TOP OF BREACH 386'-6"

AIR ESP 

# q::**~1ER ~.**  

## - - - - - - - TOP OF BREAr.H ?SO' -0" f-­ DAWPEF



### ..... r-..



### .....

# ~I~ r-f-L- 

## FAN

""" GROUND ELEV. = 220'-0· (ABOVE SEA LEVEL) "­ ..-' GROUND £lEV. = 221'-0· (ABOVE SEA LEVEL) 

## TFB BOILER

ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

# r

DIMENSIONS ARE

POINT DESCRIPTION DIMENSION DIMENSION UNITS POINT DESCRIPTION DIMENSION DIMENSION UNITS LOCATION BYPASS STACK FGD STACK LOCATION BYPASS STACK FGD STACK
A STACK HEIGHT ABOVE BREACH 440 304.5 

### FT. G CEMS GAS SAMPLE PROBE

B STACK DIAMETER AT CEM PORTS 24 29.75 FT. ELEVATION (ABOVE SEA LEVEL) 615 FT

C INSIDE CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA AT 452.4 695.1 SQ. FT. 

### 1. LOCATION OF PROBE TIP 3.9 FT. CEM PORTS (FROM INSIDE WALL OF STACK) D UPSTREAM FLOW RECEIVER PORT 

### H INSIDE CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA AT 452.4 695.1 SQ. FT. 1. ABOVE SEA LEVEL 615 

### FT. STACK FlNAL EXIT 2. ABOVE LAST DISTURBANCE 228.5 FT.
7.6 

## 1# STK DIAMS. J 455 

### FT. REV DAlE DESCRIPllON APPR 4- ·1Ilf24/04 RFVlSFr • AS Rill! T TOW E DOWNSTREAM FLOW RECEIVER PORT OPACITY MONITOR "l I/LIl/Ul**11h'h'~** 11-1 FRRORS :3 

### oll1210( 'Ac:.: BU .T DW 644.75 

### FT. 1. ABOVE SEA LEVEL 

# *

KVB £N£RT£C. Inc. -.r:cT 'II1I.E 2. ABOVE LAST DISTURBANCE 258.25 FT. POINT DIt.lENSION COOIW.JA DESCRIPTION UNITS art 2849 Sta11n, Onw INT 8W21 8.6 

## II STK DIAMS. LOCATION INLET DUCT n lie Hatfield. PA 9440 USA CElIS S'I'S1IUS (215)996-2000, fax 9201 K CEMS GAS SAt.lPLE PROBE



# ... 

# - __ 1I11.E ELEVATION (ABOVE SEA LEVEL) 246 FT SICK IlAlHAK



# - _LCCIIlDI CI!N1IIAIJA, WA PROCESS OVERVIEW 

### 1. LOCATION OF PROBE TIP 5

### ~~- ,..0.

, 

# 1=

(FROM INSIDE WALL OF STACK) 

# - HEY OF**1~1E** 

# -_

.... REV: 1i'21sI_HI200 1 2 2I-!IJI-GI 323&-1501-1 

# ..ORIS 3845 Units BW21 and BW22 Flue Gas Flow DiagramPRIMARYKOPPERSLODGE-COTTRELLINDUCEDAIRELECTRO-ELECTRO-DRAFTANDMAGNETICMECHANICALFANSFORCEDCONTROLLEDCONTROLLEDDRAFTELECTROSTATICELECTROSTATICN/CWETFANSPRECIPITATORSPRECIPITATORSISOLATIONLIMESTONEBYPASSDAMPERSLURRYINFLUE GASSTARTUPBYPASSDESULFURIZATION&STACKSYSTEMEMERGENCYONLYISOLATIONPRIMARYDAMPERAIRINDUCEDN/CANDDRAFTFORCEDFANSDRAFTFANSOVERFIRE AIR CONTROLS N/O N/OFGDS STACK

ISOLATION DAMPER
ISOLATION DAMPERSEPARATED AND COUPLEDDRY BOTTOMTANGENTIALLY FIREDCENTER SPLIT TUBE WALLBOILER
§ 536.506 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of specially designated narcotics traffickers is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to § 536.507 or 536.508, which authorize certain payments for legal services; via specific licenses; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to specially designated narcotics traffickers not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by this paragraph. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by this section do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 536.405.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 536.201 is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 536.506 :
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of such legal services where alternative funding sources are not available
[86 FR 26665, May 17, 2021]
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

dseuthneat sorvey sate

naa Mean savvy sane

NOS SEAMAP SERIES
NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN

Pvmaines af apringdnn, DE
US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANS ANG ATHOGINERIC aGniihesTHATEN
NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY
1973

MERCATOR PROJECTION
‘Scale 174 incmes (10. 16cm

guMemnt tevvey date 3

BATHYMETRIC MAP
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6042

JAMES F. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Director,

Federal Bureau of Prisons; EDWARD CARTWIGHT,

Unit Manager, FCI Estill; HENRY LUSK, Culinary

Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-02-2881-0)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James F. Johnson appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action after he

failed to comply with an order of the magistrate judge, requiring

service of defendants in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) and

answer special interrogatories by the court. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. See Johnson v. Ashcroft, No.

CA-02-2881-0 (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED