alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 501.714 Answer to Order Instituting Proceedings. ( a ) *When required.* Not later than 45 days after service of the Order Instituting Proceedings, the respondent shall file, with the Administrative Law Judge and the Office of Chief Counsel, an answer to each of the allegations contained therein. If the Order Instituting Proceedings is amended, the Administrative Law Judge may require that an amended answer be filed and, if such an answer is required, shall specify a date for the filing thereof.
( b ) *Contents; effect of failure to deny.* Unless otherwise directed by the Administrative Law Judge, an answer shall specifically admit, deny, or state that the respondent does not have, and is unable to obtain, sufficient information to admit or deny each allegation in the Order Instituting Proceedings. When a respondent intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the respondent shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny only the remainder. A statement of lack of information shall have the effect of a denial. A defense of res judicata, statute of limitations or any other matter constituting an affirmative defense shall be asserted in the answer. Any allegation not specifically addressed in the answer shall be deemed admitted.
( c ) *Motion for more definite statement.* A respondent may file with an answer a motion for a more definite statement of specified matters of fact or law to be considered or determined. Such motion shall state the respects in which, and the reasons why, each such matter of fact or law should be required to be made more definite. If the motion is granted, the order granting such motion shall set the periods for filing such a statement and any answer thereto.
( d ) *Amendments.* A respondent may amend its answer at any time by written consent of the Director or with permission of the Administrative Law Judge. Permission shall be freely granted when justice so requires.
( e ) *Failure to file answer:* default. If a respondent fails to file an answer required by this subpart within the time prescribed, such respondent may be deemed in default pursuant to § 501.716(a). A party may make a motion to set aside a default pursuant to § 501.726(e).
§ 535.528 Certain transactions with respect to Iranian patents, trademarks and copyrights authorized. ( a ) The following transactions by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are authorized: ( 1 ) The filing and prosecution of any application for an Iranian patent, trademark or copyright, or for the renewal thereof;
( 2 ) The receipt of any Iranian patent, trademark or copyright;
( 3 ) The filing and prosecution of opposition or infringement proceedings with respect to any Iranian patent, trademark, or copyright, and the prosecution of a defense to any such proceedings;
( 4 ) The payment of fees currently due to the government of Iran, either directly or through an attorney or representative, in connection with any of the transactions authorized by paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section or for the maintenance of any Iranian patent, trademark or copyright; and
( 5 ) The payment of reasonable and customary fees currently due to attorneys or representatives in Iran incurred in connection with any of the transactions authorized by paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section.
( b ) Payments effected pursuant to the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section may not be made from any blocked account.
( c ) As used in this section the term *Iranian patent, trademark, or copyright* shall mean any patent, petty patent, design patent, trademark or copyright issued by Iran.
[45 FR 29288, May 2, 1980]
39777.

#### FARMER v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

Curtis Farmer was tried and convicted of the offense of operating a tippling house in violation of *Code*§ 26-6105. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

1. Special ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial which assigns error on the admission in evidence of certain testimony *216elicited from the defendant (who had testified under oath) on cross-examination by the solicitor general shows no cause for reversal of this case for the reason that the testimony objected to was not unfavorable or harmful to the defendant. *Couch v. State,*73 Ga. App. 153, 157 (35 SE2d 708). While it is contended by counsel for the defendant in his brief that the mere propounding of the questions set forth in this ground by the solicitor general was prejudicial to the defendant in that said questions wrongfully put the character of the defendant in issue, it does not appear that any objection was made to said alleged impropriety and no motion for mistrial was made or other ruling or instruction invoked with reference thereto by the court. “A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later." *Joyner v. State,*208 Ga. 435, 438 (67 SE2d 221).

Decided January 10, 1963.

*Spivey & Carlton, Milton A. Carlton, John B. Spivey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter C. McMillan, Jr., Solicitor General,*contra.

2. For the reasons set forth in the previous division special ground 2 likewise is without merit.

3. The evidence adduced on behalf of the State, while sharply controverted by that of the defendant, was sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered, and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 42302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20256]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 26, 2009, to consider the following 
matters:

Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.

Discussion Agenda: 
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Statement of Policy of 
Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule on the Extension of the 
Transaction Account Guarantee Program.
Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding 
Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Impact of Modifications to Generally 
Accepted Accounting Principles; Consolidation of Asset-Backed 
Commercial Paper Programs; and Other Related Issues.

    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp to view 
the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video 
Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to 
make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: August 19, 2009.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20256 Filed 8-19-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
FAA Home
Airports
Resources
Series 150 Advisory Circulars (ACs) for Airport Projects

# AC 00-59 - Integrating Helicopter and Tiltrotor Assets into Disaster Relief Planning

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 00-59
- Title
- Integrating Helicopter and Tiltrotor Assets into Disaster Relief Planning
- Status
- Active
- Date issued
- 1998-11-13
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AND-710
- Description
- 														Provides guidance to state and local emergency relief planners on integrating helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft into disaster relief planning efforts.						
- Content
-    -  AC 00-59  (PDF) 

## View All

      - Current Series 150 ACs
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs
      - Advisory Circulars

## Export All

      - Current Series 150 ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs  (CSV)

## Top Requests

      - AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design
      - AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
      - AC 150/5370-10H, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
      - AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings
      - AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
      - AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design
HomePeople...Timothy Alan Betts

# 				Timothy Alan Betts			

															Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls						Bureau of Political-Military Affairs												

				May 21, 2023 -									October 31, 2023							

**Timothy Alan Betts's term ended on October 31, 2023.**
Timothy Alan Betts assumed the position of Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls on May 21, 2023.  Previously, he served as the Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Acting Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.  Prior to his retirement from the Senior Foreign Service in December 2021, Mr. Betts was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and was acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs from January to October 2021.

During his Foreign Service career, Mr. Betts served as Senior Advisor for Security Negotiations and Agreements from 2016 to 2019, leading negotiations of agreements related to the U.S. military’s presence and operations abroad.  As U.S. Program Director for the bilateral Office of Program Management-Ministry of Interior in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 2013-2016, Mr. Betts led a multiagency team helping Saudi Arabia to enhance its capacity to protect critical infrastructure and improve public safety capabilities, primarily through training.  He also served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Budapest, Hungary, from 2010 until 2013; Director of Iraq Affairs from 2008 to 2009; Counselor for Political-Military Affairs in Ankara, Türkiye from 2003-2006; and Consul General in Naha, Okinawa, Japan from 2000 to 2003.  In addition, he had assignments in Canberra, Washington, and Tokyo.

Before joining the Foreign Service, Mr. Betts was a political risk underwriter with the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, first in New York City and later in San Francisco. Earlier, he worked for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which later became the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

He holds an A.B. from Occidental College where he majored in Diplomacy and World Affairs, and an M.A. in Security Studies and International Economics from The Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

Tags
Bureau of Political-Military AffairsState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Actions to Impose Visa Restrictions on Haitians Involved in Street Gangs and Other Haitian Criminal Organizations

# 									Actions to Impose Visa Restrictions on Haitians Involved in Street Gangs and Other Haitian Criminal Organizations							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 22, 2023

The United States is taking steps today to impose visa restrictions on an additional five individuals under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This action affects current or former Haitian government officials and other individuals believed to be involved in the operation of street gangs and other criminal organizations in Haiti through financial and other forms of material support, including the facilitation of illicit arms or narcotics trafficking.

The Department continues to identify individuals and their immediate family members who may be subject to visa restrictions under this policy. There are consequences for those enabling and financing gangs and other criminal organizations, and we will continue to use all available tools, including visa restrictions and sanctions authorities, to promote accountability for those who engage in such actions.  These measures, and those implemented by our partners, are intended to move Haiti towards a more prosperous and stable future.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCrimeHaitiLaw EnforcementNarcoticsOffice of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of StateSecurityUNGA 78United NationsVisas

Back to Top
40059.

#### SNELLGROVE v. PLYWOOD SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. The testimony of plaintiff’s witness in this case, if believed by the jury, would have authorized a finding that the defendant told the agent of the plaintiff that it would be all right to place in the defendant’s name and to charge to the defendant an order for merchandise given plaintiff by a third party. The promise of the defendant is not a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, but is an original undertaking. *Maddox v. Pierce,*74 Ga. 838; *Baldwin v. Hiers,*73 Ga. 739; *Cordray v. James,*19 Ga. App. 156 (1) (91 SE 239). The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for nonsuit made on the ground that the evidence showed the promise of the defendant was within the statute of frauds. *Code*§ 20-401 (2).

2. In the instant case, it being one of suit on open account, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff and not upon the defendant, who, by his answer and his testimony, denied that he had ever made or owed the account. *Wilkes v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co.,*60 Ga. App. 775 (2) (5 SE2d 269). Accordingly, a charge of the court, given immediately after charging that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, that, “In this connection, I *88charge you that, if, as contended by the plaintiff, the plaintiff over a period of several months sent monthly statements of the account in suit to the defendant and that the defendant received the same without in some way objecting to his liability or the correctness of the account within a reasonable time after reception of the account, in the absence of a satisfactory excuse for not objecting a prima facie case would be made out in favor of the plaintiff, and the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence non-liability or the incorrectness of the account is on the defendant, and if the defendant has failed to carry this burden you should find a verdict for the plaintiff for such amount as you find to be just, due, true and unpaid,” is error for the reason that it places the burden of proof upon the defendant to establish that there was no account or that the amount sued for was incorrect and thus confused the jury as to where the burden of proof lay in the case. *Carroll v. Taylor,*87 Ga. App. 815 (4), 819 (75 SE2d 346). See also *Code*§ 38-120, construed in *Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nix,*73 Ga. App. 184, 191 (36 SE2d 111).

Decided June 21, 1963.

*Joel A. Willis, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. L. Hattaway,*contra.

It follows that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial complaining of the above quoted charge.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
#### § 5.14 How will Treasury entities report Treasury debts to credit bureaus?

Treasury entities shall report delinquent Treasury debts to credit bureaus in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), 31 CFR 901.4, and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-129, “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Nontax Receivables.” For additional information, see Financial Management Service's “Guide to the Federal Credit Bureau Program,” which may be found at *http://www.fms.treas.gov/debt.* At least sixty (60) days prior to reporting a delinquent debt to a consumer reporting agency, Treasury entities will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 5.4 of this part. Treasury entities may authorize the Financial Management Service to report to credit bureaus those delinquent Treasury debts that have been transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 5.9 of this part.
# Publicatieblad C 44A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0995
  doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2012.044.dut |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 44A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 55e jaargang16 februari 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0995

doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2012.044.dut

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 44A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

55e jaargang16 februari 2012

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2012/C 044A/01 | Rectificatie van de aankondigingen van vergelijkende onderzoeken COM/AD/01/10 en COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 en COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 en COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 en COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 en COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 en COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 en COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 en COM/AD/16/10 (PB C 265 A van 30.9.2010) | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2012/C 044A/01

Rectificatie van de aankondigingen van vergelijkende onderzoeken COM/AD/01/10 en COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 en COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 en COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 en COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 en COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 en COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 en COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 en COM/AD/16/10 (PB C 265 A van 30.9.2010)

(PB C 265 A van 30.9.2010)

1

OVERZICHT VAN DE IN DE C A-SERIE VAN HET PUBLICATIEBLAD GEPUBLICEERDE VERGELIJKENDE ONDERZOEKEN

Hierbij vindt u een lijst van C A-publicatiebladen Vergelijkende onderzoeken die in 2012 tot op heden gepubliceerd werden.

Deze publicaties verschenen — tenzij anders vermeld — in alle officiële talen.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 16.2.2012 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2012

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 44/1

---

Rectificatie van de aankondigingen van vergelijkende onderzoeken COM/AD/01/10 en COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 en COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 en COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 en COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 en COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 en COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 en COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 en COM/AD/16/10

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 265 A van 30 september 2010
  )

(2012/C 44 A/01)

In hoofdstuk VI van de aankondigingen van vergelijkende onderzoeken (bladzijden 6, 19, 28, 36, 49, 58, 70, 82):

in plaats van:

„VI.   RESERVELIJST

| 1. | Inschrijving op de reservelijst |
| --- | --- |

1.

[...]

De reservelijsten zijn geldig tot 31 december 2012.”

te lezen:

„VI.   RESERVELIJST

| 1. | Inschrijving op de reservelijst |
| --- | --- |

1.

[...]

De reservelijsten zijn geldig tot 31 december 2014.”.

---
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0799

SAT Date: 8/16/2013

Print Date: 9/30/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: Analogs: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: No exposures needed

Ecotox:

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0799

FATE: 

log Koc = 1.78 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.94 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.19 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 76 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = strong

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - slow

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin as the neat material; poor

absorption through the skin if in solution; moderate absorption from the lung and GI tract 

(pchem). No significant health concerns.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.26

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.21

green algal 96-h EC50 0.045

fish _ chronic value 0.008

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.084

algal _ chronic 

value

0.15

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = 

; MW 

(P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category None

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 359.37 How are definitive Series I savings bonds delivered?

We deliver definitive bonds by mail to your address. If your address is within the United States, its territories or possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, we will deliver bonds at our risk. Bonds delivered elsewhere will be delivered at your risk; however, at our discretion, we may require delivery to an address within the United States, or refuse delivery to addresses in countries referred to in part 211 of this chapter.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Javier GALLEGOS, Appellant.

No. 02-1434.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2002.

Decided June 7, 2002.

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Javier Gallegos challenges the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after he entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a mixture containing fifty or more grams of methamphetamine. *See*21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2000). The District Court sentenced Gallegos to sixty months of imprisonment, which was referred to in the plea agreement and is the statutory minimum sentence, and five years of supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief arguing that the sentence should have been only fifty-one months of imprisonment and is excessive. Gallegos has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that in the written plea agreement, Gallegos knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to challenge his sentence on appeal. *See United States v. Morrison,*171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1999). To the extent required, given the appeal waiver, we have further reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find that there are no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.