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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal—State Compact Amendment.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes approval of the 2009 Amendments to the Stockbridge-Munsee Community (“Tribe”) and the State of Wisconsin Gaming Compact of 1992, as Amended in 1998 and 2003.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 19, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula L. Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Amendment allows the Tribe to expand the pool of prospective lenders for construction or improvements to a Tribal gaming facility from State or federally chartered banks to include other federally recognized tribes.                

      ( print page 41931)    
Dated: July 31, 2009.

George T. Skibine,

Acting Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E9-19887 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
#### § 536.315 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
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.

§ 353.11 Computation of amount. ( a ) *General.* The purchases of bonds in the name of any person in an individual capacity are computed separately from purchases in a fiduciary capacity. A pension or retirement fund, or an investment, insurance, annuity, or similar fund or trust is regarded as an entity, regardless of the number of beneficiaries or the manner in which their shares or interests are established, determined, or segregated.
( b ) *Bonds included in computation.* In computing the purchases for each person, the following outstanding bonds are included: ( 1 ) All bonds registered in the name of that person alone;
( 2 ) All bonds registered in the name of the representative of the estate of that person; and
( 3 ) All bonds registered in the name of that person as first-named coowner.
( c ) *Bonds excluded from computation.* In computing the purchases for each person, the following are excluded: ( 1 ) Bonds on which that person is named beneficiary;
( 2 ) Bonds to which that person has become entitled— ( i ) Under § 353.70 as surviving beneficiary upon the death of the registered owner;
( ii ) As an heir or a legatee of the deceased owner;
( iii ) By virtue of the termination of a trust or the happening of a similar event;
( 3 ) Bonds issued in an authorized exchange or reinvestment; and
( 4 ) Bonds that are purchased and redeemed within the same calendar year.
[44 FR 76441, Dec. 26, 1979, as amended at 68 FR 24805, May 8, 2003]
#### Fraternal Order of Eagles v. State of Arkansas

5-4901

439 S.W. 2d 36

Opinion Delivered April *7,*1969

*Fitton, Meadows*& *Adams*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Atty. Gen. and *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

This is an appeal from a permanent injunction issued against the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie 3183, Baxter County, at the instance of the prosecuting attorney on behalf of the State. The subject of the injunction was the sale of alcoholic beverages by the club. Appellant here contends that the dispensing of mixed drinks to members of a non-profit club in a “dry” county does not constitute a sale of alcoholic beverages. Alternatively, it is insisted that the dispensing of drinks by a private club to its members, even if considered illegal, does not constitute a public nuisance within the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-101 (RepJ. 1962)1

The facts on appeal are stipulated. A lawful search of the lodge in July 1967 resulted in the confiscation of 250 cases of intoxicants and six slot machines. The lodge was operating a bar from which mixed drinks *569were served to members and guests for cash. A few days thereafter the prosecuting attorney filed a petition against the lodge to abate a nuisance, proceeding under Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-101, 110. A temporary order was entered closing the building pending a final hearing, as authorized by § 34-104. At the final hearing the injunction was made permanent pursuant to § 34-106. The legal effect of that order was to enjoin the defendants from engaging in unlawful activities forming the basis of the nuisance.

Section 34-101 declares the unlawful sale of liquors “in any building, structure, or place in this State” to constitute a public nuisance. The recited statute authorizes the abatement to go against the premises from which the violator is operating. Baxter County is legally a dry county. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 48-811 (Repl. 1964) makes it unlawful to “sell, barter, or loan, directly or indirectly any beverage containing alcohol” in a dry county.

The court made a finding that the sale of alcoholic beverages had been activefy carried on under the direction of the lodge officers. There was ample evidence to justify that conclusion. The volume of business was such that an inventory of 250 cases of intoxicants was on hand at the time of the raid. The number of members of the order is not in the record but the utilization of six slot machines is indicative of substantial patronage. Also, the club was enjoying sufficient profits from its “projects” to finance a new lodge and golf course.

A¥e have no hesitancy in sustaining the trial court’s ruling that the substantial sale of intoxicants from the lodge building by its operating officers brought appellant within the practice condemned as a nuisance by the provisions of § 34-101.

Affirmed.

1

It is not contended that appellant possessed any type of permit which purportedly would have authorized it to dispense intoxicants in a dry county.
§ 31.217 Confidentiality of information. ( a ) *Nonpublic information defined.* Any information that Treasury provides to a retained entity under an arrangement, or that the retained entity obtains or develops pursuant to the arrangement, shall be deemed nonpublic until the Treasury determines otherwise in writing, or the information becomes part of the body of public information from a source other than the retained entity.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* The retained entity shall not: ( 1 ) Disclose nonpublic information to anyone except as required to perform the retained entity's obligations pursuant to the arrangement, or pursuant to a lawful court order or valid subpoena after giving prior notice to Treasury.
( 2 ) Use or allow the use of any nonpublic information to further any private interest other than as contemplated by the arrangement.
( c ) *Retained entity's responsibility.* A retained entity shall take appropriate measures to ensure the confidentiality of nonpublic information and to prevent its inappropriate use. The retained entity shall document these measures in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance, and shall maintain this documentation for three years after the arrangement has terminated. The retained entity shall notify the TARP Chief Compliance Officer in writing within five business days of detecting a violation of the prohibitions in paragraph (b), above. The security measures required by this paragraph shall include: ( 1 ) Security measures to prevent unauthorized access to facilities and storage containers where nonpublic information is stored.
( 2 ) Security measures to detect and prevent unauthorized access to computer equipment and data storage devices that store or transmit nonpublic information.
( 3 ) Periodic training to ensure that persons receiving nonpublic information know their obligation to maintain its confidentiality and to use it only for purposes contemplated by the arrangement.
( 4 ) Programs to ensure compliance with federal securities laws, including laws relating to insider trading, when the arrangement relates to the acquisition, valuation, management, or disposition of troubled assets.
( 5 ) A certification from each key individual stating that he or she will comply with the requirements in section 31.217(b). The retained entity shall obtain this certification, in the form of a nondisclosure agreement, before a key individual performs work under the arrangement, and then annually thereafter.
( d ) *Certification.* No later than ten business days after the effective date of the arrangement, the retained entity shall certify to the Treasury that it has received a certification form from each key individual stating that he or she will comply with the requirements in § 31.217(b). In making this certification, the retained entity may rely on the information obtained pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, unless the retained entity knows or should have known that the information provided is false or inaccurate.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 224.1 What does this part cover?

This part provides guidance on when a surety corporation must appoint a service of process agent and how the surety corporation complies with this requirement.
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Bauer, Denise Campbell – French Republic and Principality of Monaco – July 2021

# 									Bauer, Denise Campbell – French Republic and Principality of Monaco – July 2021							

Certificate of Competency

July 15, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT:            Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  French Republic and Principality of Monaco

CANDIDATE:     Denise Campbell Bauer

Denise Campbell Bauer served as the Executive Director of Women for Biden. She previously served as the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium from 2013 until 2017, where she led one of the largest embassies in Europe and earned a reputation for her collaborative leadership style, high ethics standards, and crisis management skills.  In this role, she focused on strengthening transatlantic security partnerships and international trade.  Bauer’s substantive experience in the region, coupled with her management experience and demonstrated ability to lead large interagency teams, makes her a well-qualified candidate to be the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco.

Earlier in her career, she held positions in journalism, the non-profit world, and politics.  Bauer began her career in Los Angeles, where she worked as a journalist for two internationally respected television networks.  She then moved into leadership positions with a number of non-profits.  Bauer became active in national politics in 2007, serving on the Obama for America National Finance Committee during both of his presidential election campaigns and as National Finance Chair for Women for Obama in 2012.  She also was on the DNC National Finance Committee from 2008 through 2012, where she was chair of the Women’s Leadership Forum in 2012 and co-chair of the annual National Issues Conference for four consecutive conferences.  Bauer received a B.A. from Occidental College.  She speaks French.

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 501.736 Authority of Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge shall have authority to do all things necessary and appropriate to discharge his or her duties. No provision of these rules shall be construed to limit the powers of the Administrative Law Judge provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556, 557. The powers of the Administrative Law Judge include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Administering oaths and affirmations;
( b ) Issuing subpoenas authorized by law and revoking, quashing, or modifying any such subpoena;
( c ) Receiving relevant evidence and ruling upon the admission of evidence and offers of proof;
( d ) Regulating the course of a proceeding and the conduct of the parties and their representatives;
( e ) Holding prehearing and other conferences as set forth in § 501.726 and requiring the attendance at any such conference of at least one representative of each party who has authority to negotiate concerning the resolution of issues in controversy;
( f ) Subject to any limitations set forth elsewhere in this subpart, considering and ruling on all procedural and other motions;
( g ) Upon notice to all parties, reopening any hearing prior to the issuance of a decision;
( h ) Requiring production of records or any information relevant to any act or transaction subject to a hearing under this subpart, and imposing sanctions available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.) for a party's failure to comply with discovery requests;
( i ) Establishing time, place, and manner limitations on the attendance of the public and the media for any hearing; and
( j ) Setting fees and expenses for witnesses, including expert witnesses.
#### § 535.219 Discharge of obligation by compliance with this part.

Compliance with §§ 535.210, 535.211, 535.212, 535.213, 535.214 and 535.215, or any other orders, regulations, instructions or directions issued pursuant to this part licensing, authorizing, directing or compelling the transfer of the assets described in those sections, shall, to the extent thereof, be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same. No person shall be held liable in any court for or with respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, such orders, regulations, instructions or directions.

(Secs. 201-207, 91 Stat. 1626, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706; E.O. 12170, 44 FR 65729; E.O. 12205, 45 FR 24099; E.O. 12211, 45 FR 26685; E.O. 12276, 46 FR 7913; E.O. 12279, 46 FR 7919; E.O. 12280, 46 FR 7921; E.O. 12281, 46 FR 7923; E.O. 12282, 46 FR 7925; E.O. 12283, 46 FR 7927, and E.O. 12294, 46 FR 14111)

[46 FR 14334, Feb. 26, 1981]
#### §§ 1025.310-1025.315 [Reserved]
§ 28.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2596

To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act through fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. SCHAEFER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act through fiscal year 1999,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT

4 AMENDMENTS.

5 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amend6 ed—

7 (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246)

8 to read as follows:
2

•HR 2596 IH

1 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

2 ‘‘SEC. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated

3 for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 such sums as may be

4 necessary to implement this part.’’;

5 (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking

6 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert7 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1999’’;

8 (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42

9 U.S.C. 6276(h)) ‘‘There are authorized to be appro10 priated for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 such

11 sums as may be necessary to carry out this part.’’;

12 (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking

13 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert14 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1999’’;

15 (5) in section 365(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6325(f)(1))

16 by striking ‘‘not to exceed’’ and all that follows

17 through ‘‘fiscal year 1993’’ and inserting in lieu

18 thereof ‘‘for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 such

19 sums as may be necessary’’; and

20 (6) by amending section 397 (42 U.S.C. 6371f)

21 to read as follows:

22 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

23 ‘‘SEC. 397. For the purpose of carrying out this part,

24 there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years

25 1996 through 1999 such sums as may be necessary.’’.
3

•HR 2596 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION ACT

2 AMENDMENT.

3 Section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Produc4 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6872) is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

6 ‘‘SEC. 422. For the purpose of carrying out the

7 weatherization program under this part, there are author8 ized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1996 through 1999

9 such sums as may be necessary.’’.

Æ
40232.

#### TUMLIN v. WILSON.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff brought suit for foreclosure against the defendant’s property of his materialman’s lien for $1,104.75. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for a lien of $400. The plaintiff assigns error on the trial court’s overruling of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. *Held:*

The only issue is whether the evidence demanded a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for. The plaintiff’s evidence showed that materials amounting to $1,104.75 were furnished to the contractor and delivered to and used in improving the defendant’s real estate. See *Grigsby v. Fleming,*96 Ga. App. 664, 666 (101 SE2d 217). There was evidence *274that the contractor had absconded. The defendant’s pleadings and proof contended that he had a $2,200 contract; that the contractor abandoned the contract before completion; that he had paid the contractor in full, $1,750.00, for all work completed; and that it would cost several hundred dollars to complete the work. “In an action by a materialman, who has furnished materials to a contractor to improve real estate of an owner, to foreclose his lien, authorized under *Code Chapter*67-20, the maximum liability of such owner to such materialman is fixed by the contract price between such owner and such contractor. The abandonment by the contractor of his contract does not constitute a defense on behalf of the defendant owner as to materials actually used in the improvement of the premises unless the owner after such abandonment by the contractor, has the improvements provided for in the contract completed, thus forming the basis for additional liens to attach against the owner’s property.” *Roberts v. Georgia Sou. Supply Co.,*92 Ga. App. 303 (1) (88 SE2d 554). “The owner cannot avail himself of the defense of what it might cost to finish an uncompleted contract, as no such estimate constitutes a lien.” *Roberts v. Georgia Sou. Supply Co.,*supra, p. 307. The plaintiff having proved his claim within the contract price and the defendant having proved no basis for other liens, the trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. *Goss v. Davenport,*105 Ga. App. 386 (124 SE2d 485).

Decided September 4, 1963.

*Hicks & Howard, G. Robert Howard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jean E. Johnson, Sr.,*contra.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form
10-Q for the period ended September 26, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000858905
<NAME> UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           2,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,495
<INVENTORY>                                    232,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               468,369
<PP&E>                                         372,548
<DEPRECIATION>                                 348,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,186,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          235,381
<BONDS>                                        474,638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (178,032)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,186,496
<SALES>                                        949,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               949,777
<CGS>                                          563,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  781,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,106)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,864
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,056
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             65,184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (21,651)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
TIMOTHY CONLEY

,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary,

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THER EOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3 396

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson

, Judge

.

Timothy Conley, pro se, Appellant.

Kenneth Steely, General Counsel, Pamela Jo Bo ndi, Attorney General, and Jamie

M. Braun, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Ap pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.