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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000858905
<NAME> UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          13,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,641
<INVENTORY>                                    210,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               450,300
<PP&E>                                         629,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                 271,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,142,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          237,633
<BONDS>                                        907,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (319,165)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,142,405
<SALES>                                        307,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               307,883
<CGS>                                          187,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    73
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   469
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,934
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,939
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,939
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Fw: draft non-Hg case study technical support memo RobertJ Wayland to: Cortney_Higgins 03/03/2011 04:25 PM Cc: Bill Maxwell

Cortney -

Here's another memo.

thanx!

bob

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/03/2011 04:24 PM

----- From: Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US To: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Morris/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/03/2011 04:23 PM Subject: draft non-Hg case study technical support memo

this is ready to go to OMB

Inhalation case study memo 3_1_2011.docx

Dave Guinnup Leader, Air Toxics Assessment Group Health and Environmental Impacts Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US EPA (C539-02) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919)-541-5368 voice (919)-541-0840 FAX
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2581

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit nonparty

multicandidate political committee contributions in elections for Federal office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

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

Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

prohibit nonparty multicandidate political committee contributions in elections for Federal office.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY

4 NONPARTY MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL

5 COMMITTEES IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL

6 OFFICE.

7 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

8 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

9 the following new subsection:
2

•HR 2581 IH

1 ‘‘(i)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

2 Act, no nonparty multicandidate political committee may

3 make any contribution to a candidate for Federal office.

4 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection, the term

5 ‘multicandidate political committee’ has the meaning given

6 that term in subsection (a)(4).’’.

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

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 370.38 What is the legal effect of an electronic signature?

An electronic signature and any electronic message to which it is affixed or attached may not be denied legal effect, including legal effect as a signature, a writing, or an original, solely because the signature or record is in electronic form.
HomeBiographies...Kenneth D. Ward

# 				Kenneth D. Ward			

															U.S. Special Representative to the Biological Weapons Convention						Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation												

				March 30, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of International Security and NonproliferationState Department Official

Back to Top
§ 547.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 547.201(a), such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 547.201(a), unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 547.201(a), the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 547.201(a), such property shall be deemed to be property in which such person has an interest and therefore blocked.
40372.

#### MISSISSIPPI TANK COMPANY, INC. v. WHITE, d/b/a DIXIE GAS COMPANY.

Decided November 4, 1963.

*610
      *B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., Albert Sidney Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Max Cheney,*contra.

Ebbri-iardt, Judge.

Headnote 1 requires no elaboration.

In the state of the record, jury questions on material issues were presented by the evidence and the motion for judgment n.o.v. must fail.

Inasmuch as the defendant’s evidence disclosed that one of the tanks plaintiff was notified to pick up had been used, thereby rendering the defendant liable for it even under his con*611tentions that there had been a mutual departure from the terms of the written contract, as set out in his amended answer, to the effect that the tanks consigned to the defendant were to be paid for by him “in the event the tanks were used, sold, leased or moved” at a price to be fixed at that time, the verdict for the defendant was not authorized and a new trial must be granted on the general grounds.

The three special grounds of the motion for new trial, all complaining of the erroneous admission of evidence without stating what objection was made to the evidence when it was offered and without any reference to the place in the record where the objections can be found, present no question for decision and are not passed upon.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
#### Barnet Z. Friedman *vs.*Richard H. G. Cunningham.

Third Judicial District, New Haven,

January Term, 1926.

Wheeler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.

Argued January 27th

decided February 23d, 1926.

Action to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s automobile, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County and tried to the court, *Huxford,*judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

*No error.*

*John T. Dwyer,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Stanley T. Jennings,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in this action sought to recover damages for injury done to his automobile in a collision with that of the defendant, which the plaintiff alleged to be due to negligence of the defendant’s servant and agent. The collision occurred at a highway intersection, and defendant’s automobile was upon the right of the plaintiff’s as they came to it. If they were arriving at approximately the same time, it would be the duty of plaintiff’s driver to yield the right of way to the defendant’s automobile. Public Acts of 1921, Chap. 334, § 2; *Neumann*v. *Apter,*95 Conn. 695, 700, 112 Atl. 350; *Bettilyon*v. *Smith & Son, Inc.,*96 Conn. 16, 20, 112 Atl. 649; *Lamke*v. *Harty Bros. Trucking Co.,*96 Conn. 505, 508, 114 Atl. *738533. That the situation was such as to bring this rule into operation and that the driver of plaintiff’s car was negligent in not heeding it, slackening his speed, or giving any warning, are not merely reasonable, but almost inevitable conclusions. That being so, it becomes of no consequence whether the driver of defendant’s automobile was also negligent, for the negligence of the driver of plaintiff’s car must certainly, on the facts found, be regarded as at least materially contributing to bring about the collision, even if it could not be said to be the sole cause.

There is no error.
Opinion issued April 8, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00382-CR

———————————

RONALD LEE LAYMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 68809

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronald Lee Layman, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

driving while intoxicated—third or more.

1

The trial court found Layman guilty 

and, in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement with the State, 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2) (West 2011).
2

sentenced him to four years of community supervision and assessed a $500 fine. 

Acting pro se, Layman filed a notice of appeal. The State has filed a motion to 

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We grant the State’s motion and 

dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has 

not been made part of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did not 

appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for 

appellant to appeal. The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no 

right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 

680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to 

ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 

25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of 

the basis for the appeal.”).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2504

To designate the Federal Building located at the corner of Patton Avenue

and Otis Street, and the United States Courthouse located on Otis

Street, in Asheville, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal Complex’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 1995

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal Building located at the corner

of Patton Avenue and Otis Street, and the United States

Courthouse located on Otis Street, in Asheville, North

Carolina, as the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal Complex’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at the corner of Patton

5 Avenue and Otis Street, and the United States Courthouse

6 located on Otis Street, in Asheville, North Carolina, shall

7 be known and designated as the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal

8 Complex’’.
2

•HR 2504 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the build4 ings referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal Complex’’.

Æ
§ 546.205 Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies. ( a ) Any transaction on or after the effective date that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.
( b ) Any conspiracy formed to violate the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.
[89 FR 15747, Mar. 5, 2024]
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Tyrone Snowden  Woods

# 				 Tyrone Snowden  Woods			

				Third-Party Contractor			

Deceased				September 12, 2012			

**Private collection image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialLibya

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.

#### § 361.1 Scope of regulations.

This part governs the reporting of loss or destruction of, or damage to, valuables shipped pursuant to section 1 of the Government Losses in Shipment Act (hereafter the Act) (40 U.S.C. 721) and proof of claim for replacement under section 3 of the Act (40 U.S.C. 723) by executive departments, independent establishments, agencies, wholly owned corporations, officers and employees of the United States, and Federal Reserve banks when acting on behalf of the United States or agencies thereof (hereafter consignors). Failure by any consignor or agent or employee thereof to comply with these regulations may delay recoveries, preclude reimbursement from the fund for the payment of Government losses in shipment (hereafter the Fund) or other relief under the Act, and render the consignor responsible for any loss occurring through such failure.
§ 549.701 Penalties. ( a ) Attention is directed to section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) (“IEEPA”), which is applicable to violations of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, directive, or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under IEEPA. ( 1 ) A civil penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in section 206 of IEEPA may be imposed on any person who violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under IEEPA.
( 2 ) The applicable maximum civil penalty per violation of IEEPA is the greater of $368,136 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
( 3 ) A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition may, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
( b ) *Adjustments to penalty amounts.* ( 1 ) The civil penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
( 2 ) The criminal penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.
( c ) Attention is also directed to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides that “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully: ( 1 ) Falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
( 2 ) Makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
( 3 ) Makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned, or both.
( d ) Violations of this part may also be subject to relevant provisions of other applicable laws.
[75 FR 44909, July 30, 2010, as amended at 81 FR 43075, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 10438, Feb. 10, 2017; 83 FR 11879, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 27717, June 14, 2019; 85 FR 19887, Apr. 9, 2020; 86 FR 14537, Mar. 17, 2021; 87 FR 7372, Feb. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2233, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 2142, Jan. 12, 2024]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1150

To require professional boxers to wear headgear during all professional fights

in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1995

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

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To require professional boxers to wear headgear during all

professional fights in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Professional Boxing

5 Safety Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. HEADGEAR REQUIREMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL

7 BOXERS.

8 Any individual who participates as a boxer in a pro9 fessional boxing match shall, during such participation,
2

•HR 1150 IH

1 wear headgear that meets the standards established by the

2 International Olympic Committee.

3 SEC. 3. CIVIL PENALTY.

4 The Attorney General of the United States may im5 pose a civil monetary penalty against any State boxing au6 thority if the Attorney General determines on the record

7 after opportunity for an agency hearing that the State

8 boxing authority has allowed a boxer to participate in a

9 professional boxing match without the headgear required

10 by section 2. The civil monetary penalty may not exceed

11 $1,000,000 for each violation.

12 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

13 For purposes of this Act:

14 (1) PROFESSIONAL BOXING MATCH.—The term

15 ‘‘professional boxing match’’ means a boxing contest

16 held in a State between individuals for compensation

17 or a prize, and does not include any amateur boxing

18 match.

19 (2) STATE.—

20 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘State’’

21 means any State of the United States, the Dis22 trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

23 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mari24 ana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Is-
3

•HR 1150 IH

1 lands, any other territory or possession of the

2 United States, and any Indian tribe.

3 (B) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indian

4 tribe’’ means any Indian tribe, band, nation,

5 pueblo, or other organized group or community

6 which is recognized as eligible for the special

7 programs and services provided by the United

8 States to Indians because of their status as In9 dians and is recognized as possessing powers of

10 self-government.

11 (3) STATE BOXING AUTHORITY.—The term

12 ‘‘State boxing authority’’ means a State agency with

13 authority to regulate professional boxing.

14 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

15 Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect 90 days after the

16 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Building Consensus on the U.S. Framework for a Political Declaration on the Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy

# 									Building Consensus on the U.S. Framework for a Political Declaration on the Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 16, 2023

Today, the U.S. Government unveiled its framework for a “Political Declaration on the Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy” at the Summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM 2023). The aim of the Declaration is to build international consensus around how militaries can responsibly incorporate AI and autonomy into their operations, and to help guide states’ development, deployment, and use of this technology for defense purposes to ensure it promotes respect for international law, security, and stability.

The Declaration consists of a series of non-legally binding guidelines describing best practices for responsible use of AI in a defense context. These include ensuring that military AI systems are auditable, have explicit and well-defined uses, are subject to rigorous testing and evaluation across their lifecycle, and that high-consequence applications undergo senior-level review and are capable of being deactivated if they demonstrate unintended behavior. We believe that this Declaration can serve as a foundation for the international community on the principles and practices that are necessary to ensure the responsible military uses of AI and autonomy.

We commend the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea for taking the initiative to co-host the REAIM Summit and for launching a timely discussion on this topic. We view the need to ensure militaries use emerging technologies such as AI responsibly as a shared challenge. We look forward to engaging with other likeminded stakeholders to build a consensus around this proposed Declaration and develop strong international norms of responsible behavior.

Tags

Artificial IntelligenceBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityNetherlandsOffice of the SpokespersonSouth KoreaUnder Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Bolivia National Day

# 									Bolivia National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 6, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the 198th anniversary of its independence on August 6.

On this date, we celebrate the dedication of Bolivians to building a more democratic, just, and inclusive society.  The United States and Bolivia enjoy strong ties—ties that are rooted in friendship and a deep admiration for each other’s cultures.  We remain committed to strengthening those bonds in partnership with the Bolivian people.

I wish all Bolivians a happy Independence Day.

Tags

BoliviaBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Version History for:


Gelfenbaum, Guy, Guy, Kristy, and Geraghty, Kevin, 2000, 
     Beach structures map series of west-central Florida:  
     U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-416 (CD-ROM).

Version 1.0 - April 14, 2000
     First release.  Also available on the Web at 
     http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-416