alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Office Home
- About Us
- Partnerships
- COVID-19 Fund
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of Global Partnerships...About Us – Office of Global Partnerships

# 									About Us – Office of Global Partnerships							

Office of Global Partnerships

## About Us

The Office of Global Partnerships (GP) is the U.S. government leader in private sector engagement. Since its inception in 2008, this approach has fueled our ability to work with over 1,600 partners and mobilize more than $3.7 billion in public and private sector resource commitments that have enhanced the Department’s diplomacy and development outcomes. Harnessing the technology, markets, and resources of the private sector enables the Department to quickly advance U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, while providing businesses and organizations with opportunities to create jobs, promote economic prosperity, and advance business ties and dialogues in specific regions.

In recent years, the private sector has invested $4 for every $1 of U.S. foreign assistance spent on global development. This dramatic shift in economic engagement requires the Department of State to reimagine how we approach diplomacy and development. GP embraces this new approach by serving as the direct link for the private sector to collaborate with the Department and by cultivating cross-sector relationships to advance U.S. foreign policy goals.

## Leadership

Dorothy McAulliffe, Special Representative for Global Partnerships

Tags

Civil SocietyPartnershipsPublic-Private PartnershipsOffice of Global Partnerships

Back to Top
Exhibit 99.2


            CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


      I, Michael S. Geltzeiler, of The Reader's Digest
Association, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") which this
      statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of The Reader's Digest
      Association, Inc.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of
Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Periodic Report.


Dated:  May 5, 2003




                                       /s/ MICHAEL S. GELTZEILER
                                         Michael S. Geltzeiler
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to The Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
and will be retained by The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### § 535.576 Payment of non-dollar letters of credit to Iran.

Notwithstanding the prohibitions of §§ 535.201 and 535.206(a)(4), payment of existing non-dollar letters of credit in favor of Iranian entities or any person in Iran by any foreign branch or subsidiary of a U.S. firm is authorized, provided that the credit was opened prior to the respective effective date.

[45 FR 29288, May 2, 1980]
## NUMBER 13

- 2 4

- 00 319

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE ED MONCE

O N PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and J ustices Tijerina and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras 1

Relator Ed Monce filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial

court to vacate a temporary restraining order and an extension order ; h owever, relator

has now filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss t his petition for writ of mandamus

.

According to the unopposed motion to dismiss, r elator has reached an agreement with

real parties in interest Christopher Majka, Tressa Majka, and Esplanade Investments

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).2 L.L.C. that disposes of the necessity of seeking mandamus relief.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the unopposed motion to

dismiss, is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we lift the stay p reviously

imposed in t his case , w e grant the unopposed motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the

petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10

.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 27th day of June, 2024.
AAM-10-245-E May 5, 2010 Exemption No. 10062 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0441

Mr. Jeff Wanke

President Orion Flight Services, Inc.

525 West 20 th Avenue Oshkosh, WI 54902

Dear Mr. Wanke:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 13, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Orion Flight Services, Inc. (Orion) , for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Th at exemption, if granted, would allow Orion, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Orion.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Orion Flight Services, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Orion, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Orion are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Orion part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
J-S05031-18

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

RONA MUSTIN,

Appellee

v.

EDWIN HART,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 732 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No(s): Case No. FD98-09519-005

PACSES No. 694112986

BEFORE: OLSON, OTT, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2018

Edwin Hart (Husband) appeals from the order entered on April 21, 2017,

which found him in civil contempt. We affirm.

After an initial review of this case, this Court issued a memorandum on

March 20, 2018, which remanded the matter for Husband’s counsel to

supplement the certified record within 30 days by filing Wife’s motion for

contempt and the transcript from the April 21, 2017 contempt hearing. See

Mustin v. Hart, 2018 WL 1386754 (Pa. Super. filed March 20, 2018)

(unpublished memorandum). More than 30 days have passed, and Husband

has not supplemented the certified record in compliance with our remand.

____________________________________________
J-S05031-18

- 2 -

Accordingly, we conclude that Husband has waived his issue on appeal, and

we affirm the order of the trial court.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/13/2018
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARLON B LAC HER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. S. JOHNSON, C hie f De puty W arde n; R . DAVIS, Appe a l s Exa

m i n e r, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15586 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01159-GSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d M ay

24, 2016 *** B e fore : REINHAR

DT, W . FLETC HER , a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . M arlon B la c he r, a

C a lifornia

sta t e prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing for fa ilure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e d ie s his 42 

# FIL ED JUN 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions a rising out of prison strip se arc he s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ), and we va c ate and re m and. The distric t c ourt dismisse d B la c he r’ s a c tion be c a u se it found tha

t B la c he r did not c om

ple te the “ a dm inistra

tive re vie w proc e ss in a c c o rdanc e with the a pplic a ble proc e dura l rule s” and thus fa ile d to e xha ust prope rly . J

one s v . Boc k, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Howe ve r, we re c e ntly

he ld tha t “ a prisone r e xha

usts suc h a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a s a re ava ila ble , unde r the PLR

A de s pite fa iling to c om

ply with a proc e dura l rule if prison offic ia ls ignorethe proc e dura l proble m and re nde r a

de c ision on the

m e rits of the grie va

nc e at e a c h

av a ila ble ste p of the a dm i nistra tive proc e ss.” Re

y e s v . Smith , 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The re fore , a l though B la c he r did not c om ply with prison re gula

tions, his a dm inistra

tive a ppe a ls a lle ging unre a sona ble se arc h e s a

nd a fa ilure to re m e d

y the proble m re c e ive d a

re sponse at the third a

nd fina l le ve l inform ing him tha t his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s we re e xha

u ste d. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. VACAT E D and RE M ANDE D . 1 4 - 1 5 5 8 6 2
#### MARYLAND DREDGING AND CONTRACTING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[47 O. Cls. R., 557; 49 C. Cls. R., 710; 241 U. S. R., 184.]

*On the plaintiffs appeal.*

The contract is in the usual form of engineer’s contracts; time is of the essence of the contract; the damages are agreed upon and liquidated in advance; the cost of inspection during the period of delay is to be paid by the contractor with the usual proviso that additional time may be allowed if the delay be caused by strikes, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, or abnormal force or violence of the elements. But there is a provision in the specifications which states that “ *the time allowed in these specifications*” is considered sufficient “ *unless extraordinary and unforeseeable conditions supervene.”*In the prosecution of the work the contractor encounters submerged roots, branches, and timber, and contends that they were “ *extraordinary and unforeseeable conditions.”*

This suit was heard on defendants’ demurrer to original petition and reported in 47 C. Cls. R., 557; the demurrer was sustained and petition dismissed. No opinion by the court below was rendered on an amended petition which was thereafter filed, and the court again sustained defendants’ demurrer and dismissed the amended petition. On appeal the judgment was affirmed and the Supreme Court decided;

The provision in the contract that the time was sufficient unless extraordinary conditions should supervene does not amount to a promise for extension if such conditions do supervene.

The extent of promise for an extension under the contract was confined to what the engineer in charge would grant with the sanction of the chief engineer; nor was the chief engineer bound, in the absence of fraud, to give his sanction to a recommendation of the engineer in charge for an extension.

For extraordinary conditions to supervene in such a case they must come into being after commencement of the work, and not merely be thereafter discovered to have existed and still to exist.

The provision in the contract for liquidation of damages at $20 per day contains no element of deception or exorbitance, and the contractor can not escape the terms agreed upon.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 8, 1916.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Ronald Albert Lariviere

# 				Ronald Albert Lariviere			

				Special Agent			

Deceased				December 21, 1988			

**Photo: U.S. Government **Honoring DS Fallen: Ronald Albert LariviereBack to DSS Memorial

Tags

Bureau of Diplomatic SecurityDiplomatic Security Service MemorialUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
www.gpo.gov

### §373b. Restricted estate or homestead on the public domain

If an Indian found to have died intestate without heirs was the holder of a restricted allotment or homestead or interest therein on the public domain, the land or interest therein and all accumulated rents, issues, and profits therefrom shall escheat to the United States, subject to all valid existing agricultural, surface, and mineral leases and the rights of any person thereunder, and the land shall become part of the public domain subject to the payment of such creditors’ claims as the Secretary of the Interior may find proper to be paid from the cash on hand or income accruing to said estate: *Provided*, That if the Secretary determines that the land involved lies within or adjacent to an Indian community and may be advantageously used for Indian purposes, the land or interest therein shall escheat to the United States to be held in trust for such needy Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may designate, where the value of the estate does not exceed $50,000, and in case of estates exceeding said sum, such estates shall be held in trust by the United States for such Indians as the Congress may on and after November 24, 1942 designate, subject to all valid existing agricultural, surface, and mineral leases and the rights of any person thereunder 1*Provided further*, That interests in all Burns public domain allotments located in Harney County, Oregon, belonging to Indians who die intestate without heirs shall be held in trust by the United States for the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon and shall be part of the Burns Paiute Indian Reservation.

(Nov. 24, 1942, ch. 640, §2, 56 Stat. 1022; Pub. L. 98–25, §§2, 3, May 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 185.)

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 98–25, §2, inserted proviso that interests in all Burns public domain allotments located in Harney County, Oregon, belonging to Indians who die intestate without heirs shall be held in trust by the United States for the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon and shall be part of the Burns Paiute Indian Reservation.

Pub. L. 98–25, §3, substituted “$50,000” for “$2,000”.

#### Non-Indian Lands in Harney County, Oregon

Section 2 of Pub. L. 98–25 provided in part that no non-Indian lands in Harney County, Oregon, shall be considered Indian country as defined in section 1151 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 373c of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a colon.
§ 515.322 Authorized trade territory; member of the authorized trade territory. ( a ) The term *authorized trade territory* includes all countries, including any colony, territory, possession, or protectorate, except those countries subject to sanctions pursuant to this chapter. The term does not include the United States.
( b ) The term *member of the authorized trade territory* shall mean any of the foreign countries or political subdivisions comprising the authorized trade territory.
[43 FR 51762, Nov. 7, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 54195, Oct. 20, 1995]
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 363
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

§ 363.29 May Treasury close an account, suspend transactions in an account, or refuse to open an account? We reserve the right to take any of the following actions if, in our sole discretion, we deem the action to be in the best interests of the United States: ( a ) Refuse to open an account for any person;
( b ) Close any existing account, redeem, sell, or liquidate the securities held in the account, and pay the proceeds to the person entitled;
( c ) Suspend transactions with respect to an account or any security held in an account; or
( d ) Take any other action with regard to any account that we deem necessary, if not inconsistent with existing law and existing rights.
[70 FR 57434, Sept. 30, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 30978, June 5, 2007]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6080

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD LEON MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-137, CA-95-844)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Leon Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion and motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Miller, Nos. CR-93-137; CA-95-844 (M.D.N.C. Oct.

15 & Dec. 23, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
www.gpo.gov

### §2510. Regulations

The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations relating to the discharge of duties specifically assigned to the Secretary by this chapter. In all other matters relating to the details of planning, development, implementing, and evaluating grants under this chapter, the Secretary shall not issue regulations. Regulations issued pursuant to this chapter shall not have the standing of a Federal statute for the purposes of judicial review.

(Pub. L. 100–297, title V, §5211, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 394.)
II

Calendar No. 358

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2556

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 18, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

MARCH 28, 1996

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 345 Middlefield Road in Menlo Park, California, and known as

the Earth Sciences and Library Building, as the ‘‘Vincent E. McKelvey Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 345 Middlefield

5 Road, in Menlo Park, California, and known as the Earth

6 Sciences and Library Building, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Vincent E. McKelvey Federal Building’’.
2

HR 2556 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Vincent E. McKelvey Federal Build6 ing’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 18

(legislative day, December 15), 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 358

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2556

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 345

ing’’.ing, as the ‘‘Vincent E. McKelvey Federal Buildknown as the Earth Sciences and Library BuildMiddlefield Road in Menlo Park, California, and

MARCH 28, 1996

Reported without amendment
PUBLIC LAW 106–416—NOV. 1, 2000 114 STAT. 1811

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 122:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Nov. 1, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–416

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–275, is further amended by striking the date specified in section

106(c) and inserting ‘‘November 2, 2000’’.

Approved November 1, 2000.

Ante, pp. 810,

866, 1073, 1318,

1397, 1398, 1450,

1550, 1551, 1676,

1741.

Nov. 1, 2000

[H.J. Res. 122]