alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- BWC Home
- About
- BWC RevCon
- Article V: Consultative Process
- U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament
- Disarming Disinformation
- National Contact Point

HomeKey Topics – Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation...Biological Weapons Convention

# Biological Weapons Convention

The BWC is critical to international efforts to address the threat posed by biological weapons – whether in the hands of governments or non-state actors. To remain effective, it must deal with all biological threats we face in the 21st century.

The core obligations of Parties under the Convention are:
        - Never to develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain: 1) biological agents or toxins of types and in quantities that have no justification for peaceful uses; and 2) weapons, equipment, or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes (Article I).
        - To destroy or divert to peaceful purposes all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment, and means of delivery specified in Article I in their possession, or under their jurisdiction or control (Article II).
        - Not to transfer or in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any entity to manufacture or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery specified in Article I (Article III).
        - To take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, or retention of any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment, and means of delivery specified in Article I under its jurisdiction or control (Article IV).

Back to Top
§ 551.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. Pursuant to § 551.201, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part. Note 1 to § 551.407 .
*See also* § 551.502(e), which provides that no license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
SERVED: JUNE 11, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PLATINUM AIR SERVICE, INC. 

FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

FDMS FAA-2012-0025 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

, c0.\RTMENT OF .~.-·. r. '~"'P''R-·A-1"' 'J , --~··,:·!\::, V. I ,I.LW. 

·-_,- ET OPERATIONS 

?3! Z .!Uil I 2 P I: 4 8 

On January 20, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed 

a Complaint. On January 9, 2012, Platinum Air Service, Inc. ("Respondent") had filed a 

Request for Hearing. 

On June 4, 2012, the parties jointly sent a facsimile letter stating that the matter 

had settled. Complainant has withdrawn its Complaint and has moved for termination of 

the proceedings. ...._ ~ 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Complaint having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint and Motion to Terminate 

Proceeding be and is hereby grarited; and 
2 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

~~-bJ C,~lfJ, Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge ' 

Attachment - Service List 
.r 

. 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Arthur Wasserman, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Arthur Wasserman 

16380 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 120 

Van Nuys, CA 91406-1221 

TEL: 818-895-8234 

FAJ(: 818-895-0675 

Nicholas R. Milliard, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W . 

. Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3452 

FAJ(: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (£11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0025 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
40350.

#### SUNSHINE DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. v. H. & D. FOLSOM ARMS COMPANY, INC.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant assigns error on the trial court’s granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. This was an action on account, and the defense is based solely on alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff’s agent to induce the sale. The defendant contends that these false representations gave it the right to rescind the sale. An affidavit filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment showed that the defendant, after discovering that the merchandise was not as represented by the plaintiff’s agent, offered it for sale, sold a part of it, and paid the plaintiff for the part sold. The defendant thereby waived any right he may have had to reject the whole shipment. *Maynard & Cheeves v. Render,*95 Ga. 652 (23 SE 194); accord *Georgia Refining Co. v. Augusta Oil Co.,*74 Ga. 497; *Harden v. Lang,*110 Ga. 392, 396 (36 SE 100); *Cohen v. Arenson,*29 Ga. App. 723, 725 (116 SE 658). The case of *Hoyle & Abbott v. Southern Saw Works,*105 Ga. 123, 127 (31 SE 137), is relied on by the defendant. There the purchaser attempted to sell the articles delivered pending propositions to the seller for rescission of the contract, but did not effect a sale. The court held that these facts did not *525alone constitute a waiver of the right to rescind on the ground of fraud. The decision is not contrary to the cases cited supra.

Decided October 18, 1963.

*Westmoreland, Hall & Pentecost, Harry P. Hall, Jr., Donald E. O’Brien,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gerstein & Carter, Joe W. Gerstein,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1881
FELICIA IVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOM ADAMS, Individually and as registered agent of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-97-290-A) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 13, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia Ives, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Jaron, Jr., GINSBURG, FELDMAN & BRESS, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her motion for a continuance of the hearing to consider the motion todismiss. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ives v. Adams , No. CA-97-290-A (E.D. Va. June 23, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          CALIFORNIA CULINARY ACADEMY, INC.
                          STATEMENT  RE:  EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Quarter Ended September 30,
                                                                           ---------------------------
                                                                        1997                        1996
                                                                        ----                        ----
                                                               Primary     Fully Diluted    Primary     Fully Diluted
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------
<S>                                                         <C>          <C>              <C>          <C>
Net earnings (loss)                                             $(161)         $(161)           $46            $46
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Common shares                                               3,525,000      3,525,000      3,228,700      3,228,700

Common equivalent shares:
Stock options and warrants
Convertible Preferred shares
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------

Weighted average common and common
equivalent shares outstanding                               3,525,000      3,525,000      3,228,700      3,228,700
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------

Earnings (loss) per share                                      $(0.05)        $(0.05)         $0.01          $0.01
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------
                                                            -----------  ---------------  -----------  ---------------
</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 340.11 Failure to complete transaction.

If any successful bidder shall fail to pay in full for the bonds on the date and at the place specified in the invitation, the money deposited by or in behalf of such bidder shall be forfeited to the Treasury Department.
#### State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, v Spiridou Meis et al., Defendants, and Elo Organization, LLC, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 553]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant Elo Organization, LLC, in an action entitled *Meis v Elo Org., LLC,*pending *373in the Supreme Court, New York County, under index No. 116571/96, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered September 23, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, State Farm Fire *&*Casualty Company (hereinafter State Farm), failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify Elo Organization, LLC (hereinafter Elo), in the underlying personal injury action. The proof submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment did not establish as a matter of law that on June 5, 1996, the date of the accident, Elo was not an insured party under the insurance policy issued by State Farm to the defendant Spartan Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Consequently, State Farm’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *cf. B.T.R. E. Greenbush v General Acc. Co.,*206 AD2d 791 [1994]). Even assuming that State Farm made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion as premature, with leave to renew following discovery *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Smith v City of New York,*133 AD2d 818, 819-820 [1987] ). Florio, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ, concur.
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# 3tt-/S"

COA # 14-14-00209-CR OFFENSE: Aggravated Robbery 

### STYLE: Jonathan Glen Johnson vThe State ofTexas COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed rd TRIALCOURT: 263m District Court 

### DATE: March 10, 2015 Publish: No TC CASE #:1377006

IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS


### STYLE: Jonathan Glen Johnson vThe State ofTexas CCA # 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: 

# w-/r ?kO 5/E Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: . 

# —a*?-^ OATF: Scjk 2fi 2*>/f . / s 

# JUDGE: /& PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR FOR REHEARING JUDGE: i IN CCA IS:
ELECTRONIC RECORD
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2595 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2595

 To amend the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to 
 establish the reportable quantity for sulfur dioxide as 1,000 pounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1995

  Mr. Peterson of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to 
 establish the reportable quantity for sulfur dioxide as 1,000 pounds.

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

SECTION 1. REPORTABLE QUANTITY FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE.

    Section 304(a) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
of 1986 is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
            ``(4) Reportable quantity for sulfur dioxide.--Effective on 
        the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the reportable 
        quantity of sulfur dioxide for purposes of notification under 
        this section and section 103(a) of the Comprehensive 
        Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
        shall be 1,000 pounds.''.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0177 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-189-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0195

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Carl Arute *vs.*Celia Basso.

First Judicial District, Hartford,

May Term, 1926.

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

Argued May 5th

decided May 29th, 1926.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff rendered by the City Court of New Britain *(Ailing, J.)*in an action to recover a commission alleged to have been earned in the sale of the defen*744dant’s real estate; taken to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County and tried to the court, *Molloy, J.;*judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $309, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*Edward H. Kelly*for the appellant (defendant).

*Frederick B. Hungerford,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

Paragraph third of the motion to .correct, that “defendant was not told who was to endorse the note for five hundred dollars,” should have been granted; other paragraphs of the motion were properly disallowed. If the motion to correct had been allowed in its entirety, the subordinate facts would still have supported the conclusions reached by the trial court, and the judgment. The motion to correct should have been accompanied by exceptions to the refusal to find. General Statutes, § 5830. Other errors assigned, in refusing to find additional facts as requested, are not properly before us, since they were not incorporated in the motion to correct; and this appeal was taken under General Statutes, §§ 5829, 5830.

There is no error.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Ferdinand  Ibabao

# 				Ferdinand  Ibabao			

				Third-Party Contractor			

Deceased				October 14, 2004			

**U.S. Government image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialIraq

Back to Top
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000874 22-JUN-2017 11:35 AM
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)

# ACTION:

Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 2 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

This meeting will be held at the Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel, 9939 Universal Blvd., Orlando, FL 32819.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:

—SBA Update from AA/OSBDC;

                    —White Paper Issues;                          ( print page 42139)    

—Member Roundtable.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Alanna Falcone by Friday, September 11, 2009, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone 202-619-1612, Fax 202-481-0134, e-mail,                         *alanna.falcone@sba.gov*.                    

Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above.

Meaghan Burdick,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-19999 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 330.4 Guaranty given to the United States. By the act of paying or submitting to any Federal Reserve Processing Site, any TRS Site, or any Treasury office authorized to redeem securities, a security on which it has affixed the special endorsement, a paying agent shall be deemed to have: ( a ) Unconditionally guaranteed to the United States the validity of the transaction, including the identification of the owner and the disposition of the proceeds or the new bonds, as the case may be, in accordance with the presenter's instruction;
( b ) Assumed complete and unconditional liability to the United States for any loss which may be incurred by the United States as a result of the transaction; and
( c ) Unconditionally agreed to make prompt reimbursement for the amount of any loss, upon request of the Department of the Treasury.
[77 FR 16169, Mar. 20, 2012]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Assistant Secretary Leaf’s Travel to the Middle East

# 											Assistant Secretary Leaf’s Travel to the Middle East									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 14, 2023

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara A. Leaf is traveling to the Middle East from November 14-20. During this trip, she will meet with regional partners to discuss the Israel-Hamas conflict, including efforts to ensure this crisis never happens again, increase the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza, evacuate foreign nationals, and ensure the immediate and safe return of all hostages. She will travel with a senior U.S. delegation to Israel and the Gulf, including to the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain, where she will attend the Manama Dialogue to discuss regional security issues and share policy responses.

Tags

BahrainBureau of Near Eastern AffairsIsraelIsrael-Hamas ConflictKuwaitOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelOmanPalestinian TerritoriesSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates

Back to Top