alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeBiographies...Zakiya Carr Johnson

# 				Zakiya Carr Johnson			

															Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer						Office of Diversity and Inclusion												

				April 8, 2024 -									Present							

Zakiya Carr Johnson is the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer and leads the Secretary’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion (S/ODI).  She is a social inclusion, diversity, and equity expert and strategist with over 20 years of** **experience in shaping public policy across the government, development, and nonprofit sectors.  Her experience includes seven years in the Department of State as a Senior Advisor (2010-2017), during which she launched and served as Director of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs’ Race, Ethnicity, and Social Inclusion Unit.  Most recently, she served as a Senior Professional Staff Member for the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs leading policy in the Western Hemisphere, Diversity and Inclusion, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement,** **and Corporate Social Impact.  Zakiya founded global consulting firm Odara Solutions and launched the Black Women Disrupt Initiative to strengthen and amplify the work of women entrepreneurs across the Americas and on the continent of Africa.**  **She also served as co-chair for the White House Inter-Agency Committee on Gender-Based Violence Monitoring and Evaluation, Foundation Representative for Ecuador and Venezuela at the Inter-American Foundation, and Senior Technical Advisor for the Social Inclusion Trust Fund at the Inter-American Development Bank.  Zakiya has spent her career building bridges of understanding between people and communities.  She is a 2019-2020 Senior Atlantic Fellow for Racial Equity, an accomplished public speaker, mother of two, and proud alum of Howard University, who is fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Tags

Office of Diversity and InclusionState Department Official

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.

§ 359.1 What regulations govern Series I savings bonds? ( a ) The regulations in 31 CFR part 360 apply to definitive (paper) Series I savings bonds that have not been converted to book-entry bonds through New Treasury Direct.
( b ) The regulations in 31 CFR part 363 apply to: ( 1 ) book-entry Series I savings bonds that were originally issued as book-entry bonds in New Treasury Direct; and
( 2 ) definitive Series I savings bonds that have been converted to book-entry bonds through New Treasury Direct.
( c ) We expressly disclaim any representations or warranties regarding Series I savings bonds that in any way conflict with these regulations and other applicable law.
[67 FR 64278, Oct. 17, 2002, as amended at 70 FR 14942, Mar. 23, 2005]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL ANTHONY LORUSSO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-1719

September 16, 2022

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit 

Court for Polk County; Ellen S. Masters, Judge. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

__________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### § 560.310 License.

Except as otherwise specified, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6730]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13372 of February 16, 2005, I hereby determine that the organization known as Revolutionary Struggle (aka Epanastatikos Aghonas) has committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “for those persons * * * determined to be subject to the order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States * * * prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: July 31, 2009.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-19723 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### Jones, Inc., v. 57 Corporation

*494
      *1. B. Fenner,*for plaintiff.

*S. D. Engelbach,*for defendant.

July 23, 1954.

Flood, J.,

A mechanic’s lien was filed in this case under a contract which provided for a waiver of the right to file a lien and also provided that the owner would place in escrow a sum of money sufficient to cover the cost of the contract. We have before us the owner’s motion to strike the lien from the record because of the waiver in the contract. The contractor has filed an answer averring failure of consideration in that the owner failed to place any amount in escrow for the payment of the contract. While under the depositions it appears that the owner placed such amount in a special account it remained under his control and was not placed in escrow.

It would appear at first blush that the failure of consideration alleged in the answer invalidates the waiver of the right to file the lien. So the most recent case has held: Beccia v. Hause, 6 D. & C. 666 (1924). Although an earlier appellate court case had held that the promise of the owner to make special arrangements for payment of the contractor was independent of the waiver provision, and that failure of the owner to make the proper arrangements would not invalidate the waiver (Long v. Caffrey, 93 Pa. 526 (1880)), it was later held that fraud in the inducement would invalidate the waiver: Vansciver v. Churchill, 35 Pa. Superior Ct. 212 (1908). In view of this state of the law we do not believe that the motion to strike the lien should be granted prior to the trial. In our opinion an answer should be filed by the owner and the case should go to trial so that a fuller exposition of the facts may be had before the decision is made. It has been held that a waiver must be raised in the answer rather than in a motion to strike: Connell v. Ker, 9 Dist. R. 145 (1900).
IB

House Calendar No. 133

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 255

[Report No. 104–361]

To designate the Federal Justice Building in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘James

Lawrence King Federal Justice Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself and Mrs. MEEK of Florida) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the Federal Justice Building in Miami, Florida,

as the ‘‘James Lawrence King Federal Justice 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. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal Justice Building located at 99 Northeast

5 Fourth Street in Miami, Florida, shall be known and des-
2

•HR 255 RH

1 ignated as the ‘‘James Lawrence King Federal Justice

2 Building’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

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

7 a reference to the ‘‘James Lawrence King Federal Justice

8 Building’’.

House Calendar No. 133

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 255

[Report No. 104–361]

A BILL

To designate the Federal Justice Building in

Federal Justice Building’’.Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘James Lawrence King

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4232



# 
F REDERICK

B ERNARD W ILLIAMS , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-00-137) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 20, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELDuncan R. St. Clair, III, DUNCAN R. ST. CLAIR, III & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, C. Seth Askins, Third Year Law Student, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Frederick Bernard Williams appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency ofthe evidence, the relevant question is not whether the court is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). At the bench trial, Detective Hartig testified that Williams admitted that marijuana packaged for sale and found in Williams’ bag at Williams’ workplace was his and that he sold it. Williams also admitted that he was aware of the presence of another quantity of marijuana located in a trashcan near his workstation. While Williams denied making these statements, the trial court clearly chose to believe Detective Hartig, and we will not review the trial court’s credibility determinations. Mazzell v. Evatt , 88 F.3d 263, 270-71 (4th Cir. 1996). Thus, we affirm Williams’ conviction. 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. AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. W ILLIAMS
#### § 552.510 Official business of the United States Government.

All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized.

[87 FR 78475, Dec. 21, 2022]
CAUSE NO. 04 -14-00181

- CR

MICHAEL RIVAS § IN THE FOURTH COURT

§

VS. § OF APPEALS

§

STATE OF TEXAS § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELL EE’ S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes the 38 th Judicial District Attorney, Appell ee , in the above

– entitled and -

numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellee's brief, pursuant

to Rule 38.6 and 10.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows the

following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 38 th Judicial District Court of Medina County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled the State of Texas vs. Michael Rivas , and numbered 12- 04

-

10954- CR

.

3. The Appellant’s brief was filed on December 1, 2014.

4. The Appellee’s bri ef is due on or about January 2, 2015

.

5. The State of Texas requests a ninety (90) day extension to file its brief.

6. This is the state’s first request for an extension to file its brief.

10. The state needs additional time to properly prepare, research, and file its reply brief.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellee prays that this Court grant this

Motion To Extend Time to File Appellee's Brief, and for such other and further relief as the Court

may deem appropriate. ACCEPTED

04-14-00181-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/2/2015 12:37:15 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

DANIEL J. KINDRED

38 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS

3102 Avenue G

Hondo, Texas 78861

Telephone: (830) 741

- 6188

Facsimile: (830) 741

- 6033

By: /s/ 

## Christina Busbee

CHRISTINA BUSBEE

State Bar No. 00797819

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing M OTION TO E XTEND

T IME TO F ILE A PPELLEE ’ S R EPLY B RIEF was served on M ICHAEL C. G ROSS

, G ROSS & E SPARZA

,

P.L.L.C. at 106 S OUTH S T

. M ARY ’ S S TREET

, S UITE 260, S AN A NTONIO

, T EXAS 78 205 , via

electronic mail address, lawofcmg@gmail.com on January 2, 2015

.

/s/ 

## Christina Busbee

CHRISTINA BUSBEE
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Philip Jeselson to Amand Plaut, for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided January 25th, 1882.)

Upon .a reference of claims presented under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, which are not mentioned in the-schedules and are disputed by the assignor, the afiirmalive of the issue is upon the claimants.

Where such an order of reference directs that the referee shall take proof and report as to the validity of contested claims, none of the parties who have-appeared can object to proceeding under the order.

Application to confirm the report of a referee upon an accounting by an assignee, and upon disputed claims under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors.

J. F. Daly, J.

The assignor objects to the referee’s report in favor of a distribution" of the estate among certain creditors who presented claims. It appears that on referring the assignee’s -account on September 13th, 1881, the court ordered *105the referee to take proofs, and report what persons are entitled to share in the distribution of the assigned estate, and ordered that any party to that proceeding might object to any claim presented before the referee, and that the referee should take proof and report as to the validity of such contested claim. This order was made on a hearing in which the assignor and other parties appeared by attorneys and counsel, and was entered without objection. The claims now contested by the assignor were presented to the referee by the assignee who had received them pursuant to advertisement, and by creditors on the accounting. The assignor objected to them. No proof was taken by the referee, and he reports that the claimants are entitled to distribution.

It was the duty of the claimants to offer evidence of their demands. The burden was on them to show a claim against the assignor, as they were not mentioned in the schedule. This objection raised an issue which the referee was to try, and the claimants had the affirmative. As no proof was offered, the claims should not have been allowed. As the referee, however,, seems to have been of opinion that the burden was on the party attacking the claim, the report should be referred back to permit evidence to be given in the regular way.

The referee, under the order of reference (made without objection), has power to try the disputed claim under section 26 of the Assignment Act. This is the way pointed out by statute to ascertain who are entitled to share in the assigned estate. The assignor cannot object to proceeding under it.

Report referred back to take proof accordingly.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           | Oasis Online Technologies Corp.                                                            |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| April 10, 2012 | /s/ Eric Click                                                                                       |
| By:            | Eric Click                                                                                           |
| Its:           | DirectorSecretaryTreasurerChief Financial OfficerChief Operating OfficerPrincipal Accounting Officer |

----
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

EIT HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

YELP!, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2012-1192

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 10-CV-5623, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A LISA A. L IPSKI , Goldstein & Lipski, PLLC, of Houston, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief was E DWARD W. G OLDSTEIN

.

D ARALYN J. D URIE , Durie Tangri LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were R YAN M. K ENT and E UGENE N OVIKOV

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM ( R ADER
, Chief Judge, L INN and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 9, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2017, by and among UBSCOMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, asSpecial Servicer, AEGON USA REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Save Mart PortfolioSpecial Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, andPENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2017-C1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that: 

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019. 

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton 

ManagingDirector 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

NO. 03-22-00231-CV

F. H. and L. L., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on April 19, 2022. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellants are

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2660 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2660

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2660

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE 
              DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL 
              WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    Section 5(1) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Tensas 
River National Wildlife Refuge'', approved June 28, 1980 (Public Law 
96-285, 94 Stat. 597), as amended by section 2 of Public Law 99-191 (99 
Stat. 1327), is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) beginning October 1, 1995, not to exceed $20,000,000 
        to the Department of the Interior; and''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

MABEL SMITH

, )

Guardian of the minor child K.C. )

)

Plaintiff

, )

)

v. )

) Civil Action No. 2 2

- cv

- 2755 (TSC/ ZMF )

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

, )

)

Defendant

. )

)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompany ing M emoran dum Opinion, ECF No. 26

,

t h e court hereby ADOPT S the report and ACCEPT S the recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is hereby DENIED and

Defendant’s Cross

- Motion for Summary J udgment (ECF No. 1 5 ) is hereby GRANTED

.

This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Date: December 18, 2023



## Tanya S. Chutkan

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge