alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 561.319 Petroleum products.

The term *petroleum products* includes unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products obtained from the processing of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon compounds. The term does not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non-petroleum fuels.
40767.

#### HICKS v. WALTON.

Decided June 23, 1964.

*Zachary & Hunter, W. E. Zachary, Thomas W. Elliott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Llop & Long, Nick Long, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The condition in a ne exeat bond in an alimony proceeding is that the principal shall not absent himself from the jurisdiction of the court. *Swain v. Jaudon,*147 Ga. 773 (95 SE 696); *Westbrook v. Westbrook,*105 Ga. App. 67 (123 SE2d 348). Therefore, a petition to forfeit such a bond which does not allege that the principal has absented himself from the jurisdiction of the court is defective and subject to general demurrer.

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition. The judgment of the court forfeiting the bond was rendered nugatory by the erroneous overruling of the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2762 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2762

To require additional research prior to the promulgation of a standard 
 for sulfate under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 1995

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require additional research prior to the promulgation of a standard 
 for sulfate under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SAFE DRINKING WATER STANDARD FOR SULFATE.

    (a) Additional Research.--Prior to promulgating a national primary 
drinking water regulation for sulfate under title XIV of the Public 
Health Service Act the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control shall 
jointly conduct additional research to establish a reliable dose-
response relationship for the adverse health effects that may result 
from exposure to sulfate in drinking water, including the health 
effects that may be experienced by groups within the general population 
(including infants and travelers) that are potentially at greater risk 
of adverse health effects as the result of such exposure. The research 
shall be conducted in consultation with interested States, shall be 
based on the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting 
studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific 
practices and shall be completed not later than 30 months after the 
date of enactment of this paragraph.
    (b) Proposed and Final Rule.--Prior to promulgating a national 
primary drinking water regulation for sulfate under title XIV of the 
Public Health Service Act and after consultation with interested 
States, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that shall supersede the 
proposal published in December 1994. For purposes of the proposed and 
final rule, the Administrator may specify in the regulation 
requirements for public notification and options for the provision of 
alternative water supplies to populations at risk as a means of 
complying with the regulation in lieu of a best available treatment 
technology or other means. The Administrator shall, pursuant to the 
authorities of this subsection and after notice and opportunity for 
public comment, promulgate a final national primary drinking water 
regulation for sulfate not later than 48 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
BATHYMETRIC MAP

Te bs J . nu
Cae Om Merman mousing wotyneny —ar cOmsed by Se Monona! c_____{__ {_______} ‘Pumhabed ot Wathegean 0
sansa a] oo [me [oe DEPARIMENT OF COMMERCE
FOE Senet Ptmmamen 44 ecurmny Camdunh oF mae ant ate so }—__}-__ L_ v4 I ee ene
af re mreeye Phe tremenen 9 ne omemene ss Es i #
Siem Neste Meroe Gah Le + MG Mane Yaa} = = oe | & 1978
om A MO meting = = i? Pe INTEREALS 72 METERS 10 200 METER GHPTE
tees pecternes ey en pee me oy Pa fee = a FE | SUMMLEMENSED GY 2 METER HNTERWALS, 9 RATERS 1 Mane
of cond Maregemes Meare tea mame bay, Cee Comet 2 a B —0
tet Cotens Prmerner Dlages The preswenem on tu np we se — bead
WS tetra teeny roman fe met topes Danuh tase sow watte
Dagon ooh han Ren a ta Mo
jing
bd MASCARA
Be oe feole 1 750.000
+ = Leet setae am 2
40599.

#### WILLIAMSON v. LEONARD.

Decided April 7, 1964.

*Mitchell, Clarke, Pate ■& Anderson, Stephens Mitchell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Larry D. Lewis, Alvin N. Siegel,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

This was a suit on a promissory note in the amount of $1,600. The defendant filed an answer admitting the execution of the note and averred that the note had been paid in full. No demurrer was filed attacking the sufficiency of this plea. The case was tried before a judge of the Civil Court of Fulton County without a jury, and on the trial it appeared that the defendant had executed another promissory note to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,500, which was not sued on. The defendant was permitted to testify without objection that he had paid the plaintiff more than $3,100; that after paying such amount he asked the plaintiff for the notes, but that the plaintiff said he had misplaced them and could not find them; and that the notes did not show up again until he and the plaintiff came to a parting of the ways. The judge found for the defendant, and the exception here is to the overruling of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the general grounds only.

Giving to the evidence introduced that construction most favorable to upholding the judgment, as we are bound to do, we cannot say that there was not any evidence authorizing the judge to find that the note sued on had been paid. Accordingly, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial was correct.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J-, and Pannell, J., concur.*
§ 536.701 Penalties. ( a ) Attention is directed to section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705—the “Act”), which is applicable to violations of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, direction or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under the Act. ( 1 ) A civil penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in Section 206 of the Act 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 the Act.
( 2 ) The applicable maximum civil penalty per violation of the Act 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 shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
( b ) *Adjustments to penalty amounts.* ( 1 ) The civil penalties provided in the Act 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 the Act 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 any department or agency of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
( d ) Violations of this part may also be subject to relevant provisions of other applicable laws.
[62 FR 9960, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 71 FR 29252, May 22, 2006; 73 FR 32652, June 10, 2008; 81 FR 43074, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 10436, Feb. 10, 2017; 83 FR 11878, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 27716, June 14, 2019; 85 FR 19886, Apr. 9, 2020; 86 FR 14537, Mar. 17, 2021; 87 FR 7371, Feb. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2232, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 2141, Jan. 12, 2024]
#### § 560.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures (including those pursuant to statements of licensing policy), and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenardo Lee BOWDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30036.

D.C. No. CR-99-00063-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 2001.

Decided Feb. 15, 2001.

*399Before RYMER, THOMAS, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Lenardo Bowden appeals the district court’s denial of his requests for downward departures under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

Bowden first contends that the district court based its refusal to grant downward departures on unreliable evidence, thereby violating his right to due process. In responding to the requests for leniency made by Mr. Bowden, the court made several speculative comments that were unsupported by the record. There is no evidence, however, that the district court relied upon those statements in denying the requested departures. In reviewing the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that “reliance on impermissible information ... probably did occur.” *United States v. Corral,*172 F.3d 714, 716 (9th Cir.1999).

Mr. Bowden further contends that reversal and remand is appropriate because “the district court erroneously believed that it lacked the power to depart.” *United States v. Berger,*103 F.3d 67, 69 (9th Cir.1996). This argument also fails. Although it would have been preferable for the district judge to state explicitly that she was choosing not to depart downward- and to address each of the requested rea* sons-the absence of such an explanation is not reversible error. Rather, because the court’s authority to depart was “not otherwise in dispute, [its] silence regarding authority to depart is not sufficient to indicate that the court believed it lacked the power to depart.” *United States v. Jackson,*986 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir.1993).

Likewise, we reject Bowden’s argument that the court’s failure to explicitly rule on the departures violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1). Rule 32 applies to factual disputes in the presentence report, a matter that was not at issue here. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1); *see, e.g., United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez,*94 F.3d 582, 584 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, Rule 32 “does not require the court to articulate the reasoning for its finding.” *United States v. Rude,*88 F.3d 1538, 1543 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### § 588.409 Credit extended and cards issued by financial institutions to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked.

The prohibition in § 588.201 on dealing in property subject to that section prohibits U.S. financial institutions from performing under any existing credit agreements, including charge cards, debit cards, or other credit facilities issued by a financial institution to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 588.201.
#### Nicholas CAPPETTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-604.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1974.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, and H. Joseph McGuire, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of uttering a forged instrument, expressly reserving the right to seek review of the order denying his motion to suppress on this appeal from the judgment and sentence.

*111The tangible evidence sought to be suppressed was seized incident to a warrant-less arrest, and the issue is simply whether, at the time of such arrest, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a felony had been committed and reasonable grounds to believe that appellant had committed such felony. F.S. section 901.15(3), F.S.A. The record discloses sufficient facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of making the arrest to establish probable cause. The other points raised are also without merit and do not warrant discussion. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
16-11-12 Complainants Reply to Answer / Motion to Dismiss Exhibit 58

See Official Docket File @ FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.

For assistance, please call 202-267-3473 or 202-267-3199.
§ 582.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 582.201 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note 1 to § 582.504 :
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 582.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
### Map showing occurrences of antimony minerals in Alaska

By: Edwin L. Cruz (compiler)Edward Huntington Cobb

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/mr93

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Melinda A. TATE, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 99-3396.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and RADER, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDER and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Order entered December 23, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00861 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 0086 2 - CR RAYAN DHANES GANESH, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282 nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 16 - 76113 - S & F16 - 76111 - S

O RDER Before t h e Court is appellant ’ s December 18, 2020 first motion for an extension of time t o file his brief. We GRANT the motion and OR DER appellant ’ s brief due by January 19, 2021.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# Bureau of African Affairs Releases

2676 items

        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Eritrea	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Gabon	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Angola	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Niger	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Madagascar	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Democratic Republic of the Congo	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cameroon	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Republic of the Congo	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mozambique	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Senegal	  April 22, 2024 

previous page1…45678…268next page

Back to Top
>

Ti

BATHYMETRIC MAP

CHESAPEAKE BAY
BALTIMORE-PLATE 1

OF TO BE UE FOR MAMGATION

BATHYMETRY AT 2METER INTERVALS
REFERENCED FROM MEAN LOW WATER

UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
DATUM: NA. 1997

SCALE 150,000

07638-3902
freer)

4 4 mt re perro wee

nl L a + Je : 4 Po correns:

j 4 4 ee

BALTIMORE

AREAS WITHAM DASHED LES

Raeeeey 9 st ewe wate the
oe ceed bash boos we thee we
ne hee 6 ee hog

ite se
ZO6E-8E920

Howk Cove

”

taste Nace”
sane

—l

a
BALTIMORE-PLATE 1

pce 00
Exhibit 99.14



CONSENT



The undersigned hereby consents to the use of my name and the scientific
and technical information with respect to the Tonopah Lithium Claims Project derived from Sections 1 to 12 and portions of Sections 14
to 27 of the technical report titled “Tonopah Lithium Claims Project NI 43-101 Technical Report – Preliminary Economic Assessment”
with an effective date of January 31, 2023, which is included in this annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2023
(the “Form 40-F”) and the exhibits filed with the Form 40-F being filed by American Lithium Corp. with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.





|                   | 
|------------------ | 
|                   | 
|                   | 
|                   | 
|Date: May 30, 2023 |
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2589

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Received

AN ACT

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 until December 31, 1995, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 583(a) of the Foreign Re5 lations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

6 (Public Law 103–236), as amended by Public Law 104–
2

HR 2589 RDS

1 30, is amended by striking ‘‘November 1, 1995’’ and in2 serting ‘‘December 31, 1995’’.

3 (b) CONSULTATION.—For purposes of any exercise of

4 the authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign

5 Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

6 (Public Law 103–236) prior to November 14, 1995, the

7 written policy justification dated June 1, 1995, and sub8 mitted to the Congress in accordance with section

9 583(b)(1) of such Act, and the consultations associated

10 with such policy justification, shall be deemed to satisfy

11 the requirements of section 583(b)(1) of such Act.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2669 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2669

    To permit private persons to place symbols meaningful to them, 
   including religious symbols, in public places in cases where all 
                    persons have the right to do so.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 1995

 Mr. Cremeans introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To permit private persons to place symbols meaningful to them, 
   including religious symbols, in public places in cases where all 
                    persons have the right to do so.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Religious Symbols Fairness Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS.

    A private person shall have the right to place, at that person's 
own expense, symbols meaningful to that person, including religious 
symbols, on public space, including government buildings, to the extent 
the governmental authority controlling the space allows all private 
persons the same right.
                                 <all>
```