alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 586.201 Prohibited transactions. ( a ) All transactions prohibited pursuant to Executive order (E.O.) 13959 of November 12, 2020, as amended by E.O. 14032 of June 3, 2021 (“E.O. 13959, as amended”), are prohibited pursuant to this part.
( b ) All transactions prohibited pursuant to any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13959, as amended, are prohibited pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 586.201 .
The names of persons identified in or pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended, are published in the Federal Register and incorporated into OFAC's Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List (NS-CMIC List) using the following identifier formulation: “[CMIC-EO13959].” The NS-CMIC List is accessible through the following page on OFAC's website: *www.treasury.gov/ofac .*
Note 2 to § 586.201 .
Section 501.807 of this chapter describes the procedures to be followed by persons seeking administrative reconsideration of their status as persons subject to the prohibitions of this section.
www.gpo.gov

### §6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection

It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §6, 65 Stat. 711; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(e)(1), (2)(A), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291.)

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted “Archivist of the United States” for “Administrator of General Services” in section catchline and wherever appearing in text and “National Archives and Records Administration” for “General Services Administration”.

1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted “Administrator of General Services” for “Secretary of State” in section catchline and several places in text, and for “Secretary of State of the United States” in one place, and “General Services Administration” for “State Department”.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–497 effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as a note under section 2102 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 15 of this title.
HomeThe Bahamas

# The Bahamas

70 items

        -    Press Statement  		The Bahamas Independence Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 10, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing on Food Security across Latin America with Jose Fernandez, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment	  Jose W. FernandezJune 23, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: The Bahamas	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Juan Gonzalez, National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere and Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs	  Brian A. NicholsJune 1, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2022	  Ned PriceMay 9, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    TIAS  		Bahamas (22-419) – Status of Forces Agreement	  April 19, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: The Bahamas	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Katie Tobin, Special Assistant to President Biden and Senior Director for Transborder at the National Security Council	  March 11, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, on the IX Summit of the Americas	  Brian A. NicholsJanuary 20, 2022 
        -    DSS Releases  		Bahamian Man Charged in False Claim to United States Citizenship, Passport and Voter Fraud	  December 13, 2021 

previous page12345…7next page

Back to Top
#### John D. HORTON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 01-3009.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 13, 2001.

Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
#### § 566.310 HIFPA.

The term *HIFPA* means the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015, Public Law 114-102.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to
the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Joseph G. Bleser   
|Joseph G. Bleser       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|Date: October 28, 2004
SCHOOL PROPERTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED.

Court of Appeals for Knox County.

#### Ira Wheaton et al, as Members of the Board of Education of Union Township, v. George H. Ferenbaugh.

Decided, October 25, 1917.

*Abandonment*— Relinquishment *Must be Intentional*— Not *Shown by Mere Non-Use for a Period Less Than the Statute of Limitations.*

Suspension of school for a period of three years, in the school district in which the school property involved in the instant case is located, does not constitute abandonment on the ground of non-user.

*Charles L. Bermont,*Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff.

*F. O. Levering*and P. *A. Berry,*contra.

Houck, J.

This is an appeal case and is prosecuted to this court from the common pleas court of this county. 'The basis of the action is one for injunction, and was submitted to this court upon an agreed statement of facts.

*64We do not deem it necessary in order to decide the real question involved in this ease to set out in this opinion the agreed .statement of facts, as we think it sufficient to say that .applying the propositions of law pertinent and applicable to the .facts agreed upon, it leaves but one question to be determined by the court, which is a question of fact, namely, as to whether or not said board of education has ceased to use said premises for school purposes.

An examination of the agreed statement of facts shows that the school in the school district in which said premises are located has been suspended for about three years by the board of education, and the question for solution is, does this fact constitute such a non-user as would be held to be an abandonment of said school property for school purposes which would warrant, justify and authorize the defendant to take possession of said premises ?

Abandonment, as we understand it, means an intentional relinquishment of .a known right, and to constitute abandonment there must be an intent and an actual failure to use. Non-user alone, at least short of the period of the statute of limitations, unless otherwise provided by contract, is not sufficient, as we deem it, to .prove an abandonment; but non-user, if continued for such a length of time, coupled with other acts of a character which would within themselves tend to show an intention on the part of the owner not to resume or repossess himself of the thing whose use is relinquished, may constitute an abandonment.

Applying these rules to the conceded facts in this ease, we are bound to find and do find that the claim of the defendant is not well taken, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition.

Judgment for plaintiff as prayed for in his petition. Injunction made perpetual. This ease is remanded to the common pleas court for execution as to costs.

Powell, J., and Shields, J., concur.
40636.

#### MOCK v. DARBY.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The -only exception in this declaratory judgment case is to the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition. “Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment upon a hearing, is not dependent upon a determination of whether or not his contention in the controversy be a correct one. It may be found untenable • upon the hearing, but he will not for that reason be sent from court, but is entitled to have the court, upon evidence and not upon the hearing of a general demurrer, declare his rights or lack of any right in the premises. To withstand a general demurrer it is only necessary that the plaintiff show an existing justiciable controversy, as provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act. It is not necessary that the petition go farther and show that the plaintiff's contention is correct.” *Georgia Cas. &c. Co. v. Turner,*86 Ga. App. *621418, 422 (71 SE2d 773). Accord: *Parks v. Jones,*88 Ga. App. 188 (76 SE2d 449); *Darling v. Jones,*88 Ga. App. 812, 815 (78 SE2d 94); *Griffin v. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 Ga. App. 801, 803 (1) (92 SE2d 871); *Buffington v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co.,*104 Ga. App. 139, 141 (1) (121 SE2d 270). See *St. Paul Fire &c. Co. v. Johnson,*216 Ga. 437 (117 SE2d 459). The petition here presented a justiciable controversy and the general demurrer was properly overruled.

Decided April 24, 1964.

*Neville & NeviUe,*for plaintiff in error.

*Allen & Edenfield,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
* District Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by

designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 92-3995

_____________

ABBEVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

DAVID L. RAMSEY, Secretary,

Department of Health and Hospitals, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

__________________________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion September 22, 5th Cir., 1993, 3d )

(November 26, 1993)

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and ZAGEL*,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the

above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.

However, the panel opinion reported at 3 F.3d 797 is amended, by

the addition of footnote 19 to the last paragraph of the opinion,

as follows:
This Court cannot endorse such a pro forma compliance with the

findings requirement of the Boren Amendment. LDHH's inability to

articulate an orderly process of evaluation or to identify specific

documents reviewed renders suspect its "findings" and renders

meritless its argument that it engaged in a bona fide findings

process. Because we find that LDHH, as a matter of law, failed to

comply in practice with the Boren Amendment findings requirement,

this Court REVERSES the district court's grant of LDHH's summary

judgment motion and denial of the Hospitals' summary judgment

motion. This case is REMANDED for proceedings not inconsistent

with this opinion.19

____________________

19 We express no view on whether the Hospitals' summary judgment motion

may be defeated, in part or in whole, by various affirmative defenses which were

neither ruled on in the district court nor argued in this Court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

_______________________________

 United States Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,312,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,919,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   362,102
<INVENTORY>                                 12,597,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,550,859
<PP&E>                                      41,129,980
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,516,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,428,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,795,347
<BONDS>                                      6,415,427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       494,895
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,782,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,428,085
<SALES>                                     92,521,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            92,521,191
<CGS>                                       51,229,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,229,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,979
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,588,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,772,551
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,037,342)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,862,062
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,862,062
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
#### CENTRAL FLORIDA SKATES, INC., d/b/a Sun State Roller Rink, and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Valerie A. THOMAS, Respondent.

No. 80-1294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 18, 1981.

James E. Glatt, Jr., of Graham, Markel, Scott, Marlowe, Appleton & McDonough, P. A., Orlando, for petitioners.

John R. Overchuck, of Maher, Overchuck, Langa & Cate, Orlando, for respondent.

COWART, Judge.

Central Florida Skates, Inc., and its insurer, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co., seek review by certiorari1 of an interlocutory order, dated October 19,1980, compelling production of the insurer’s entire underwriting file. The file contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent’s action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable. Production of the discoverable information within the insurer’s file is directed by Paragraph 3(a) of the order. Therefore, the writ is granted and Paragraph (3)(c) of the order compelling production is quashed. Nothing in this opinion shall prohibit the trial judge from viewing, *in camera,*the underwriting file pertaining to the roller rink and requiring the disclosure of the properly discoverable portions of that file, should respondent make proper application therefor.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur.

1

. Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). See *also*Haddad, *Certiorari in Florida,*29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207, 224 n. 133, et seq. (1977).
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.1


 


10% PROMISSORY NOTE


 



	
Date: March 9, 2012

	
Amount: $15,000







 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, MarketKast, Inc. promises to pay to the order of Angelo Barbato, or the holder hereof, (“Holder”) the sum of $15,000, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum, payable as follows:


 


1.           Monthly payments of interest only at the rate of 10% per annum on the outstanding balance existing from time to time, beginning May 1, 2012, and continuing on the 1st day of each month until March 1, 2015, at which time the entire principal balance, plus accrued interest, shall be due in full. This Note may be pre-paid, in whole or part, at any time without penalty.


 


2.           Upon the occurrence and continuance of any event of default hereunder, including the failure of MarketKast to make any payment when due, time being of the essence, this Note shall bear interest at maximum allowable rate under Florida Law.


 


3.           The undersigned and any endorsers and accommodation parties hereto, hereby waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor and protest.


 


4.           This Note has been delivered at Orlando, Florida, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida.







MarketKast, Inc.


 



	

/s/ James S. Byrd

	 
	

By: James S. Byrd, Jr., CEO
#### § 588.704 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice.

In the event that the violator does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to OFAC, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a federal district court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

GILBERTO LOPEZ-ROMO, a.k.a.

Romero Gilberto Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant,

Nos. 16-50219 

 16-50220

D.C. Nos. 3:13-cr-03504-L

 3:16-cr-00140-L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017** 

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Gilberto Lopez-Romo challenges the 18-

month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed

alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month

FILED

APR 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except

as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 
consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Romo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

adequately address his mitigating arguments in favor of lower sentences for his

illegal reentry conviction and violation of supervised release. The district court did

not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2010). The record demonstrates that the district court listened to LopezRomo’s arguments, identified what the court believed to be the only legitimate

mitigating factor, and weighed that factor against aggravating factors before

imposing the within-Guidelines sentences in both cases. The district court’s

explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th

Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Lopez-Romo next argues that the district court impermissibly based the

revocation sentence on the need to punish his underlying criminal conduct. The

record does not support Lopez-Romo’s argument, and instead, demonstrates that

the district court permissibly based the sentence on Lopez-Romo’s breach of the

court’s trust, his history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50219 & 16-50220
#### Andrew D. Parker et al., Respondents, *v.*Edward J. Newell, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Special Term.

David H. Knapp, for appellant.

George A. Wingate, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The order appealed from was a just and reasonable one. All of the surrounding circumstances — the official stamp on the envelope and the time of its delivery at plaintiffs’ attorney’s office — show that defendant is probably mistaken when he states that the mailing occurred before midnight. Order affirmed, with costs. .

Present: Fitzsimons, Oh. J., and O’Dwyer, J.

Order affirmed, with costs.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Nabih  Rahhal

# 				Nabih  Rahhal			

				Locally Employed Staff			

Deceased				April 18, 1983			

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

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialLebanon

Back to Top
§ 584.405 Provision of services. ( a ) The prohibitions on transactions contained in § 584.201 apply to services performed in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, including by a foreign branch of an entity located in the United States: ( 1 ) On behalf of or for the benefit of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 584.201(a); or
( 2 ) With respect to property interests of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 584.201(a).
( b ) *Example.* U.S. persons may not, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part, provide legal, accounting, financial, brokering, freight forwarding, transportation, public relations, or other services to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 584.201(a).
Note to § 584.405 :
See §§ 584.507 and 584.509 on licensing policy with regard to the provision of certain legal and emergency medical services.
HomeDivision for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions...Division for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions  Releases

# Division for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions Releases

285 items

        -    		Conflict Minerals	   
        -    		Terrorism Finance	   
        -    		Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions	   
        -    		De-risking	   
        -    		Global Sanctions and Threat Finance	   
        -    		Central African Republic Sanctions	   
        -    		Licensing	   
        -    		2016 Final Communique Plenary Session Dubai	  November 17, 2016 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Fact Sheet: U.S. Department of State Section 515.582 List	  April 22, 2016 
        -    		The State Department’s Section 515.582 List	  April 22, 2016 

previous page1…2526272829next page

Back to Top