alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas E. McCabe, Respondent, *against*The Dry Dock, East Broadway, & Battery R. Co., Appellant.

(Decided February 3d, 1890.)

In an action for injuries to plaintiffs wagon caused by the alleged negligence of one of defendant’s car drivers, evidence of conversations which plaintiff had with one of defendant’s drivers a considerable time after the accident, is not admissible; such conversations are not a part of the res *gestee.*

"Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the Eleventh Judicial District.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Robinson, Scribner, & Bright,*for appellant.

*505*T. J.*Shea, for respondent.

Bookstaver, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff» to recover of the defendant damages by reason, as he claims, of a negligent injury on the part of the defendant company to his wagon. The evidence on the question of negligence is very conflicting, and were there nothing else in the case, we would not feel justified in reversing the judgment. But on the redirect examination of the plaintiff he was allowed to testify, against defendant’s objection and exception, to a conversation between himself and one of the defendant’s drivers, relating not only to matters which occurred at the time of the accident, but to what took place a considerable time afterwards, and also as to what would have happened had he been the driver instead of the one who was actually driving. We think this was error. The conversation was in no sense a part of the *res gestee.*“ The *res*gestee, speaking generally, was the accident; these declarations were no part of that, were not made at the same time or so nearly contemporaneous with it as to characterize it or throw light upon it; they are purely narrative, giving an account of a transaction not partly past, but wholly past’” *(Wardele*v. *New York Cent. & H. R. Co.,*95 N. Y. 278; *Sherman*v. *Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.,*106 N. Y. 546).

For this error the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Bischoff, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000702403 
<NAME>                              DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1981-2 LTD PSHIP
                                     
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 61,066
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          49,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      110,857
<PP&E>                             39,773,489
<DEPRECIATION>                     39,662,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        269,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  12,366
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             86,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          269,656
<SALES>                               285,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      290,756
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         258,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        31,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    31,853
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           31,853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            5.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
H. R. 1366

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To authorize the extension of time limitation for the FERC-issued hydroelectric

license for the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FERC PROJECT.

Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 13

of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC

Project No. 9401 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in

accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest

requirements of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures

under such section, to extend the time required for commencement

of construction of such project until August 3, 1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Frank Perry FLOYD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-777.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 23, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2600

To provide for coverage of certain anti-cancer drug treatments under

Medicare.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. OBEY (for himself, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. FARR, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. KILDEE, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. HOYER, Ms. PELOSI, Ms.

DELAURO, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Ms.

WATERS, and Mrs. CLAYTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the

Committee on Commerce, 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 provide for coverage of certain anti-cancer drug

treatments under Medicare.

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

3 TITLE I—MEDICARE

4 SECTION 101. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CERTAIN ANTI5 CANCER DRUG TREATMENTS.

6 (a) COVERAGE OF CERTAIN SELF-ADMINISTERED

7 ANTICANCER DRUGS.—Section 1861 (s)(2)(Q) of the So-
2

HR 2600 IH

1 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(Q)) is amend2 ed—

3 (1) by striking ‘‘(Q) and inserting ‘‘(Q)(i)’’; and

4 (2) by striking the semicolon at the end and in5 serting ‘‘, and’’; and

6 (3) by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(ii) an oral drug (which is approved by the

8 Federal Food and Drug Administration) prescribed

9 for us as an anticancer nonsteroidal antiestrogen or

10 nonsteroidal antiandrogen agent for a given indica11 tion;’’.

12 (b) UNIFORM COVERAGE OF ANTICANCER DRUGS IN

13 ALL SETTINGS.—Section 1861(t)(2)(A) of such Act (42

14 U.S.C. 1395x(t)(2)(A)) is amended by adding ‘‘(including

15 a nonsteroidal antiestrogen or nonsteroidal antiandrogen

16 regimen)’’ after ‘‘regimen’’.

17 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

18 1834(j)(5)(F)(iv) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

19 1395m(j)(5)(F)(iv)) is amended by striking ‘‘prescribed

20 for use’’ and all that follows through ‘‘1861(s)(2)(Q))’’

21 and inserting ‘‘described in Section 1861(s)(2)(Q)’’.

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the

24 date of the enactment of the Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2 – SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant
 to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 
 I, Jon S. Verbeck, Chief Financial Officer,  Acting Principal Accounting Officer, and Treasurer of OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May 14, 2010
 /s/ Jon S. Verbeck
 Jon S. Verbeck
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
 Acting Principal Accounting Officer
§ 535.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. ( a ) This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to such parts shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by this part, nor shall any license or authorization issued pursuant to any other provision of law (except this part) be deemed to authorize any transaction so prohibited.
( b ) No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction to the extent that it is prohibited by reason of the provisions of any law or any statute other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended, or any proclamation order or regulation other than those contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
[44 FR 65956, Nov. 15, 1979, as amended at 62 FR 45107, Aug. 25, 1997]
#### Otis WATTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1333.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Otis Watts, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C.' J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defend*222ant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
§ 576.514 Official business of certain international organizations and entities. All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized: ( a ) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
( b ) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
( c ) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing;
( d ) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and
( e ) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
[87 FR 78478, Dec. 21, 2022]
40564.

#### WHIDDON v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Decided February 13, 1964.

*138*Ford i& Houston, P. B. Ford,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marion L. Bridges,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in *Bullard v. Life &c. Ins. Co.,*178 Ga. 673, 674 (173 SE 855), in which Justice Gilbert said: “In arriving at the true interpretation of a contract, words usually bear their ‘usual and common signification.’ In common parlance, or according to usual signification of the word, an ‘automobile’ is not a ‘motorcycle.’ Both are ‘motor-driven’ vehicles, but not all ‘motor-driven’ vehicles are ‘automobiles’ nor are all ‘motorcycles.’ Had it been the intention of the parties that the insurance should cover accidents in riding a motorcycle, the policy would properly have used the words ‘motor-driven vehicles.’ ”

Any language used by this court in *Carter v. State,*12 Ga. App. 430 (78 SE 205) and *Bonds v. State,*16 Ga. App. 401 (85 SE 629), relied upon by plaintiff in error, in conflict with the above must yield to the clear cut subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in *Bullard,*178 Ga. 673, supra.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
#### § 585.401 [Reserved]
§ 560.543 Sale of certain real and personal property in Iran and transfer of related funds to the United States. ( a ) Individuals who are U.S. persons are authorized to engage in transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the sale of real and personal property in Iran and to transfer the proceeds to the United States, provided that such real and personal property was acquired before the individual became a U.S. person or inherited from persons in Iran. Authorized transactions include engaging the services of any persons in Iran necessary for the sale, such as an attorney, funds agent, or broker.
( b ) This section does not authorize: ( 1 ) The wind-down of commercial enterprises in Iran;
( 2 ) The re-investment in Iran of the proceeds from the real or personal property sales authorized in paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 3 ) The exportation or reexportation to Iran of any goods (including software) or technology.
[77 FR 64666, Oct. 22, 2012, as amended at 83 FR 55271, Nov. 5, 2018]
#### § 576.409 Charitable contributions.

Unless specifically authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control pursuant to this part, no charitable contribution of funds, goods, services, or technology, including contributions to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing or medicine, may be made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201(a). For the purposes of this part, a contribution is made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201(a) if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, such a person; if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, an entity or individual acting for or on behalf of, or owned or controlled by, such a person; or if made in an attempt to violate, to evade, or to avoid the bar on the provision of contributions by, to, or for the benefit of such a person, or the receipt of contributions from any such person.
§ 590.504 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 § 590.201 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 § 590.504 .
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 590.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
HomeBureau of Energy ResourcesRemarks & Releases...Clean EDGE Asia: The Bangladeshi System Operator Received Cybersecurity Training hosted by ENR’s Power Sector Program (PSP)

# 									Clean EDGE Asia: The Bangladeshi System Operator Received Cybersecurity Training hosted by ENR’s Power Sector Program (PSP)							

Other Release

March 5, 2024

On February 28, experts from PSP implementer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) held the second virtual cybersecurity training for the Power Grid Company of Bangladesh’s (PGCB) Cyber and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) teams. In preparation for travel to Dhaka on March 3-5, PNNL delivered a workshop on the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) and introduced participants to the assessment methodology to evaluate PGCB’s current cyber capabilities.  The C2M2 assessment will form a programmatic baseline for PGCB to inform actions that improve cybersecurity practices and optimize security investments.

Tags

BangladeshBureau of Energy ResourcesEnergy

Back to Top
§ 555.507 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201 is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to § 555.508, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States; via specific license; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 555.404.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 555.201 is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 555.507 :
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of such legal services where alternative funding sources are not available.
# CI2020123EN.01000301.xml

| 16.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 123/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 123/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 April 2020

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

(2020/C 123 I/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2),

| — | on 2 April 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2020, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 2 April 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2020,

| — | in view of the COVID-19 outbreak and the urgency to address the associated public health crisis the Council needs to proceed without delay to the adoption of its position on draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for 2020. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1, |
| --- | --- |

—

in view of the COVID-19 outbreak and the urgency to address the associated public health crisis the Council needs to proceed without delay to the adoption of its position on draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for 2020. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 was adopted on 14 April 2020.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 14 April 2020.

For the Council

The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 57, 27.2.2020, p. 1.

2

---