alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Albania Independence Day

# 									Albania Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 28, 2021

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Albania as you celebrate your 109th Independence Day.  Our deep and enduring friendship dates back more than a century to when President Woodrow Wilson emphatically defended Albania’s independence at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

Since that time, Albanians have demonstrated great strength and resilience by casting off the oppression of a communist dictatorship and building a democracy committed to tolerance, human rights, and European integration.  Albania demonstrated that spirit again this year by opening its doors to Afghans in need, and they continue to provide safe harbor as they did for thousands of Jews during World War II and other groups fleeing persecution over recent decades.

In 2021, we marked 30 years of restored diplomatic relations, reflecting on all that Americans and Albanians have accomplished together since 1991.  Today, we are Allies within NATO and next year we will serve together on the UN Security Council. The United States is committed to supporting Albania’s democratic institutions, justice and economic reforms, and future in the European Union.

We look forward to deepening our friendship even further, and we remain proud to call Albania a friend, partner, and Ally.

Tags

AlbaniaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
UNITED STATES

BERING SEA
BATHYMETRIC MAP ST. PAUL $PUR
ur = tne . _ wie
Ts = =e = a oe Se a Tare at
. | aa Pa 1
: 5 > TY = = Al = 1h) aha Tee " f = ap
"4 ”
y #
ae
‘
at we
ae
ie) =
| ase oa
ie
G “

ra
—
| 7 be “
~ i
| errr
} cS es 21 — Oo
eee Netehed & Warbegen DC

MANOMAL OCEANIC AND AIMOSERC allmyItTEANON
NANOWAL OCEAN IENViCE
teas

= ST. PAUL SPUR

US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE i an
| \ NOS NO 25

" enrrmtinc Contos patern MettN TO 700 Mar TER Dem tu
sale eMeNreD c YE SO METERS TO AMAIAMIM E
SaPPLET

"Umhs MREN LIYWOIE QW. wat

Nandita mBICAICR MrOWECTION or : aa -
Sooe 1.280900
—— ATLANTIC OCEAN
UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP BROWNS SANK

Pcbhihed at Wopnegnan OC
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
MANONAL OCEAMC AND ARMOSPHERC ADWHSTEATION
MATICAL OCEAN BURFEY
19

BROWNS BANK
NOS NK 19-6

SATHIPAMETIIC COMTOUR FETERVALE: 0 ETERS YO 7OD METER DErTHE THENCE
2 MAETERL 7D MAKIN DEPTH. SUPPLEMENTED A 1B METER PATERVALE

atu MtAn Low warO

mascot amncance MAE HOM
Seam 1250000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2095

MARY JO BARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BRUCE HOAK, M.D.,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

THOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-00-1197-2)

Submitted: March 27, 2003 Decided: April 11, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Jo Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard D. Jones, Mark Allen

Robinson, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.L.L.C., Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Mary Jo Barker appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bruce Hoak in this medical

malpractice action. In the briefing order, Barker was warned that

this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in her

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Barker’s

informal brief does not challenge the grounds for the district

court’s grant of summary judgment. Instead, she presents new

information that was not before the district court as support for

the merits of her claim. We may not consider such new information

on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Accordingly, we affirm.

We grant Dr. Hoak’s motion to strike and deny Barker’s motion to

supplement the record. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2330

In Re: NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(4:03-cr-386-TLW) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norman Tyrone Dais, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Norman Tyrone Dais petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

motion to compel. He seeks an order from this court directing 

the district court to act. We find there has been no undue 

delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus 

petition. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000862612
<NAME> UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                           3,998
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,923
<INVENTORY>                                    244,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               525,085
<PP&E>                                         694,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                 327,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,197,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          236,021
<BONDS>                                        867,111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (210,750)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,197,771
<SALES>                                        328,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,144
<CGS>                                          197,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  269,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,859
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,951)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
Order entered March 20 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00851

- CR

DESMOND RENARD FISHE R, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crim inal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 19

- 00024

- Y

O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

We abated this app eal for the appointment of counsel. On March 17, 2020 , a

s upple mental clerk ’ s record containing the appoi ntment was filed. We DIRECT

the Clerk to list Valencia Bush as appointed counsel for M r. Fisher . All future
correspondence sh all be sent to Valen cia Bush , 10000 North Central Expwy, Ste

400, Dallas, TX 75231.
Appellant ’ s brief is DUE by May 4, 2020

. /s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JU STICE
§ 547.314 Information or informational materials. ( a ) ( 1 ) The term *information or informational materials* includes publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
( 2 ) To be considered information or informational materials, artworks must be classified under heading 9701, 9702, or 9703 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
( b ) The term *information or informational materials,* with respect to exports, does not include items: ( 1 ) That were, as of April 30, 1994, or that thereafter become, controlled for export pursuant to section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 (1979) (EAA), or section 6 of the EAA to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States; or
( 2 ) With respect to which acts are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 37.
[83 FR 57313, Nov. 15, 2018]
40462.

#### DIXIE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY v. SMITH.

Pannell, Judge.

1. A policy of insurance in which the insurer agrees “to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages . . . sustained by any person caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile” is a contract to pay liabilities rather than a contract of indemnity, and the cause of action thereon is complete when the liability attaches rather than after the discharge by the insured of the liability insured against. *Hodges v. Ocean Acc. &c. Corp.,*66 Ga. App. 431, 433 (18 SE2d 28); *Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,*66 Ga. App. 826 (2) (19 SE2d 377).

2. It follows, therefore, that where, as in the present case, an insured under such a policy has judgments obtained against him in suits defended by the insurer, which judgments are within the terms of the policy and the insurer, after demand refuses to pay such judgments, the insured may maintain an action therefor against the insurer. *Hodges v. Ocean Acc. &c. Corp.,*66 Ga. App. 431, 433, supra;*Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,*66 Ga. App. 826, supra; *Maryland Cas. Co. v. Sammons,*63 Ga. App. 323 (11 SE2d 89); *Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Starrett,*102 Ga. App. 278 (3) (115 SE2d 641), (following the *Hodges*case). While the *Hodges*case ruled that the holder of a judgment against an insured under such a policy might proceed against the insurer by garnishment, such holding was necessarily predicated upon the antecedent ruling that the insurer was liable to the insured. Unless the debtor can recover, the garnishing plaintiff may not recover, as his recovery is predicated upon the rights of the debtor, *Bates & Co. v. Forsyth,*69 Ga. 365 (1b), *Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Southern Grocery Co.,*2 Ga. *14App. 545 (59 SE 473), except in cases of fraudulent transfers, and even in these instances, the fiction of the debtor’s right to recover is preserved. The trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Decided January 27, 1964.

*W. Glenn Thomas, Albert E. Butler,*for plaintiff in error.

*William A. Zorn,*contra.

3. While the bill of exceptions recites the overruling of general and special demurrers, the only judgment excepted to is the overruling of the general demurrer in a designated paragraph of the demurrer. Under these circumstances, this court cannot consider the question as to the overruling of the other demurrers. *Ayares Small Loan Co. v. Maston,*78 Ga. App. 628 (4) (51 SE2d 699); *Sherrill v. Sherrill,*202 Ga. 288 (1) (42 SE2d 921).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- What We Do
- News and Features
- Security Clearances
- Contact Us

HomeAbout Us – Bureau of Diplomatic Security...Contact Us at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security

# 									Contact Us at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security							

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

We welcome your comments, inquiries, and suggestions.

## DS Public Affairs

For general information or questions about DS:e-mail: DSPublicAffairs@state.gov

**Mailing address:**

DS Public AffairsBureau of Diplomatic SecurityU.S. Department of StateWashington, DC 20522-2008

----

## Other Contact Information

**Passport and Visa Fraud**

You may submit information and inquiries regarding passport and visa fraud to Diplomatic Security via e-mail at: PassportVisaFraud@state.gov.

----

**National Security Threats**

Write us at: 202-702-7843 via Signal, Telegram, or WhatsAppOr via our Tor-based tips-reporting channel at: he5dybnt7sr6cm32xt77pazmtm65flqy6irivtflruqfc5ep7eiodiad.onion

----

**DS Recruitment**

For information about jobs:571-345-3783e-mail: DSSCareers@state.govwebsite: www.careers.state.gov

----

**Security Clearances**For information on the Department of State’s security clearance process, or to inquire into the status of your security clearance application.Available between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., EST571-345-3186 or toll-free: 1-866-643-4636 (1-866-643-INFO)e-mail: SecurityClearance@state.gov

----

**Criminal Investigations**

Please click here for DS field office contact information.

----

**DS Command Center**

For emergency or after-hours contact.571-345-3146 or toll-free: 1-866-217-2089

----

**Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC)**For assistance to the American private sector on overseas security matters.571-345-2223website: www.osac.gov

----

**DSS Most Wanted**

If you have information on any suspects contact DSS Most Wanted at **DSSMostWanted@state.gov** or call toll free at 1-855-TIP-4-DSS.

Tags

Diplomatic Security

Back to Top
# United States Department of the Interior

Mr. Douglas Pab s t 

### FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Boqueron Field Office Carr

. 301 , KM 5

. 1 , Bo

. Corozo P

. O. Box 491 Boqueron , PR 00622



## MAY 18 2005

Team Leader, Dre dged Materi a l Management Team Di vis ion of Environmental Planning and Protection US Environ mental Protect ion Agency , Region2 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Pabst: 

### R e: Ocean dredged m a t e rial di s po s al s ites around Pu e rto Ri c o

Thank yo u for your lette r of April 22, 2005. received in thi s office on May 2, 2005, concerning the potential effec t on threatened and e nda n gered s pecie s of the above referenced Regu latory modification to the d es ignation ofthe ocean dredged material disposal sites around Puerto Rico (at 40 CFR 228.16) ; name ly Arecibo, Mayagtie z, Ponce , San Juan , and Yabucoa harbor s, to provide flexibi l i t y to coasta l manager s in
m eet in g a n y future dredged material management needs th at may arise d u e to emergencies and/or potential future activities outside areas a lready provid e d fo r b y the Regulations gove rning ocean disposal of dredged materi a l. O ur comment s are i ss u e d in accordance with the E ndan ge red Spec ies Act of 1 973 ( 1 6 U.S.C. 1531 

### et se q ., as amended). We have assigned Id e ntification Number 

### F W S -M M -214-05
- 062 8 to thi s project, and we wiil appreciaie it if yuu refet to t his number 

### ir. future corre :> por.dence regarding this project.
We concur with yo ur determination that the propo se d mod ification may affect but i s not lik ely to adve r se l y affect threaten e d and endangered species, b e caus e onl y the same t y p es of dredge material will be e l ig ibl e for di s posal , a l l d i s po sal act ivit ies will be conducted in
acco rd a nc e with the approved Site Management and Monitoring P lan for each s ite , a nd there are no a ltera ti o11s to an y ot he r requirements of t he Regulation s. Therefore , no further co n su lt atio n is required. Nevertheless, i f the project is modified or if infom1ation
on impacts to li sted species b ecomes a va ilabl e: this office s hou ld be contacted concerning the need for initi at io n of consulta ti cn under sectio n 7 of th e Act.Thank yo u fo r th e op p ortuni ty to comme nt o n this p roject, and pl ease d o n o t hesitate to contact Dr. J orge E. Sa li va of our s taff at 787 851-7297 , ex te n s ion 224 , s h o uld yo u have any quest io n s or need add it ional in fo rm ati on.

Jes cc: EPA, San Juan NMFS, Lajas EQB , San Juan COE, San Juan D NE R, San Juan

### yo**ur s,** 

# Edw**in E,~** **~** Fi e ld S up ervi so r
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2821 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2821

   To provide for the transfer of six obsolete tugboats of the Navy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 1995

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the transfer of six obsolete tugboats of the Navy.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE TUGBOATS OF THE NAVY.

    (a) Requirement To Transfer Vessels.--The Secretary of the Navy 
shall transfer the six obsolete tugboats of the Navy specified in 
subsection (b) to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad Transportation 
Commission, an instrumentality of the State of Wisconsin. Such 
transfers shall be made without reimbursement and shall be effective 
December 31, 1995.
    (b) Vessels Covered.--The requirement in subsection (a) applies to 
the six decommissioned Cherokee class tugboats, listed as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act as being surplus to the Navy, that are 
designated as ATF-105, ATF-110, ATF-149, ATF-158, ATF-159, and ATF-160.
    (c) Condition Relating to Environmental Compliance.--The Secretary 
shall require as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under 
subsection (a) that use of the vessel by the Commission not commence 
until the terms of any necessary environmental compliance letter or 
agreement with respect to that vessel have been complied with.
    (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions in connection with the transfers 
required by subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 558.309 Person.

The term *person* means an individual or entity.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 201 O-NM~054-AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Isthe AD significant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s:ubstantial number of small entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is 

### it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where 3vi1at10nmight be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
#### Estelle Feeney *v.*Benjamin Perelmutter.

Maltbie, C. J., Avert, Brown, Jennings and Ells, Js.

Argued January 7

decided February 5, 1942.

*Harry E. Konick,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*David M. Reilly,*for the appellee (defendant).

Ells, J.

The plaintiff, a tenant, fell while descending a common stairway in defendant’s tenement building after dark and was injured. The trial court concluded that the defendant was not negligent in any of the respects set forth in the complaint. Upon this appeal the plaintiff abandoned her claim that the stairway was without proper railings or safeguards, and that the treads were of insufficient width and were worn to an unsafe degree. Her present claims are that the hallway was unlighted, that the lighting fixtures were broken and out of repair, that there was a foreign substance on the stairs, and that these defects were the cause of her fall.

None of the assignments of error complied with our rules, but we have examined them so far as neces*573sary to see whether substantial injustice to the plaintiff has been done. *Croughwell*v. *Chase Brass & Copper Co.,*128 Conn. 110, 112, 20 Atl. (2d) 619. The trial court found that at about 7:15 p.m. the plaintiff came from her kitchen on the second floor of the premises, carrying a plate of garbage to be disposed of in the rear yard; that she descended the stairway, leaving the door of the kitchen open; that in the kitchen was a lighted electric bulb; that while her left foot was on the third step from the landing at the bottom she brought her right foot down to the second step, it slipped and she fell to the bottom of the inside stairway; and that the light conditions were such that she knew and saw the position of her feet on the stairway at the time she fell. On the basis of these facts the court found that the stairway was reasonably well lighted at the time. The effect of the last finding is that there was sufficient light in the stairway to afford the plaintiff reasonable protection in coming down the stairs. If this is so, any failure of the defendant himself to provide light for the stairway is not of consequence. *Kristiansen*v. *Danbury,*108 Conn. 553, 559, 143 Atl. 850.

The trial court did not find that there was any foreign substance upon the stairs, nor does it appear that it was requested to find this fact. The only assignment of error directed to this matter was the failure of the court to find that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a foreign substance upon the stairway. While the record contains some evidence as to the presence of such a substance, the trial court was under no duty to accept it and there was no evidence at all that any such substance had been on the stairway a sufficient length of time so that the defendant should have had notice of it. *Laflin*v. *574*Lomas & Nettleton Co., 127*Conn. 61, 63, 13 Atl. (2d) 760.

There is no error..

In this opinion the other judges concurred.