alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
122 STAT. 3566 PUBLIC LAW 110–327—SEPT. 30, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1777: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–577 (Comm. on the Judiciary). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Apr. 30, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 25, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Sept. 27, House concurred in Senate amendment. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–327 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent the 

favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws. 

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 ‘‘Need-Based Educational Aid 

Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

Section 568(d) of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 

(15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting 

‘‘2015’’. 

Approved September 30, 2008. 

15 USC 1 note. 

Need-Based 

Educational Aid 

Act of 2008. 

Sept. 30, 2008 

[H.R. 1777] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
#### § 536.409 Credit extended and cards issued by financial institutions to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked.

The prohibition in § 536.201 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 specially designated narcotics trafficker.

[86 FR 26665, May 17, 2021]
Exhibit 99.1






                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Cytogen  Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2002 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  H. Joseph
Reiser,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          materials  respects,  the financial condition and result of operations
          of the Company.





November 13, 2002                   /s/ H. Joseph Reiser
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    H. Joseph Reiser
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company *v.*Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.

[No. 20,378.

Filed August 23, 1965.]

*lee, Miller, Donadío & Ryan,*of Indianapolis,-for appellant.

*John J. Dillon,*Attorney General,' *Keith Campbell,*Deputy Attorney General, and *Lynnville G. Miles,*of Indianapolis, for appellees;

Bierly, C. J.

Appellant submitted its transcript and assignment of errors in this-court on-the, 21st day of July, 19,65.

On August 16, 1965, appellant, Sperry Rubber and Plastics Company, by William R. Riggs, its attorney, filed a motion to dismiss appeal, therein reciting that appellant no longer desires to prosecute its appeal from the decision of the appellee, Review Board of the Indiana'Employment Security Division; that1-appel*452lees have filed no assignment of cross-errors; and that said appeal should be dismissed.

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is now submitted to this court for examination and determination.

The court now finds that proof of service of notice was properly given appellees; that no assignment of cross-errors has'been filed in.said cause; that no objections have been filed by appellees to appellant’s motion to dismiss; .and that appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted.

Appeal dismissed, with costs to be charged against appellant.

Note, — Reported in 209 N. E. 2d 735.
#### The COCA-COLA COMPANY-FOODS DIVISION, Appellant, v. Michael LUCIEN, Appellee.

No. VV-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 1, 1981.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1981.

*1024Jesse F. Sparks, Orlando, for appellant.

Michael B. Murphy, of Stanley, Wines & Smith, Auburndale, for appellee.

McCORD, Judge.

Appellant, employer/carrier, appeals from the deputy commissioner’s award to appellee of temporary total disability benefits from August 1978 to February 1979 and 25% permanent partial disability benefits thereafter, based on loss of wage-earning capacity. Competent substantial evidence does not support the deputy commissioner’s award. We reverse.

In January 1977, appellee injured his right foot, right shoulder and back in a work-related accident while employed by appellant as a fruit picker. According to the record, except for a two-week period in May 1978, appellee did not work again until February 1979. However, no evidence in the record indicates that he was temporarily totally disabled during the period from August 1978 to February 1979. We, therefore, reverse the deputy commissioner’s award of temporary total disability benefits for that period.

The record shows that appellee did conduct an extensive job search, visiting at least 27 potential employers in an effort to obtain work. His own testimony revealed, however, that most of those potential employers had no job openings. Appellee also testified that he did not inform many of his potential employers of his disability, thereby indicating that his disability was not the reason for not obtaining employment in those instances. Further, many of the jobs appellee sought were in areas in which he had no experience. In view of those facts, appellee failed to meet his burden of establishing that his inability to obtain a job was due to his disability. Therefore, the deputy commissioner’s finding of a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity was error. Compare *Florida Division of Corrections v. Morgan,*382 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

REVERSED.

SMITH, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur.
CEHR-E

Engineer Pamphlet

690-1-11(11)

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

EP 690-1-11(11)

1 January 1996

Command-wide Recruitment and 

Outreach Materials

CAREER PROFILE SUPPLEMENT -

BIOLOGIST

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is 

unlimited.
#### Russell Myron BLOXHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 27, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
40482.

#### BOLTON v. CREETY.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where the evidence adduced upon the trial of a claim case shows that the legal title to the property levied upon was in the defendant at the time the judgment was rendered, and before execution was issued and recorded, title *559was conveyed to a third party by a bill of sale to secure debt, and after the rendition of the judgment and the recording of the execution the third party foreclosed its bill of sale to secure debt and levied upon the property, and defendant in fi. fa. then conveyed the property to claimant who paid off the claim of the third party by paying the levying officer the amount of the foreclosure and cost, and thereafter the execution to which the claim was filed was levied upon the property in possession of the defendant in execution, the property was subject thereto. Any title the claimant might have acquired (it not appearing she had the bill of sale to secure debt transferred to her) was derived through the defendant in execution and was subject to the lien of the judgment against him. *Pefinis v. Geller,*102 Ga. App. 307 (2) (116 SE2d 4). The trial judge, sitting without a jury, properly found that the property was subject thereto.

Decided April 8, 1964.

*Llop & Long, Fred A. Gilbert,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles E. Walker,*contra.

2. The original execution, identified as such, was properly admitted in evidence over the objection of claimant. *Thomas & Co. v. Parker,*69 Ga. 283, 285 (1).

3. The trial judge did not err in overruling the claimant’s motion for new trial consisting of the general grounds and one special ground complaining of the admission in evidence of the original execution.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: August 13, 2009                                                  |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Ronald Conquest                                                    |   |   |   |
|                                                                        |   |   |   |
| Ronald ConquestChief Executive OfficerInMedica Development Corporation |   |   |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44883-44884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20867]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 18, OMB Control No. 3235-0121, SEC File No. 270-105.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is used for the registration of securities 
of any foreign government or political subdivision on a U.S. exchange. 
The information collected is intended to ensure that the information 
required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of 
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public 
availability of the information. The information provided

[[Page 44884]]

is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon 
request. Form 18 takes approximately 8 hours per response and is filed 
by approximately 5 respondents for a total of 40 annual burden hours. 
It is estimated that 100% of the total reporting burden is prepared by 
the company.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4a79c959381928095abb59c999190b49b9996da919b84da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e6d565f594b584a5f617f56535b5a7e51535c105b514e10595148">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7f7f5e6f8eac6cecbc5c8dfe7d4c2c489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81d1d3c0decce0e8ede3eef9c1f2e4e2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 24, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20867 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### CANADIAN GULF LINE OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. NEW HAVEN TRUCK RENTAL, INC., and Eagle Trucking, Inc., Appellees.

No. 74-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 8, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeCameroon

# Cameroon

67 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in Cameroon and Chad	  March 27, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Yaoundé, Cameroon: American School of Yaoundé: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  March 1, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Douala, Cameroon: American School of Douala: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  March 1, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Press Briefing with Ian J. McCary, Deputy Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS	  December 5, 2023BRUSSELS HUB 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Cameroon	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Douala, Cameroon: American School of Douala: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 30, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Yaoundé, Cameroon: American School of Yaoundé: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 30, 2023 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Cameroon	  October 23, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Cameroon 	  June 27, 2023 

123…7next page

Back to Top
HomeChile

# Chile

120 items

        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Zeya’s Travel to Chile May 3-5	  May 2, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Fernandez’s Travel to Chile 	  April 21, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Chile	  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 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Nichols’ Travel to Chile	  March 4, 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 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 20, 2021	  December 20, 2021WASHINGTON, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Chilean Foreign Minister Allamand	  October 19, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Chile’s Independence Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 18, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Advancing Climate Action in the Americas	  September 16, 2021 

previous page1…56789…12next page

Back to Top
#### Joseph CAMEJO, Petitioner, v. Sheriff O. L. RAULERSON, Jr., Sheriff of Highlands County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 75-102.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 30, 1975.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Adolphe Halbran, Respondent, *v.*Robert J. Gray, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Jacob F. Miller, for appellant.

Jacob Halstead, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with, costs.

Present: O’Dwyer and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
§ 510.208 Prohibited aircraft landing or vessel calling in the United States. ( a ) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
( b ) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship-to-ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
( c ) The prohibitions in this section apply except to the extent provided by regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 4, 2022

In The 

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

No. 05

- 21

- 01035

- CV

PRICEVISION, INC. , Appellant

V. BROACH BILT MANUFACTURING, INC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471

- 03003

- 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Nowell Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal

because the parties have settled their differences. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

211035f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/ / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 2

– 

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

JUDGMENT

PRICEVISION, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 21

- 01035

- CV V.

BROACH BILT MANUFACTURING, INC, Appellee On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471

- 03003

- 2020. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Reichek and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 4 th day of February

, 2022

.
#### John H. Conroy, Respondent, *v.*Frank S. Allen, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1898.)

Appeal — Affirmance on a conflict of evidence.

The decision of a trial justice upon conflicting evidence must usually stand, as the Appellate Court is seldom in a position satisfactorily to review a decision where the determination rests upon a question of the credibility of the witnesses.

Appeae from a judgment of the District Court of the City of New York for the second judicial district, in favor of the plaintiff.

William L. Stone, Jr., for appellant.

I. Newton Williams, for respondent.

Beekman, P. J.

The only question involved in this appeal is one of fact, and the rule is well established that this court .will not disturb the conclusion of the trial justice upon such a question, unless it is manifest that it was against the weight-of evidence. After a. careful examination of the proofs, we are unable to find that such was the case here. The determination of the Eacts ire^ quired the trial justice to pass upon the veracity of the witnesses. He had them before him and observed their demeanor on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimony. These are matters which may he legitimately considered where such a question is i;o he determined, but, from the nature of the case, they are not susceptible of reproduction in the minutes of the trial. The appellate court is, therefore, seldom in a position to satisfactorily review a decision upon the facts where the determination of the case rests upon a question of credibility. We, therefore, feel constrained to affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Giedebsleeve and Giegebioh, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000702402
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1981-1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             88,532
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      27,008
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  115,540
<PP&E>                         41,106,260
<DEPRECIATION>                 41,071,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    150,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              20,322
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                         74,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      150,734
<SALES>                           158,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  160,898
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     111,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    49,648
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                49,648
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       49,648
<EPS-BASIC>                          7.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
#### J. Allen SCHUR, d/b/a Venetian Arms Apartments, Appellants, v. Robert MARKS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bella Marks, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 78-2046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 18, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1979.

Pyszka, Kessler & Adams and Phillip D. Blackmon, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Brumer, Cohen, Logan & Rodgers, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See, e. g., *Metropolitan Dade County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company,*365 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); *Roach v. Raubar,*362 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis,*353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *McCabe v. Watson,*225 So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); *Talcott v. Holl,*224 So.2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), and *North Dade Imported Motors v. Brundage Motors,*221 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).