alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 137.289 What is a Federal undertaking under NHPA?

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has defined a Federal undertaking in 36 CFR 800.16(y) as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,735]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on July 20, 2009 by three workers on behalf of workers of International Business Machines, Chicago, Illinois.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-71,550) filed on July 1, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition (TA-W-71,735) has been terminated.

      ( print page 43167)    
Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of August 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-20473 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
§ 802.202 Certification. ( a ) The term *certification* means a written statement signed by the chief executive officer or other duly authorized designee of a party filing a notice, declaration, or information, certifying under the penalties provided in the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1001) that the notice, declaration, or information filed: ( 1 ) Fully complies with the requirements of section 721, the regulations in this part, and any agreement or condition entered into with the Committee or any member of the Committee, and
( 2 ) Is accurate and complete in all material respects, as it relates to: ( i ) The transaction; and
( ii ) The party providing the certification, including its parents, subsidiaries, and any other related entities described in the notice, declaration, or information.
( b ) For purposes of this section, a *duly authorized designee* is: ( 1 ) In the case of a partnership, any general partner thereof;
( 2 ) In the case of a corporation, any officer or director thereof;
( 3 ) In the case of any entity lacking partners, officers, and directors, any individual within the organization exercising executive functions similar to those of a general partner of a partnership or an officer or director of a corporation; and
( 4 ) In the case of an individual, such individual or his or her legal representative.
( c ) In each case described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, such designee must possess actual authority to make the certification on behalf of the party filing a notice, declaration, or information.
Note 1 to § 802.202 :
A sample certification may be found at the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website. *See* §§ 802.402(f) and 802.502(k) regarding filing procedures for transactions in which a U.S. public entity is a party to the transaction.
SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE TERM,

MARCH, 1898.

#### Louis Becker, Appellant, *v.*Boney Laitin et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a.judgment in favor of the'defendants.

Emanuel Hertz, for appellant.

Max D. Steuer, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The appellant and respondents having orally agreed to dissolve their partnership on certain terms, proceeded . to give effect to such agreement. ■ The respondents delivered the notes in question to the appellant, and by an Instrument in writing released the appellant-from any claim they might have against Mm, and also assumed all of the outstanding copartnership debts. Ho reference was made in tMs instrument to the notes. It did not in fact embody the agreement of dissolution, but is-to be considered as a paper given'in pursuance and in part execution, of that agreement. It was not error, therefore, for the trial justice to' admit parol evidence showing what the terms of the original agreement of dissolution were.

The objection now raised that the defense upon which judgment was awarded in favor of the defendants was not properly pleaded is well founded, but the point was not sufficiently raised below, and the matter seems to have been litigated before the trial justice with the assent of both parties. It is evident that all the evidence wMch the appellant could have offered was presented, and the case was submitted to the justice by both parties upon all the proofs. Under these circumstances- it is too late, to raise the question on appeal.

It was doubtless error to admit the evidence wMch was received with respect to conversations between the witness.Shultz and the defendants; but as the testimony of the witness in that regard was in all respects favorable to the appellant, the latter was in no way prejudiced,- and is not, therefore, entitled to have the judgment reversed on that ground. -

Hone of the other exceptions presents ground -for reversal. The defense to the notes was good, if proven, and, as the trial justice, *757upon conflicting evidence!, has found the. facts in favor of the .respondents, we should not disturb his judgment;. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Gildersleeve and Geegerioh, JJ.

"Judgment affirmed, with costs.
40615.

#### LAMB v. THE STATE.

Decided March 13, 1964.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Based upon an affidavit and warrant charging the defendant with “the offense of driving under the influence, W. Amerieus on U.S. 280 in said County, on the 16th day of Sept., 1963,” an accusation was filed in the City Court of Amerieus charging the defendant with “the offense of a Misdemeanor, for that the said W. C. Lamb on the 16th day of September, in the year Nineteen Hundred and Sixty-three in the county aforesaid, did then and there, unlawfully and with force and arms, drive and operate a motor vehicle in said county while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, contrary to the laws of said State.” Before pleading the defendant demurred to such accusation because the affidavit on which it was based failed to charge the commission of a criminal offense under the laws of Georgia, because the accusation was broader than the affidavit, and because neither the affidavit nor warrant on which the accusation was based charged the defendant with any criminal offense. The trial court overruled the defendant’s demurrers and the defendant now assigns error on such adverse judgment. *Held:*

The affidavit failed to charge the defendant with the commission of any crime for it fails to show what he was under the influence of or what he was driving. The accusation could not be broader than the affidavit, *Blake v. State,*112 Ga. 537 (37 SE 870), *Glass v. State,*119 Ga. 299 (46 SE 435), and the affidavit fails to charge the defendant with any crime. Where the affidavit charges an offense against the laws of the State the accusation may particularize such violation. *Blake v. State,*supra, but where the affidavit fails to show the violation of any law no valid accusation can be based thereon. See Collum *v. Turner,*102 Ga. 534 (27 SE 680); *Alexander v. West,*6 Ga. App. 72 (64 SE 288); *Cain v. Kendrick,*72 Ga. App. 392 (33 SE2d 883). The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrers to the accusation which attacked the accusation because no crime was charged in the affidavit on which it was based and the further proceedings were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.*

*351
      *Charles Burgamy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jack Mun, Solicitor,*contra.
HomeSaint Lucia

# Saint Lucia

59 items

        -    DipNote: Global Women's Issues  		Narrowing the Gender Digital Divide: Empowering Girls Around the Globe to Build Digital Skills for a Lifetime 	  April 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Saint Lucia	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Saint Lucia National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 22, 2023 
        -    DSS Releases  		St. Lucia Citizen Who Lived in the U.S. under a Stolen Identity for 20 Years in Sentenced	  October 25, 2022 
        -    DSS Releases  		Bridgeport Resident Living under a Stolen Identity for 20 Years Pleads Guilty	  August 3, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Saint Lucia	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Saint Lucia	  July 19, 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: Saint Lucia	  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 

previous page1234…6next page

Back to Top
# Kuwait

91 items

        -    Report  		Kuwait	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kuwait	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Kuwait (16-128) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  January 28, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Kuwait (14-312) – Memorandum of Understanding for the Reciprocal Tax Exemption on Income Derived from the Operation of Aircraft	  March 12, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Kuwait (07-527) – Air Transport Agreement	  May 27, 2007 

previous page1…78910next page

Back to Top
#### COMMUNITY HEALTH OF SOUTH DADE, INC., etc., Appellant, v. Modena HALE, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 81-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 1, 1981.

*1287Harold C. Knecht, Jr. and David Crowley, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Greene & Cooper and Robyn Greene, Ro-senblatt, Greene & Arnowitz, Henry Burnett, H. Dane Mottlau, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.

*On Motion to Review*

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The plaintiff-appellees seek review1 of an order denying their motion to strike a su-persedeas bond filed by the defendant-appellant, Community Health of South Dade, Inc. They contend that the surety on the bond, Foremost Insurance Company, may not act in that capacity because it is admittedly also Community’s malpractice liability carrier which provides full coverage for the judgment on appeal. We disagree. When, as here, a liability carrier is not an actual party 2 to the judgment sought to be superseded, there is no impediment to its being the surety on a bond required to stay execution upon its insured. This is the common law rule, *Jayne v. W. B. Nash Lumber Co.,*108 Miss. 449, 66 So. 813 (1914); *Ackerman v. Somerset Bus Co.,*114 N.J.L. 16, 175 A. 201 (1934); *Universal Transport & Distributing Co. v. Cantu,*75 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.Civ. App.1934),3 and Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(c), which, without any qualification, requires only a bond with a “surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida,” seems clearly to adopt that conclusion.4 While there is a great deal to be said for the movants’ contention that no additional security is, as a practical matter, afforded the judgment creditors in such a situation, we observe, as we did in *Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi,*385 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), that the argument is more appropriately made in support of an amendment to the pertinent rule.

Motion denied.

1

. Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(f).

2

. Foremost was not named a party defendant because of Sec. 768.045, Fla.Stat. (1979), which has since been voided by *Cozine v. Tullo,*394 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1981).

3

. These cases also establish the converse proposition that an insurer may *not*be a surety to supersede a judgment to which it is already a party. We emphatically disagree with the accuracy of the contrary implication the carrier seeks to draw from the committee note to Fla. R.App.P. 9.310(b). It seems to us that the reference in Rule 9.310(c)(1) to the two separate capacities of principal and surety plainly itself implies that these capacities must be occupied by different parties.

4

. The two New York *nisi prius*decisions, *Murphy v. Mandon Realty Co.,*171 Misc. 521, 12 N.Y.S.2d 350 (S.Ct.1939), and *Smith v. 167th Street & Walton Ave. Corp.,*177 Misc. 507, 31 N.Y.S.2d 177 (S.Ct.1941), and the Texas case, *Elliott v. Lester,*126 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Civ.App. 1939), cited by the appellees are all based on statutory provisions, concerning the effect of a judgment against the insured upon the rights and obligations of the insurer, which have no Florida counterpart.
#### Alonzo HARRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-663.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### § 137.271 Why is there a separate subpart in these regulations for construction project agreements?

Construction projects are separately defined in Title V and are subject to a separate proposal and review process. Provisions of a construction project agreement and this subpart shall be liberally construed in favor of the Self-Governance Tribe.
HomeIndonesia

# Indonesia

201 items

        -    Department of Justice Release  		Warga Negara Indonesia Diekstradisi Dari Singapura Untuk Menghadapi Tuntutan Karena Melakukan Skema Ponzi Yang Menargetkan Komunitas Indonesia Dan Indo-Amerika	  November 10, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Co-Chairs’ Statement on the Fourth ASEAN-U.S. Cyber Policy Dialogue	  November 7, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Surabaya, Indonesia: Surabaya Intercultural School: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 3, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the United States-Indonesia Senior Officials’ 2+2  Foreign Policy and Defense Dialogue	  October 23, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Representative for the DPRK Kim Holds Trilateral Meeting in Jakarta	  October 17, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Jakarta, Indonesia: Jakarta Intercultural School: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 16, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Special Advisor on International Disability Rights Minkara Travel to Indonesia	  October 5, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Establishment of a U.S.-ASEAN Center in Washington, D.C.	  September 6, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with David M. Turk, U.S. Department of Energy	  August 24, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to Indonesia and the Philippines	  August 21, 2023 

previous page12345…21next page

Back to Top
#### Kelsey BETHEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, Joel Hirschhorn and Yale Freeman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., HAVER-FIELD, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was indicted for rape, tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary.

Defendant-appellant has presented some nine points on appeal, only a few of which merit some discussion.

Appellant first urges as error the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the Durham rule of insanity.

Since 1902, Florida expressly has followed the “M’Naghten” Rule, which still is the test for insanity at the present time. Anderson v. State, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 17. Thus this point of appellant must fail.

Defendant also argued that the court erred in declaring him competent1 to stand trial. We cannot agree.

As to the issue of defendant’s sanity, the evidence was in conflict and it was within the province of the trier of the fact to resolve the conflict of the sanity of the *252defendant. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.

As another point on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

It is well settled that an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts where there is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict. Moreover, it is clearly established that the judgment of guilty comes to this court with a presumption of correctness and all inferences to be drawn from the evidence are to be in favor of guilt. Evans v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 515. After a careful examination of the record on appeal we find there was competent substantial evidence contained therein to sustain the judgment of conviction.

We also considered appellant’s remaining points of appeal and find them to be lacking in merit.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

1

. Defendant’s alleged incompetence was the basis of several other points on appeal.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21246-21247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9604]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., May 21, 2010.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

[[Page 21247]]

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-9604 Filed 4-21-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
----

|   | EXHIBIT      32.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C., SECTION1350 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | BY  /s/ Connie Woods Hawkins         |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Connie      Woods Hawkins     |
|   | Title:  Chief      Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  August      14, 2008          |

|   | of      this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to      Security Capital Corporation and willbe |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | retained      by Security Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and      Exchange Commission or its staff |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | upon      request. |
|--------|--------------------|

----
HomePhilippines

# Philippines

195 items

        -    TIAS  		Philippines (16-413.1) – Agreement Amending Agreement of April 28, 2014 Concerning Defense Cooperation	  April 13, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction – Metrics Implementation (Summary)	  February 29, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (16-205) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction	  February 5, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		The Philippines/Partnership for Growth [Archive]	  February 1, 2015 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		El Salvador and the Philippines’ Partnership for Growth Initiatives [Archive]	  January 27, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (14-1218) – Claims Agreement for Compensation for Damage to the Tubbataha Reef Caused by the Grounding of the USS Guardian	  December 18, 2014 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Performance Evaluation of the Project To Combat Human Trafficking in the Philippines	  August 4, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (14-625) – Agreement on Defense Cooperation	  June 25, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (13-903) – Agreement on the Establishment of a Second Tropical Forest Conservation Fund	  September 3, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (12-1015) – Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation	  October 15, 2012 

previous page1…1617181920next page

Back to Top