alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 584.304 Information or informational materials. ( a ) 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. Note to paragraph ( a
):
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.
AFS-14-216-E

March 31, 2014

 Exemption No.10966

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0208

Ms. Keri Lyndes

Parent of Lillian Lyndes

15 Berkshire Road

Lisbon, NH 03585

Dear Ms. Lyndes:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received March 28, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Lillian Lyndes for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Lillian to exceed the 

specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by 

AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States 

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Lillian.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons 

with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9834;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Lillian Lyndes an exemption from 

§ 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 

while Lillian is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the 

extent necessary to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Lillian’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying her. Lillian Lyndes may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Lillian’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
#### § 902.7 Mutual releases of the debtor and the Government.

In all appropriate instances, a compromise that is accepted by an agency should be implemented by means of a mutual release, in which the debtor is released from further non-tax liability on the compromised debt in consideration of payment in full of the compromise amount and the Government and its officials, past and present, are released and discharged from any and all claims and causes of action arising from the same transaction that the debtor may have. In the event a mutual release is not executed when a debt is compromised, unless prohibited by law, the debtor is still deemed to have waived any and all claims and causes of action against the Government and its officials related to the transaction giving rise to the compromised debt.
#### § 11.6 What are the requirements for the submission of truthful information?

The clinical trial information submitted by a responsible party under this part shall not be false or misleading in any particular. A responsible party who submits false and/or misleading information is subject to civil monetary penalties and/or other civil or criminal remedies available under U.S. law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                  28,381
<SECURITIES>                                           190,373
<RECEIVABLES>                                            4,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                             5,971
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       218,754
<PP&E>                                                  24,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                           5,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         590,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  529,298
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                              2,554
<COMMON>                                                   600
<OTHER-SE>                                              51,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           590,752
<SALES>                                                 39,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        48,904
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        23,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      18,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          6,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                               340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      6,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             6,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            51.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            51.77


</TABLE>
# C_2005229EN.01001001.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/10

---

Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

(Case C-302/05)

(2005/C 229/20)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, of its Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Find that, by providing that the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in accounting records in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Find that, by providing that the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in accounting records in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions;

1

| 2. | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC provides that, to ensure retention of title to goods until they are fully paid for, the buyer and the seller must make an agreement to that effect before the delivery of the goods.

Article 11(3) of Legislative Decree No 231/2002 (the measure implementing Directive 2000/35/EC in Italian law) provides that the retention of title clause will be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser only if that clause is confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in the accounting records.

Enforceability against creditors of the purchaser constitutes an essential element of the agreement for retention of title. The conditions laid down by Article 11(3) of Decree No 231/2002 create a series of additional obligations for the vendor over and above those provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC. The Commission therefore considers that those conditions are contrary to Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Preston GABRIEL.

No. 65318.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1979.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Robert T. Cline, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Christopher Zaunbrecher, Zaunbrecher & Foreman, Ltd., Rayne, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DENNIS, J., dissents on basis of Assignment of Error # 5.
HomeLatvia

# Latvia

108 items

        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Jessica Lewis Travels to France, Belgium, and Latvia	  June 11, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Latvia	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Direct Line Event  		Opportunities for U.S. Companies Between the Three Seas	  June 1, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Bureau of Energy Resources Senior Bureau Official Kamian’s Travel to Estonia and Latvia	  May 23, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Latvia	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the New Clean Energy and Nuclear Security Collaboration under the Foundational Infrastructure for Responsible Use of Small Modular Reactor Technology (FIRST) Initiative	  April 4, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Robinson’s Travel to Poland, Latvia, and Germany	  April 2, 2022 
        -    Direct Line Event  		Emerging 5G and ICT Opportunities in Latvia	  March 8, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 7, 2022Riga, Latvia 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 7, 2022Riga, Latvia 

previous page123456…11next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000725261
<NAME>                              DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1984-1

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                    13,936
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             73,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          87,831
<PP&E>                                30,262,778
<DEPRECIATION>                        30,024,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           389,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6,990
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               367,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             389,084
<SALES>                                  115,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         117,590
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             59,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           57,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       57,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              57,966
<EPS-BASIC>                                10.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### Water-quality indices for specific water uses

By: J.D. Stoner

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir770

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Ernest PRITCHETT, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
FEWS NET Afghanistan FEWS NET Washington

1717 H St NW 

Washington DC 20006 

info@fews.net 

FEWS NET is a USAID-funded activity. The authors’ views expressed in 

this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of the United States 

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

www.fews.net/afghanistan 

AFGHANISTAN Weekly Climate Forecast #6, Feb 6 – 12 Feb, 2008

Since January 1, 2008, notably below‐normal temperatures

have prevailed across Afghanistan and surrounding areas.

The hash winter weather has led to hundreds of fatalities,

while tens of thousand of livestock have also perished. The

bitter cold will likely continue during the upcoming week,

but a gradual warming trend may occur during the latter

half of the month of February. The coldest temperatures

will affect the central highlands and northeastern

mountains where minimum temperatures will fall to

around ‐30° C.  Minimum temperatures will range from ‐10

to ‐5 in the lowlands of western and southern Afghanistan.  

From October 1, 2007, to January 31, 2008, the central

highlands and northeastern mountains have received

below‐normal precipitation. This is being closely

monitored as it can have an impact on water resources

available for irrigation, but February and March are

typically wet months and these precipitation deficits could

be eliminated.

1) From February 6  ‐ 12, below‐normal temperatures will prevail across Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Minimum

temperatures will fall below ‐18° C /0°F daily in the central highlands and northeastern mountains of Afghanistan.

2) On February 6 and 7, heavy snow (> 30 cm/24 hours) may fall in far northeastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

Figure 2. Total precipitation forecast, in mm, Feb 8 – 15,

2008 

Figure 3. Approximate snow depth, in cm, Feb 7, 2008

Source: NOAA Source: NOAA

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan
§ 21.74 Responsibilities. ( a ) The General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, shall be the Designated Official for the Department and shall provide guidance to the Service regarding administration of the provisions of these regulations.
( b ) The Commissioned Personnel Operations Division, Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, shall implement the provisions of these regulations.
#### KIRKLAND MASONRY, INC., and Ivy Nixon, Appellants, v. Brenda L. LOREY et al., Appellees.

No. 80-2296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 17, 1981.

Magill & Reid and Ronald L. Buschbom, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Brumer, Cohen, Logan & Kandell, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the plaintiffs/appellees’ confession of error filed in this cause, the partial summary judgment on liability entered below in favor of said plaintiffs/appellees is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. *Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); see Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
#### § 136.103 Eligibility.

Any Indian tribe or tribal organization is eligible to apply for a grant under this subpart.
HomeRomania

# Romania

148 items

        -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry’s Travel to Kenya and Romania	  September 1, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s Travel to Romania and Italy	  August 31, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Jenkins Travels to Romania, the United Kingdom, and Poland	  August 15, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Assistant Secretary Geoffrey Pyatt Atlantic Council - Romanian Minister of Energy	  Geoffrey R. PyattAugust 11, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 24, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 24, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Romanian Foreign Minister Odobescu	  July 24, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Press Briefing with NSC Senior Director for Europe Amanda Sloat and Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO	  July 7, 2023Brussels Media Hub 
        -    DSS Releases  		Diplomatic Security Service Investigation Leads to Indictment of Human Traffickers	  July 6, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Romania	  June 15, 2023 

previous page12345…15next page

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7608
MARVIN JEROME DAMON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD CULLEN, Respondent - Appellee.
No. 00-6021
MARVIN JEROME DAMON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD CULLEN, Respondent - Appellee.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-97) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 10, 20002Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Jerome Damon, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Marvin Jerome Damon seeks to appeal from the district court’s decision in a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). In No. 99-7608, Damon seeks to appeal the denial of his motion to reconsider the judgment dismissing his habeas petition. We review the district court’s action on such motions for abuse of discretion. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. , 148F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). The district court carefully reviewed and rejected Damon’s arguments in his motion. His ruling is not an abuse of discretion. In No. 00-6021, Damon seeks to appeal the district court’s original denial of the habeas petition. Judgment was entered on August 10, 1999. The district court denied the Rule 59 motion onOctober 21, 1999. Damon’s notice of appeal from the August judgment was dated December 9, 1999, forty-nine days after entry of the Rule 59 order and four months after the original judgment. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Because Damon failed to file a timely notice of4 appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we must dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, as to both No. 99-7608 and No. 00-6021, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 1002.211 [Reserved]