alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
40555.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. WILLIAMS.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The claimant in this appeal is the widow of an employee who by agreement of the employer and the insurer was awarded weekly compensation payments under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Thereafter the widow sought and was granted a lump sum award in lieu of the weekly payments. The employer and the insurer opposed the grant of the lump sum award at the hearing before the board, appealed the award to the superior court, and now bring exceptions to the judgment of affirmance entered by that court. *Held:*

1. It is a condition precedent to the award of a lump sum payment on the application of a claimant that a hearing be had on the question and evidence be presented sufficient to au*720thorize a finding of fact by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation that the lump sum award will be “to the best interest of the employee or his dependents.” *Code Ann.*§ 114-417. *Mayor &c. of Athens v. Cook,*104 Ga. App. 136 (121 SE2d 82). Where the evidence, although contradictory, is sufficient to authorize this essential finding of fact the lump sum award will not be reversed by the courts, as the findings of fact made by the board within its power, in the absence of fraud, are conclusive. See annotations under *Code*§ 114-710, catchwords “Conclusiveness of findings.”

Decided May 13, 1964.

*Burt DeRieux, J. Douglas Stewart,*for plaintiffs in error.

*James W. Paris, J. N. Rainey,*contra.

While the evidence in the record here shows that the widow of the deceased employee is not destitute and does not require for her livelihood a lump sum payment, this showing is not decisive as it does not constitute an absolute defense precluding the lump sum award. The showing amounts to nothing more than something which the board might consider in reaching its findings of facts and in rendering its award.

Here the- evidence was sufficient to authorize the board to deem it to be to the best interest of the widow as the dependent of the deceased employee that she be awarded a lump sum payment. This is all that is required.

The trial judge correctly affirmed the lump sum award' of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

2. The motion of the defendant in error asking the court to assess 10% damages upon the judgment because the plaintiff in error appealed the case for the purpose of delay only is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
#### § 586.503 Exclusion from licenses.

OFAC reserves the right to exclude any person, property, transaction, or class thereof from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. OFAC also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
122 STAT. 3720 PUBLIC LAW 110–331—SEPT. 30, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 171: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 153 (2007): Feb. 17, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 154 (2008): Sept. 17, 18, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–331 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce 

Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MICKEY MANTLE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post Office Building’’. 

Approved September 30, 2008. 

Sept. 30, 2008 

[S. 171] 


dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 584.301 Blocked account; blocked property. The terms *blocked account* and *blocked property* mean any account or property subject to the prohibitions in § 584.201 held in the name of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 584.201(a), or in which such person has an interest, and with respect to which payments, transfers, exportations, withdrawals, or other dealings may not be made or effected except pursuant to a license or other authorization from OFAC expressly authorizing such action. Note to § 584.301 :
See § 584.410 concerning the blocked status of property and interests in property of an entity that is directly or indirectly owned, whether individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 584.201(a).
HomeBosnia and Herzegovina

# Bosnia and Herzegovina

100 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Balkans Media and Civil Society	  February 11, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		The JUST Act Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  July 29, 2020 
        -    Other Release  		Public Release of Foreign Security Forces Units Ineligible for Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act Assistance Pursuant to the State Leahy Law:  CY 2018 	  July 15, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Bosnia and Herzegovina	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Bosnia and Herzegovina	  June 21, 2019 

previous page1…678910next page

Back to Top
§ 800.102 Risk-based analysis. Any determination of the Committee with respect to a covered transaction to suspend, refer to the President, or to negotiate, enter into or impose, or enforce any agreement or condition under section 721 shall be based on a risk-based analysis, conducted by the Committee, of the effects on the national security of the United States of the covered transaction. Any such risk-based analysis shall include credible evidence demonstrating the risk and an assessment of the threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences to national security related to the transaction. For purposes of this part, any such analysis of risk shall include and be informed by consideration of the following elements: ( a ) The *threat,* which is a function of the intent and capability of a foreign person to take action to impair the national security of the United States;
( b ) The *vulnerabilities,* which are the extent to which the nature of the U.S. business presents susceptibility to impairment of national security; and
( c ) The *consequences to national security,* which are the potential effects on national security that could reasonably result from the exploitation of the vulnerabilities by the threat actor.
#### § 91.1 Authority.

The regulations in this part governing conduct in and on the Bureau of the Mint buildings and grounds located as follows: U.S. Mint, Colfax, and Delaware Streets, Denver, Colorado; U.S. Bullion Depository, Fort Knox, Kentucky; U.S. Assay Office, 32 Old Slip New York, New York; U.S. Mint, 5th and Arch Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; U.S. Assay Office, 155 Hermann Street, and the Old U.S. Mint Building, 88 Fifth Street, San Francisco, California; and U.S. Bullion Depository, West Point, New York; are promulgated pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, including 5 U.S.C. 301, and that vested in him by delegation from the Administrator of General Services, 38 FR 20650 (1973), and in accordance with the authority vested in the Director of the Mint by Treasury Department Order No. 177-25 Revision 2), dated August 8, 1973, 38 FR 21947 (1973).

[38 FR 24897, Sept. 11, 1973]
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 Weekly Climate Forecast #13, Apr 02 – 08, 2008

From October 1, 2007 to March 20, 2008, the central highlands

and northeast mountains of Afghanistan have received below‐

normal precipitation. The USGS analysis indicates that

precipitation deficits exceed 100 mm in the east‐central parts of

Afghanistan. In addition to the drier‐than‐normal conditions,

above‐normal temperatures have resulted in an early snow melt.

Snow coverage has greatly been reduced across the central

highlands four to six weeks earlier than normal. The lack of

winter precipitation coupled with the early snow melt may result

in a lack of adequate water resources.  

A wet weather pattern is developing for southwest Asia. During

the coming week, periods of rain and high‐elevation snow can be

expected across much of Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

1) From April 3 to 8, heavy rain (> 1 inch/24 hours) is

possible across eastern Afghanistan.

2) From April 3 to 8, heavy snow (> 10 inches/24 hours) is

possible across the highest elevations of northeast

Afghanistan and Pakistan.

3) From April 2 to 8, colder‐than‐normal temperatures will prevail in the highest elevations of northeast Afghanistan

where minimum temperatures will fall below ‐ 18° C /0°F.

4) A widespread area of Afghanistan has experienced below normal precipitation during the winter and an early

snow melt.

Figure 2. Accumulated liquid precipitation forecast, in 

mm, April 02 – 09, 2008 

Figure 3. Approximate snow depth in cm, March 31, 2008

Source: NOAA Source: NOAA

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan
#### Lucy J. ANDERS, Appellant, v. Thaddeus A. ANDERS, Appellee.

No. 00-69.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 30, 1979.

*440Terry P. Lewis, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Stanley Bruce Powell of Powell, Powell & Powell, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved in February, 1978. In December, 1978, appellant-wife sought relief from or modification of the judgment of dissolution. A hearing was held and, after appellant’s testimony, counsel for appellee moved for a directed verdict in appellee’s favor. The trial judge said, “I am going to grant the motion.” The judge, however, left office in January, 1979, without having reduced his decision to writing. Subsequently, the successor judge denied a motion for rehearing and rendered a final judgment for appellee, stating that he considered his action to be merely ministerial.

We reverse. This case is distinguishable from *Olympic Manufacturing Co. v. Shepherd,*190 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), wherein the predecessor judge had written, but not signed, an order, and the successor simply signed the prior judge’s order. The appellate court held the order to be valid.

Here, however, it is entirely possible the judge who heard the evidence could have changed his mind before rendering his order. In any event, it would be speculative to assume the first judge would have written substantially the same order as that fashioned by his successor. See *Silvern v. Silvern,*252 So.2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), wherein a judgment, written by one judge after he left office and signed by his successor, was held invalid.

In effect, no decision has been made in this case. The lower court, on remand, should hold a de novo hearing on appellant’s motion for relief or modification before entering a judgment. If the parties so stipulate, of course, the transcript of the prior hearing may be utilized along with whatever other evidence they wish the judge to consider.

REVERSED.

McCORD, Acting C. J., SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 10.42

SECOND AMENDMENT TOSECURITY AGREEMENT 

        ThisSecond Amendment to Security Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made as of this 27thday of January, 2003, by and among ASCENT MANAGEMENT, INC. (“AMI”) and LASALLEBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the “Bank”). 

W I T N E S S E T H 

        WHEREAS,AMI executed and delivered that certain Installment Note dated July 20, 1999 in theoriginal principal amount of $3,300,000 (the “Note”) in favor of the Bank, and,as security for AMI’s obligations thereunder, AMI granted to the Bank a firstpriority security interest in all of AMI’s personal property pursuant to that certainSecurity Agreement dated July 20, 1999 between AMI, as debtor, and the Bank, as securedparty, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Security Agreement, dated as ofNovember 30, 2000 between AMI and the Bank (collectively, the “SecurityAgreement”); 

        WHEREAS,Ascent Funding, Inc. (“AFI”) and the Bank entered into that certain CreditAgreement dated June 6, 1997 (together with all amendments thereto, collectively, the“Credit Agreement”), and, contemporaneously herewith, AFI and the Bank areentering into that certain Eighth Amendment to Credit Agreement (the “EighthAmendment”) and in connection therewith, among other things, funds in that certainCash Collateral Account (as defined in the Credit Agreement) are being released to beapplied, in substantial part, to the repayment of AMI’s obligations under the Note; 

        WHEREAS,AFI provided a guaranty in favor of the Bank of all of the obligations of AMI under theNote, which guaranty is secured by, among other things, the Cash Collateral Account; 

        WHEREAS,as a condition to the Bank agreeing to enter into the Eighth Amendment and inconsideration of the Bank agreeing to the application of funds in the Cash CollateralAccount to the repayment of AMI’s obligations under the Note, the Bank is requiringthat the Collateral (as defined in the Security Agreement) of AMI continue to secure theobligations of AFI under the Credit Agreement; 

        WHEREAS,the parties desire to amend the Security Agreement to provide for the continuation of thegrant of the security interest as security for the obligations of AFI under the CreditAgreement, as more fully set forth herein. 

        NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and other good andvaluable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and subject to theterms and conditions hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

SECTION 1.   **DEFINITIONS.**  Unless  otherwise  defined  herein,  all  capitalized  terms shall have the meaninggiven to them in the Security Agreement.

SECTION 2.   **AMENDMENTS TO SECURITY AGREEMENT.**

      2.1.              All references to “the Borrower” or “Borrower” in the          Security Agreement are hereby replaced with “AMI”. 

      2.2.              The Security Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph in          Section 1 in its entirety and inserting the following in its stead:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 45184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN: 0648-XR24


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) 
Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will meet 
in Seattle, WA. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday September 18, 2009, from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Leif Erickson Lodge, 2245 NW 
57th, Seattle, WA, 98107.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diana Stram, Council Staff, 
telephone: (907) 271-2809 or Steve Minor, (360) 440-4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will review the (1) the 
Economic Data Review revision process, in the form of a work session 
with AFSC staff including reports from the CV, CP and FP/SP work groups 
and (b) a presentation by the RAM Division on the soon to be 
implemented on-line transfer system.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 
those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this 
meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically 
identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of 
this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the 
Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 
working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 27, 2009.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21010 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
# C_2005182EN.01003501.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/35

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 25 May 2005

in Case T-352/02 Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community word mark PC WORKS - Earlier national figurative mark W WORK PRO - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 182/65)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-352/02: Creative Technology Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, J. Flintoft, S. Jones and P. Rawlinson, Solicitors, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Holst Filtenborg and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being José Vila Ortiz, residing in Valencia (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2002 (Case R 265/2001-4) relating to an opposition between Creative Technology Ltd and José Vila Ortiz — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 May 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Along Mobile Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007
      (the
      "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Along Mobile Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Along Mobile
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.




Dated:
      May 14, 2007










/s/
      Jianwei Li


Jianwei
      Li


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Zhen Wang


Zhen
      Wang


Chief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMARILLO MESQUITE GRILL, INC. FOR THE FISCAL
QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         663,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    137,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,015,812
<PP&E>                                       9,963,243
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,785,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,938,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,159,331
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        83,011
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,499,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,938,794
<SALES>                                      4,353,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,353,939
<CGS>                                        1,533,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,312,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             161,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (279,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (279,703)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:27 AM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: several more TSDs 

Kevin or Bob, 

Any ETA on when we will get the Abatement TSD Chapters 3, 6, 7? Comments were sent over on 

all of those. 

And we should still expect Chapters 4 and 5 (RE and DSM EE) on Friday? 

Regards, 

Cortney 

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 6:20 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: several more TSDs 

Thanks. 

From: Culligan, Kevin 

Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 5:49 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: several more TSDs 

Note – we’ve also included a memo on efficiency improvements on oil/gas referenced in the new 

version of the preamble. I am still tracking down the Treasury contact.