alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
40920.

#### KING et al. v. SIMMONS.

Decided September 29, 1964

Rehearing denied October 15, 1964.

*495*Shelby Myrick,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Lewis & Javetz, Jack H. Usher,*contra.

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

This case was tried once before, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant obtained a review in this court of the overruling of his motion for new trial, as amended. See *A. F. King & Son v. Simmons,*107 Ga. App. 628 (131 SE2d 214). We have reviewed carefully the evidence in the record of that case and that in the present record and find- no substantial difference. Accordingly, the ruling made on the prior appearance in considering the general grounds of the motion for new trial that “The evidence in this case did not demand a verdict for either party,” is the law of the case, *Greenwold Grift Co. v. Durham,*191 Ga. 586 (1) (13 SE2d 346), *R. O. A. Motors, Inc. v. Taylor,*220 Ga. 122 (1) (137 SE2d 459), and it must follow that on substantially the same evidence it was not error to overrule the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Moreover, it was held in the former appeal that “[I]t was for the jury’s determination in this case as to whether the ladder furnished the plaintiff was defective, whether the defendant employer in the exercise of ordinary care should have inspected the ladder or cautioned the plaintiff to inspect the ladder before using the same and whether by the exercise of due diligence in inspecting the ladder the defective condition of the same could have been discovered. . .” 107 Ga. App. 628, at p. 633.

While there is ample evidence in the present record to have authorized a finding that the servant had equal means with the master of knowing the condition of the ladder, yet the above questions which have been held; under the evidence, to be questions for the jury, must have been resolved to make that deter*496mination, and the jury has resolved them against the master. In the light of the rulings made on the prior appeal, now the law of the case, there was no error in overruling the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
HomeYemen

# Yemen

313 items

        -    Press Statement  		Taking Actions in Response to Houthi Regional Attacks	  Matthew MillerDecember 7, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 5, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 5, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Lenderking’s Travel to the Gulf	  December 4, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 4, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 4, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Yemen	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  November 22, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – November 20, 2023	  Matthew MillerNovember 20, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Lenderking’s Travel to the Gulf	  November 13, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 3, 2023Tel Aviv, Israel 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud	  November 2, 2023 

previous page123456…32next page

Back to Top
# Georgia

164 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 8, 2023	  Ned PriceMarch 8, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 7, 2023	  Ned PriceMarch 7, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Robinson Travels to Tbilisi, Rome, Vatican City, and Vienna	  March 6, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 2, 2023	  Ned PriceMarch 2, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 27, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 27, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Georgia	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 15, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 15, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Annual Global Human Rights Defender Award Recipients Announced	  February 1, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Introduction of New Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 1, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 20, 2022	  Ned PriceDecember 20, 2022Washington, D.C. 

previous page1…56789…17next page

Back to Top
January 5, 2012 

Mr. John Berry Sherman 

Director of Engineering 

Parachute Laboratories, Inc. 

1665 Lexington Avenue, Suite 106 

Deland, FL 32724 

Dear Mr. Sherman: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We have received your December 2, supplement to your August 23, 2011 petition on behalf 

of Parachute Laboratories, Inc. dba Jump Shack (Parachute Labs), for an exemption from 

§ 105.45(b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if 

granted, would allow Parachute Labs to manufacture tandem parachute systems without 

approving automatic activation devices. 

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0940) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We Will Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 
2 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4059. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
§ 585.205 Exempt transactions. ( a ) *Personal communications.* The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication that does not involve the transfer of anything of value.
( b ) *Official business.* The prohibitions contained in § 585.201(a) do not apply to transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Note 1 to paragraph (b).
*See* § 585.509 for a general license authorizing transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government not otherwise exempt.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2724 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2724

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require Federal contracts 
 debarment for persons who violate labor relations provisions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 1995

  Mr. Evans introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in addition to 
 the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require Federal contracts 
 debarment for persons who violate labor relations provisions, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Contractor Labor Relations 
Enforcement Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

    The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new section:

                     ``federal contracts debarment

    ``Sec. 20. (a) Any person or entity that, with a clear pattern and 
practice, violates the provisions of this Act shall be ineligible for 
all Federal contracts for a period of 3 years.
    ``(b) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations regarding 
debarment provisions and procedures. The regulations shall require that 
Federal contracting agencies shall refrain from entering into further 
contracts, or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts, 
with any person or entity described in subsection (a) during the 3-year 
period immediately following a determination by the Secretary of Labor 
that the person or entity is in violation (as described in subsection 
(a)) of this Act.
    ``(c) A debarment may be removed, or the period of debarment may be 
reduced, by the Secretary of Labor upon the submission of an 
application to the Secretary of Labor that is supported by documentary 
evidence and that sets forth appropriate reasons for the granting of 
the debarment removal or reduction, including reasons such as 
compliance with the final orders that are found to have been willfully 
violated, a bona fide change of ownership or management, or a fraud or 
misrepresentation of the charging party.''.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 5, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY L. MAYS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TERRY MARTIN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-5219

(D.C. No. 12-CV-00520-CVE-PJC)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jerry L. Mays, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se,

seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, without

prejudice. Mays v. Martin, 12-cv-00520-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. Dec. 12, 2012). 

We deny his request and dismiss the appeal.

On September 17, 2012, Mr. Mays filed a § 2254 petition in the district

court. R. 3–15. On September 27, the court issued a show cause order directing

Mr. Mays to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”). Id. at 16–18. The court also ordered Mr. Mays to show cause

why the petition should not be dismissed as a second or successive habeas
petition. Id. Although Mr. Mays filed a response, he did not pay the filing fee or

file an IFP motion. Id. at 19–29. The court dismissed the petition for failure to

comply with the court’s order. Id. at 30–32.

We will only issue a COA if Mr. Mays makes a “substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds, without a merits determination, Mr. Mays must show that

reasonable jurists would find it debatable not only whether the petition states a

valid constitutional claim, but also whether the district court’s procedural ruling

was correct. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Mr. Mays has made no such showing. We conclude that reasonable jurists

could not debate that the district court properly dismissed the petition on

procedural grounds. In its September 27 order, the district court warned Mr.

Mays that “[f]ailure to comply . . . may result in the dismissal of this action

without prejudice and without further notice.” R. 18. Mr. Mays did not pay the

required fee or file for IFP despite the district court’s order to do so. 

Accordingly, we DENY a COA, DENY IFP status, and DISMISS the

appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 2 -
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3046

To provide for 1 additional Federal judge for the middle district of Louisiana.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1996

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for 1 additional Federal judge for the middle

district of Louisiana.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT

4 OF LOUISIANA.

5 The table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States

6 Code, is amended by amending the item relating to Louisi7 ana to read as follows:

‘‘Louisiana

‘‘Eastern ............................................................................................. 13

‘‘Middle .............................................................................................. 3

‘‘Western ............................................................................................ 7.’’.

Æ
HomeVietnam

# Vietnam

191 items

        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (23-410) – Agreement on the Conditions for Renovation, Construction, and Maintenance of Buildings Relating to Diplomatic and Consular Missions	  April 10, 2023 
        -    		Travel to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Vietnam, and Japan, April 11-18, 2023	   
        -    Special Briefing  		Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel J. Kritenbrink on the Secretary’s Upcoming Travel to Vietnam and Japan	  Daniel J. KritenbrinkApril 10, 2023Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Trip to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Vietnam, and Japan	  Vedant PatelApril 10, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Release of Japan-U.S.-Mekong Power Partnership Action Plan	  April 6, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Vietnamese Vice Minister Ngoc	  March 30, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Sison’s Travel to Madagascar, South Africa, Mauritius, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		IRFBA Chair’s Statement on Vietnamese Religious Prisoners of Conscience Y Yich and Y Pum Bya	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		The United States Launches First Regional Summit for the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs in Kuala Lumpur	  March 6, 2023 

previous page1…45678…20next page

Back to Top
# Zimbabwe

67 items

        -    Report  		Zimbabwe	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Zimbabwe	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Zimbabwe	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Zimbabwe	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Zimbabwe	  March 3, 2017 
        -    		Zimbabwe Sanctions	   
        -    TIAS  		Zimbabwe (00-426) – Extradition Treaty	  April 26, 2000 

previous page1…567

Back to Top
HomeOffice of Global Food Security...Office of Global Food Security  Releases

# Office of Global Food Security Releases

100 items

        -    Fact Sheet  		VACS Phase 1 Technical Workshop	  May 19, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Special Envoy Fowler’s Remarks at the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils Phase I Workshop	  Cary  FowlerMay 18, 2023Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations HeadquartersRome, Italy 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy Fowler Travels to Rome and Prague	  May 13, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils in Africa	  May 9, 2023Aim for Climate SummitWashington, DC 
        -    Media Note  		AIM For Climate Summit: Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils in Africa	  May 7, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy Fowler Travels to Davis, California	  April 23, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Special Envoy Fowler Discusses Global Food Insecurity with Japanese News Outlets	  Cary  FowlerMarch 14, 2023U.S. Embassy Press Briefing Room Tokyo, Japan 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy Fowler Travels to Tokyo, Japan	  March 11, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		High-level U.S. Government Delegation Travel to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia	  February 14, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Special Envoy Fowler Keynote Address on the Launch of the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils	  Cary  FowlerFebruary 1, 2023Center for Security and International Studies Washington, D.C. 

previous page123456…10next page

Back to Top
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 17, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 1 p.m. Central Time. For more information, please contact Ellen Smiley. Ms. Smiley may be reached at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360, or you can submit written comments to the panel by faxing the comments to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can post comments to the Web site at                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: January 27, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9-2101 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Secretary Scott A. Angelle

Summary – Should to Must Issue

The Interim Final Rule incorporates industry standards for drilling safety by reference, but by 

virtue of a single provision makes arbitrary, sweeping blanket changes to those standards and all 

other standards incorporated by reference in 30 C.F.R. Part 250, with serious adverse and 

unintended consequences. The new section 30 C.F.R. § 250.198(a)(3) converts every instance of 

the word ‘should’ in the referenced documents to ‘must’ in an apparent effort to render 

mandatory every recommendation in a large body of industry standards and guidance. The result 

does not serve to enhance safety or enforceability: on the contrary, it creates a regulation with 

increased safety risks, mandates that cannot be met, and too many ambiguous and unenforceable 

requirements to count. The alternative presented below better meets the need for rigorous 

incorporation of industry standards applicable to drilling safety in a way that is clear to both 

agency staff and the regulated industry, and aligns industry and agency engineers on critical 

safety and design parameters. 

Key flaws with the existing approach:

 Applies to every part of 30 C.F.R Part 250 instead of focusing on the purpose of this 

emergency rule to ensure drilling safety enhancements. 

 Compromises safety, requires a practice regardless of engineering design or specific 

circumstances. Leaving these items discretionary in the underlying standards was 

intentional so as not to undermine good engineering judgment, require suboptimal 

practices for a particular project or stifle innovation. 

 Will greatly complicate permitting for both regulated industry and the agency by making 

numerous departure requests part of every permit. 

Recommended Action:

 Delete 30 CFR250.198(a)(3).

 Modify the Final Rule to require Operators to verify and document compliance with API 

RP 65 – Part 2 and API RP 53 and to submit their documentation with their drilling 

applications.

 This documentation and approach would be consistent with the new APD guidance 

currently in use by BOEMRE’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office.

Advantages: 

 Provides a clear, efficient and enforceable mechanism for ensuring that operators are 

incorporating best practices as required.

 Facilitates Agency evaluation in the planning and permitting stage to assure compliance.

 Sharpens the focus of the IFR to drilling safety and the specific areas of concern that 

were the cause for the rule.
### R 

# -r.rI,
.

# ,-o ,t..,c '1':.1 

### OPPT CBIC 

## 2012 AUG -3 AM 9: 

## 50 

# AUG 14 2012
July 31, 2012 Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics EPAEast Room4146 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 

### Re: EPA- HQ - OPPT - 2003 - 0012 

# 0

DuPontChemicals and Fluoroproducts Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 08023



### DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 PFOA Data Submittal- Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples April/May/June 2012 Sample Data Dear Chemical Control Division: Attachedplease find a summary ofPFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A for April, May, and June 2012. In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), these results are providedto NJDEP on a monthlybasis via electronic discharge monitoringreports. Peryour request, the enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies ofthe analytical results from this monitoring period. Sincerely,
Jacques Monteux UnitManager-Site Manufacturing Systems DuPont Chambers Works

JM/clc Enclosures 

### CONTAINS NO CBICopy to: 

# I Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East Room6428 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) PrincipalEnvironmental Engineer NJDEP Division ofWater Quality Bureau ofPoint Source Permitting -Region 2 401 E. State Street P.O. Box029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029



### CONTAINS 

## NO CE'