alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3155

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by desand scenic rivers system. study and potential addition to the national wild Rock Springs Run in the State of Florida for ignating the Wekiva River, Seminole Creek, and
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3155

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating

the Wekiva River, Seminole Creek, and Rock Springs

Run in the State of Florida for study and potential

addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3155 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DESIGNATION.

2 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

3 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new paragraph:

5 ‘‘( ) WEKIVA RIVER, FLORIDA.—(A) The entire river.

6 ‘‘(B) The Seminole Creek tributary.

7 ‘‘(C) The Rock Springs Run tributary.’’.

8 SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

9 Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

10 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing new paragraph:

12 ‘‘( ) The study of the Wekiva River and the tribu13 taries designated in paragraph ( ) of subsection (a) shall

14 be completed and the report transmitted to Congress not

15 later than two years after the date of the enactment of

16 this paragraph.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 25,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
- DipNote Home
- About
- All Posts
- Browse by Topic

HomeDipNote...DipNote: Energy

# 						DipNote: Energy					

		Subscribe		

2 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationUnited Kingdom

Select a Release TypeDipNoteDipNote: Climate and EnvironmentDipNote: Economic Prosperity and Trade PolicyDipNote: Education and CultureDipNote: EnergyDipNote: Global HealthDipNote: Human Rights and DemocracyDipNote: Science, Technology, and Innovation

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

          -    DipNote  		5 Takeaways From the Summit of the Americas	  June 11, 2022 
          -    DipNote  		Five Things You Should Know About COP26	  November 17, 2021 

Back to Top
Home2002 Treaties and Agreements...Cyprus (02-1205) – Status of Forces Agreement

# 									Cyprus (02-1205) – Status of Forces Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 5, 2002

Defense: Status of Forces

Exchange of Notes at Nicosia October 21 and December 5, 200; Entered into force December 5, 2002.
Download Attachment						 [292 KB]

Tags

CyprusDefenseStatus of Forces AgreementTreaties

Back to Top
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4044 — Tietoenator/Tietoenator Government/SAAB/Elesco/Tietosaab Systems JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 334 , 30/12/2005 P. 0029 - 0029 *

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4044 — Tietoenator/Tietoenator Government/SAAB/Elesco/Tietosaab Systems JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 334/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. On 20 December 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] by which the undertakings SAAB AB (Sweden) including its subsidiary Elesco Oy (Finland) and TietoEnator Corporation including its subsidiary TietoEnator Government Oy ("TietoEnator", Finland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of Tietosaab Systems JV ("TSS"), a newly created company constituting a joint venture through the purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for SAAB: Defence company active through Elesco in Command Control and Information system (C2i) and underwater warfare;

- for TietoEnator: information technology systems;

- for TSS: Command and Control information systems (C2i) and underwater warfare.

3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4044 — Tietoenator/Tietoenator Government/SAAB/Elesco/Tietosaab Systems JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

--------------------------------------------------
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptimized Structures and Proton Affinities of Fluorinated Dimethyl Ethers: An Ab Initio StudyAb initio methods have been used to investigate the proton affinity and the geometry changes upon protonation for the molecules (CH3)2O, (CH2F)2O, (CHF2)2O, and (CF3)2O. Geometry optimizations were performed at the MP2/3-2 I G level, and the resulting geometries were used for single-point energy MP2/6-31G calculations. The proton affinity calculated for (CH3)2O was 7 Kjoule/mole from the experimental value, within the desired variance of +/- 8Kjoule/mole for G2 theory, suggesting that the methodology used in this study is adequate for energy difference considerations. For (CF3)20, the calculated proton affinity of 602 Kjoule/mole suggests that perfluorinated ether molecules do not act as Lewis bases under normal circumstances; e.g. degradation of commercial lubricants in tribological applications.Document ID19970001431Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOrgel, Victoria B.*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Ball, David W.*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Zehe, Michael J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberE-10369NAS 1.15:107293NASA-TM-107293Accession Number97N11246Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-5ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001431.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

United States Parole Commission

Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. 
552b)

    I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was 
present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 
2 p.m., on Thursday, August 20, 2009, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 
5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The 
purpose of the meeting was to decide one petition for reconsideration 
pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, 
constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted 
that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. Mitchell, Edward 
F. Reilly, Jr. and Patricia K. Cushwa.
    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: August 27, 2009.
Isaac Fulwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-21498 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
```
#### R & A TRUCKING, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL HOST CORPORATION, d/b/a Li’l General Stores, Appellee.

No. 80-2444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1981.

*1059Fred M. Penny, Miami, for appellant.

Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Bar-kin, Frye & O’Neill and William A. Wares, Tampa, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

While we agree with appellant’s assertion that a notice which it filed in 1977 that the action was at issue and ready to be set for trial should have precluded the 1979 dismissal of its complaint for failure to prosecute despite the lack of record activity during the interim years, *Visuna v. Metropolitan Transit Authority,*353 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Downer v. Mercer,*324 So.2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *City of Miami v. Dade County,*321 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *accord, Biscayne Construction Company v. Metropolitan Dade County,*388 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *contra, Treeshore, Inc. v. Basic Asphalt and Construction Corporation,*354 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); *Palatka Housing Authority v. Betts,*349 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); *Allen v. Gaither,*112 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), this assertion comes much too late to be entertained by us. The trial court’s order of dismissal was entered, after reasonable notice, *see*Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e), on February 12, 1979. R & A neither sought a timely rehearing, *see Gries Investment Company v. Chelton,*388 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *see also Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Southern Sanitation Service, Inc.,*370 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), nor appealed. Instead, nearly a year and a half later, it moved to set aside the dismissal and now attempts to appeal from a denial of that motion.1 R & A’s appeal is untimely. *See Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc.,*263 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972); *Florida East Coast Railway Company*v. *Southern Sanitation Service, Inc., supra.*Accordingly, the appeal is

Dismissed.

1

. R & A moved to set aside the dismissal on the same ground it asserts on this appeal. Thus, the motion suggested no ground for relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and, moreover, under any potentially applicable provisions of that rule, was untimely. *Waiswilos v. Feacher,*370 So.2d 1250 (Ha. 4th DCA 1979); *Brown v. Morella,*371 So.2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (Anstead, J., dissenting). Even under former Rule 1.420(e), inapplicable to these proceedings, which permitted a motion to reinstate, such a motion was required to be made within thirty days of dismissal. *Waiswilos v. Feacher, supra.*
United States Department of Agriculture

It’s fun to find new favorite foods!

U.S. Department of Agriculture • Food and Nutrition Service • March 2014

FNS-467-C • USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

http://teamnutrition.usda.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NADINE PATRICIA WHETZEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-94-50102)

Submitted: October 29, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Yeager, Jr., Weirton, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assistant

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be

filed within ten days of the judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). This

time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v.

Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). The district filed its

judgment on February 5, 1996, and the notice of appeal had to be

filed by February 15, 1996. Although Appellant's notice of appeal

was mailed on February 15, it was received and filed on February

20, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or to either

obtain an extension of time or to make a showing of excusable neglect leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits

of Appellant's appeal. We therefore 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
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.66 Incentive payments for physician scarcity areas. ( a ) *Definition.* As used in this section, the following definitions apply. *Physician scarcity area* is defined as an area with a shortage of primary care physicians or specialty physicians to the Medicare population in that area.
*Primary care physician* is defined as a general practitioner, family practice practitioner, general internist, obstetrician or gynecologist.
( b ) Physicians' services furnished to a beneficiary in a Physician Scarcity Area (PSA) for primary or specialist care are eligible for a 5 percent incentive payment.
( c ) Primary care physicians furnishing services in primary care PSAs are entitled to an additional 5 percent incentive payment above the amount paid under the physician fee schedule for their professional services furnished on or after January 1, 2005 and before January 1, 2008.
( d ) Physicians, as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act, furnishing services in specialist care PSAs are entitled to an additional 5 percent payment above the amount paid under the physician fee schedule for their professional services furnished on or after January 1, 2005 and before January 1, 2008.
[69 FR 66424, Nov. 15, 2004]
Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   Exhibit 11
                                  (Unaudited)
                        (In thousands, except EPS data)


                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                 March 31, 
                                                            -------------------
                                                              1995       1996
                                                            --------   --------

Net Income                                                  $    565   $  1,006
                                                            ========   ========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                     3,223      4,152

Common equivalent shares:

  Shares issuable upon exercise
    of stock options (1)                                         223        309

  Convertible perferred stock                                      0        602
                                                            --------   --------

     Total weighted average shares - primary                   3,446      5,063
                                                            --------   --------

Fully diluted incremental shares:

   Stock options (calculated using the higher
    of end of period or average market value)                      0          2 

   Convertible subordinated debentures                           595        580
                                                            --------   --------
     Total weighted average shares - fully diluted             4,041      5,645
                                                            --------   --------

Primary net income per common and
 common equivalent share                                        0.16       0.20
                                                            --------   --------

Fully diluted net income per common and 
 common equivalent share                                       0.14       0.18
                                                            --------   --------


(1) Amount calculated under the treasury stock method and fair market values for
    stock
40749.

#### NORMAN v. CHAFIN.

Pannell, Judge.

1. To maintain an action in trespass for the cutting of timber plaintiff must prove actual possession at the time of the trespass, or, in the absence of such possession, that he is the true owner of the land. *Duckworth v. Ocean Steamship Co.,*98 Ga. 193 (3) (26 SE 736); *Yahoola River & Crane Creek Hydraulic Hose Mining Co. v. Irby,*40 Ga. 479, 482 (2); *Moore v. Vickers,*126 Ga. 42 (54 SE 814); *235*Pope v. Shipp,*42 Ga. App. 480 (156 SE 633); *James v. Riley,*181 Ga. 454 (182 SE 604); *Skirling v. Hester,*201 Ga. 706 (2) (40 SE2d 743).

Decided September 9, 1964.

*Lawson E. Thompson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walton E. Hardin,*contra.

2. Actual possession under a claim of ownership is sufficient to sustain such an action against a wrongdoer. *McDonough & Co. v. Carter & Co.,*98 Ga. 703 (25 SE 938); *Tolbert v. City of Rome,*134 Ga. 136 (1) (67 SE 540); *Southern R. Co. v. Thompson,*129 Ga. 367 (9) (58 SE 1044).

3. Where in such a suit seeldng to recover the entire damage the single plaintiff alleges he has fee simple title to the land and that he has been in possession for over 40 years, and the proof shows that he claims title under the will of a grandfather, but the will is not introduced into evidence and there is no proof of title in the grandfather other than oral testimony of witnesses and the proof further shows he claims only an undivided fractional interest, and there is no proof of possession in the plaintiff at any time, a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor is unauthorized and the defendant, even though a mere trespasser, is entitled to a verdict in his favor. See *Phillips v. Rentz Bros. & Roberts,*106 Ga. 249 (32 SE 107); *Tolbert v. City of Rome,*134 Ga. 136, supra; *Cogan & Co. v. Dennard,*18 Ga. App. 421 (89 SE 491). The plaintiff not being entitled to recover either on bare title *(Code*§ 105-1404) or bare possession *(Code*§ 105-1403), and the suit not being one to recover possession of the land or damages for withholding possession under *Code*§ 105-1402, a bare claim of title is not sufficient. See *Whiddon v. Williams Lumber Co.,*98 Ga. 700, 701 (2) (25 SE 770).

4. Upon application of the above principles to the facts of the present case as shown in headnote 3 above, it follows that the trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. *Code Ann.*§ 110-113.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000058 06-OCT-2014 08:41 AM

SCWC-13-0000058 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
SHIRLEY PISO PICO, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant,
vs. KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, nka HAWAI ' I PACIFIC HEALTH, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000058; CASE NO. AB2012-347) ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) On September 26, 2014, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant Shirley Piso Pico filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration” of the September 17, 2014 order rejecting her application for writ of certiorari. The rejection of an application for writ of certiorari is not subject to a motion for reconsideration in the supreme court. SeeHRAP 40.1(h) (“Neither acceptance nor rejection of an application for writ of certiorari shall be subject to a motion for reconsideration in the supremecourt.”). Moreover, there is no basis for clarification of the September 17, 2014 order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 6, 2014. Shirley Piso Pico pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### Highsmith *v.*Highsmith.

4-9529

240 S. W. 2d 5

Opinion delivered June 11, 1951.

*Jacobson & Meurer,*for appellant.

*S. J. Reid,*for appellee.

Paul Ward, J.

On August 25, 1950, Everett High-smith, appellee here, filed a complaint against appellant for a divorce on the ground of desertion. On the same date he made an affidavit for warning order stating his wife was a non-resident and the clerk appointed an attorney *ad litem.*On October 23rd, the attorney for the non-resident filed his report stating he had written and mailed a letter to appellant at her last known address and that the same was returned to him. A copy of the letter was attached as stated in the report and shows it was dated October 6, 1950, and addressed to appellant at ‘ ‘ Charleston, S. C.”

The testimony consisted of depositions by the plaintiff and one Zelma Pumphrey. The depositions were taken before and in the office of plaintiff’s attorney. The record is silent as to any notice.

The testimony of appellee regarding desertion is that he and appellant married in June, 1948, and separated in February, 1949; that appellant ceased to care for him any more; that she willfully deserted him although he did not give her any cause to do so; that they have not lived together since separating; that he does not know where she is now and gave his attorney her last known *124address; and that a little girl, named Dolline, now past one year of age, was horn to them.

The only testimony purporting to corroborate desertion was by Zelma Pumphrey who stated that she knew the plaintiff, but never had occasion to visit in his home during his marriage; that plaintiff and his wife separated in February, 1949; that she could not say exactly what was the cause of separation, but *understands*appellant left her husband on the date of separation without cause; that she never heard of him treating her unkindly, but has the *impression*that he was good to her; and she *understands*one child was born as a result of their marriage. The Chancellor granted plaintiff a divorce and the defendant appeals to this court.

The decree of the lower court must be reversed because of the lack of sufficient corroboration. Our court has many times held in such cases that the testimony of the plaintiff must be corroborated. One case is *Sisk*v. *Sisk,*99 Ark. 94, 136 S. W. 987, where the facts are similar to this case. A recent case (Jan. 29,1951) is *Stimmel*v. *Stimmel,*218 Ark. 293, 235 S. W. 2d 959. Here the deposition of Zelma Pumphrey plainly shows that she knew very little about the material issues and that her statements were based on impressions or hearsay.

It is not necessary to discuss other issues raised by appellant.

The decree is reversed and the cause remanded and the lower court is directed to set aside the decree heretofore entered.