alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1006.1 Scope. ( a ) The provisions in this part govern subpoenas issued by the Inspector General, or his or her delegates, in accordance with sections 205(d), 1128A(j), and 1128(f)(4) of the Act and require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any other evidence at an investigational inquiry.
( b ) Such subpoenas may be issued in investigations under section 1128 or 1128A of the Act or under any other section of the Act that incorporates the provisions of sections 1128(f)(4) or 1128A(j).
( c ) Nothing in this part is intended to apply to or limit the authority of the Inspector General, or his or her delegates, to issue subpoenas for the production of documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6(a)(4), App. 3.
[57 FR 3354, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 82 FR 4118, Jan. 12, 2017]
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 1085

Employed part time (persons who usually work 

Number in thousands

16 to 17 years

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU02600086Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Part Time - 16-

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:04 PM)
ERROR TO MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTACHMENT.

Court of Appeals for Clinton County.

#### Pennington v. The Republic Motor Truck Co.

Decided, January 13, 1917.

*Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals*— On *Error to Motion to Discharge Attachment*— Final *Judgment.*

The judgment of a court of common pleas in granting a motion to discharge an attachment, where such motion was before the common ■pleas court upon appeal from the action of a justice of the peace, is a final judgment which is subject to review by the court of appeals.

*Smith &*Clevenger, for plaintiff in .error.

*G. P. Thorpe*and *A. B. Hoffman,*contra.

Jones (Oliver B.), J.

This is a proceeding in error brought to review the judgment of the court of common pleas, in granting a motion to discharge an attachment, where such motion was before the common pleas court upon appeal from the action of a justice of the peace thereon, under the provisions of Section 10260, General Codé.

*32The defendant in error, by a motion to strike the petition- in error from the files, raises a question of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain these proceedings. The right of the circuit court to review such proceedings was recognized by the circuit court in at least two eases: *Bernard*v. *Schwartz et al,*22 C. C., 147, and *Benoski*v. *The C. F. Adams Co.,*18 C.C. (N.S.), 478, 479. And the right to review was denied by the circuit court of the first circuit in at least three cases: *Lyon*v. *Phares,*9 C.C.(N.S.), 614; *Williams*v. *McCartney,*10 C.C.(N.S.), 161, and *Greenhow*v. *Harrison,*12 C.C.(N.S.), 128.

As Section 10260, General Code, itself designates as a “judgment” the action of the court upon final hearing of a motion to discharge, and provides that it shall be transmitted with the original papers to the justice of the peace and such judgment entered by him upon his docket as the final determination of the motion, we must consider this action of the court of common pleas as a final judgment which is subject to review by this court under the provisions of Section 6, Article IY of the Constitution as amended, as construed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in *Cincinnati Polyclinic*v. *Balch,*92 Ohio St., 415.

The motion to strike the petition in error from the files is therefore overruled.

Coming to review the action of the common pleas court in discharging the attachment, we find that the question 'as to whether the attachment should be sustained or discharged depends upon the ownership or title to the property attached at the time the attachment was levied. The evidence upon this question is in the form of affidavits embodied in a bill of exceptions. Possibly, if we had been occupying the position of a trial court, our finding as to the title of the property attached might not have coincided with that of the learned judge who passed upon the evidence in that court; still we can not say that his finding is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to require .a reversal.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

Jones (E. H.), J., and Gorman, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          161812                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                168067                       0
<PP&E>                                          284490                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  249713                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  205040                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            84572                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     304349                       0
<COMMON>                                          7746                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (579627)<F1>                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    205040                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                336480                  321054
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   275327                  164642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               41545                  119521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  20127                   42635
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              20127                   42635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                  188770
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20127                  231405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                     .03
<FN>
<F1>Additional paid in capital and retained earnings.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) Secretary and Chief Executive Chris Seed

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) Secretary and Chief Executive Chris Seed							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

August 9, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met today with MFAT Secretary and Chief Executive Chris Seed in Wellington, New Zealand, to express her thanks for New Zealand’s role in ensuring a strong Pacific Islands Forum and to discuss our shared commitment to deepening cooperation with Pacific Islands states. The Deputy Secretary and Secretary and Chief Executive discussed the People’s Republic of China’s recent actions and the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. They also discussed our shared commitment to continuing to support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, as well as efforts to address the global food security crisis resulting from Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsChinaDeputy Secretary TripFood SecurityIndo-PacificNew ZealandOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceRussiaStabilizationUkraine

Back to Top
40761, 40783.

#### AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. IVAN ALLEN COMPANY; and vice versa.

Pannell, Judge.

1. The alleged failure to file the brief of evidence with the motion for new trial in this case will not affect the movant’s right to review by this court, *Adams v. Overland-Madison Co.,*27 Ga. App. 531 (3) (109 SE 413), *Donalson v. Bank of Jakin,*33 Ga. App. 428 (2) (127 SE 229), *Marks v. Maxwell Bros. Furniture Co.,*50 Ga. App. 325 (177 SE 920), *Stainback v. Dunn,*53 Ga. App. 464 (1) (186 SE 220), *Code*of 1933, § 6-805, and the instant motion to dismiss the writ of error because of the alleged absence of a duly filed brief of the evidence must be denied. *Stainback v. Dunn,*53 Ga. App. 464, 465 (1), supra; *Cumberland Island Co. v. Bunkley,*108 Ga. 756 (1) (33 SE 183); *Cain v. State,*131 Ga. 770 (63 SE 289).

2. Pretermitting the question of whether the brief of evidence in the record, which the bill of exceptions recites was handed to the clerk for filing and duly approved by the trial judge, is properly before this court, the uncontradicted evidence of the properly authenticated *(Code*§ 38-711) business records of the plaintiff as testified to by plaintiff’s witness, together with the admission made in a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, demanded the finding in favor of plaintiff as directed by the trial judge. *One In All Corp. v. Fulton Nat. Bank,*108 Ga. App. 142 (3) (132 SE2d 116). That the last item on one of the business records, a ledger card, was an item crediting the last balance (the amount sued for) and showing a balance of zero, which the witness explained was a bookkeeping entry made when the account was transferred to the “bad debt account,” does not make a jury question as to the amount owed, in the absence of evidence to the con*149trary showing payment of the prior balance or evidence impeaching the testimony of the witness.

Decided July 13, 1964

Rehearing denied July 28, 1964.

*Leiter & Leiter, Marvin O’Neal, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Howard & Storey, Robert W. Storey,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross bill dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
#### Hal H. McCAGHREN and Margaret C. Bowe, f/k/a Margaret C. Cribb, Appellants, v. Minnie B. CRIBB, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Cecil E. Cribb, and South Florida Title and Guaranty Company, as escrow agent, Appellees.

No. 81-531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 10, 1982.

Hal H. McCaghren of McCaghren Law Offices, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

William H. Maness of Maness & Kacher-gus, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See, e.g., *Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc.,*89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1966); *Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack,*159 So.2d 236 (Fla.1964).

BERANEK, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
|-------------------------



|18 U.S.C. §1350,
|----------------



|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|----------------------

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K. Bench, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Dated: November 19, 2007 |  |                         |  | /s/ Robert K. Bench
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------
|                         |  | Robert K. Bench        
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer



---
#### Wayne Martin RYKOSKEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. ZZ-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 11, 1982.

P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty.' Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On 17 November 1980 the appellant was placed on probation with the condition that he repay three times the damage. This is illegal, *Fresneda v. State,*347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977). On 16 December a notice of appeal was filed divesting the trial court of further jurisdiction, *Kelly v. State,*359 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance herewith.

MILLS, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2006036EN.01000201.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 1 December 2005

in Case C-46/03: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Structural funds - Decommitment of amounts - Conditions - Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 (‘MST 2’) Programme)

(2006/C 36/02)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-46/03: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 31 January 2003, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond, R. Caudwell and K. Manji, assisted by D. Lloyd-Jones QC and S. Lee, barrister) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn), supported by: Council of the European Union, (Agents M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón and J. Carbery) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 1st December 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, contained in the letter of 22 November 2002, decommitting the sum of EUR 11 632 600 in respect of expenditure incurred under the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, contained in the letter of 22 November 2002, decommitting the sum of EUR 11 632 600 in respect of expenditure incurred under the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational programme;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.

1

---
40478.

#### HICKS v. STUCKI.

Frankum, Judge.

1. A purported contract for the sale and purchase of described real estate which provides that the purchase price shall be $11,000 “to be paid as follows: $6,000.00 cash, $5,000.00 first mortgage or second mortgage loan or loans, bearing interest not to exceed *Tfo*payable for a period of twenty years at $38.77 per month beginning 30 days from date of closing,” is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to be enforceable. This language furnishes no key from which it may be ascertained on what property it was contemplated by the parties that such loan or loans were to be obtained or what property was to. be mortgaged, from whom the loan or loans were to be obtained, and to whom the mortgage or mortgages were to be given, and whether such mortgage was to be a first or second mortgage, and if two mortgages were to be given and two loans obtained, what were the contemplated amounts of each of such mortgages and loans, and if two loans were to be obtained, what amounts were to be paid on each, and finally, it is not stated in the instrument whether the stipulated amount of monthly payments includes or does not include interest on the loan or loans. Under these circumstances the contract was not an enforceable one. *Crawford v. Williford,*145 Ga. 550 (89 SE 488); *Trust Co.*
      *724
      *of Ga. v. Neal,*161 Ga. 965 (132 SE 385); *Stanaland v. Stephens,*78 Ga. App. 68 (2) (50 SE2d 258); *Williams v. Gottlieb,*90 Ga. App. 438 (83 SE2d 245); *Cole v. Cutler,*96 Ga. App. 891 (102 SE2d 82); *Morgan v. Hemphill,*98 Ga. App. 732 (106 SE2d 865); *Fleming v. Doran,*98 Ga. App. 837 (107 SE2d 332).

Decided April 29, 1964

Rehearing denied May 18, 1964.

*Haas, Dunaway, Shelfer & Haas, George A. Haas, Hugh F. Newberry,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter E. Baker, Jr.,*contra.

2. The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition which sought to recover $1,100 earnest money paid by the petitioner to the defendant pursuant to the aforesaid contract, said petition showing that the contract had not been consummated and that the defendant had failed and refused to return the earnest money on demand of the plaintiff.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of PHI Group, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry D. Fahman, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Henry Fahman

Henry Fahman

Acting Principal Financial Officer

July 8, 2010           

 

 

----
§ 137.301 How are project and program environmental review costs identified? ( a ) The Self-Governance Tribe and the Secretary should work together during the initial stages of project development to identify program and project related costs associated with carrying out environmental responsibilities for proposed projects. The goal in this process is to identify the costs associated with all foreseeable environmental review activities.
( b ) If unforeseen environmental review and compliance costs are identified during the performance of the construction project, the Self-Governance Tribe or, at the request of the Self-Governance Tribe, the Self-Governance Tribe and the Secretary (with or without amendment as required by § 137.363) may do one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Mitigate adverse environmental effects;
( 2 ) Alter the project scope of work; and/or
( 3 ) Add additional program and/or project funding, including seeking supplemental appropriations.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6756]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Sacred Spain: Art and Belief in the Spanish World,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, IN, from on or about October 11, 2009, until on or about January 3, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: August 27, 2009.

Maura M. Pally,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-21308 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P