alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41248.

#### CHARLES S. MARTIN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. ROBERTS.

Hall, Judge.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has decided that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of the issues remaining in this case. *Charles S. Martin Distributing Co. v. Roberts,*220 Ga. 625 (140 SE2d 848). For a statement of the case and decisions of the Supreme Court on previous appeals of the case see *Charles S. Martin Distributing Co. v. Roberts,*219 Ga. 525 (134 SE2d 587), and *Bruce v. Roberts,*219 Ga. 394 (133 SE2d 327).

After a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant Charles S. Martin Distributing Co. made a motion for new trial and assigns error on the judgment of the trial court denying this motion, and on antecedent rulings of the court overruling its motion for continuance, its motion for directed verdict, and its motion to dismiss. *Held:*

The ground of the defendant’s motion to dismiss was that it was not a resident of Gordon County and the court had no jurisdiction over it after granting the resident defendant Bruce’s motion for directed verdict and dismissing the case as against the resident defendant. The plaintiff argues that in submitting to an order of the court releasing funds on deposit with the clerk of court to be paid out and distributed in part to Charles S. Martin Distributing Company, Inc., or its assigns and in part to the plaintiff, the defendant waived any objections that it might have had to the court’s jurisdiction. For its authority, the plaintiff relies on *Code*§ 81-503 and cases involving suits against nonresident defendants alone. *Hudgins Contracting Co. v. Redmond,*178 Ga. 317 (173 SE 135); *654
      *Shearer v. LeMay,*184 Ga. 86 (190 SE 643). These cases do not apply to a nonresident defendant who is joined with a resident defendant for the reason that the nonresident defendant must appear and plead to the merits and stand before the court until the resident co-defendant is discharged. *Morris v. Bell,*100 Ga. App. 341, 344 (111 SE2d 270). Pleading to and defending on the merits when it was legally required to do so, and at a time when the court had jurisdiction, did not constitute a waiver on the question of improper venue. *Jordan v. Chas. S. Martin Dist. Co.,*90 Ga. App. 186, 189 (82 SE2d 263); *Warren v. Rushing,*144 Ga. 612 (1) (87 SE 775).

Submitted April 7, 1965

Decided April 21, 1965

Rehearing denied May 11, 1965.

*Chance & Maddox, R. F. Chance, Charles L. Henry,*for plaintiff in error.

*Warren Akin, T. L. Shanahan,*contra.

The trial court erred in overruling the nonresident defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lost jurisdiction of it upon the dismissal of the case as to the resident defendant. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the plaintiff’s other assignments of error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
- Home
- Travel
- Remarks and Releases

HomeDeputy Secretary of State...Deputy Secretary of State’s Travel

# 						Deputy Secretary of State’s Travel					

							The Deputy Secretary of State travels far and wide to serve the American people. She is the principal deputy, adviser, and alter ego to the Secretary of State and assists the Secretary in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy—including through face-to-face diplomacy abroad.						

15 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAlgeriaAngolaArgentinaAustraliaBelgiumCambodiaChinaCzech RepublicDominican RepublicEgyptFranceGabonGermanyHoly SeeIndiaIndonesiaItalyJapanLaosMexicoMongoliaMoroccoNew ZealandOmanPakistanPeruPhilippinesSamoaSolomon IslandsSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSwitzerlandTongaTurkeyUnited KingdomUruguayUzbekistanVietnam

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary of State

          -    		Travel to New Orleans, Santo Domingo, and Buenos Aires, April 10-14, 2023	   
          -    		Travel to the United Kingdom, Italy, Vatican City, France, Germany, and the Czech Republic, December 5-11, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Mexico, November 9-10, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Japan and Washington, October 24-27, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Honolulu, Hawaii, September 13, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Samoa, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Australia, and New Zealand, August 3-9, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Laos, June 5-14, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to South Africa, Angola, Gabon, and France, May 2-7, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Belgium, April 19-22, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Turkey, Spain, Morocco, and Algeria, March 4-10, 2022	   

12next page

Back to Top
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- What We Do
- News and Features
- Security Clearances
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of Diplomatic Security...Leadership – Bureau of Diplomatic Security

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Diplomatic Security					

11											Items									

          -  							Osterhout, Thad						Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Director of the Diplomatic Security Service High Threat ProgramsBureau of Diplomatic Security 

previous page12

Back to Top
§ 425.218 Termination of the participation agreement by CMS. ( a ) *General.* CMS may terminate the participation agreement with an ACO when an ACO, the ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers or other individuals or entities performing functions or services related to ACO activities fail to comply with any of the requirements of the Shared Savings Program under this part.
( b ) *Grounds for termination by CMS.* CMS may terminate the participation agreement for reasons including, but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Non-compliance with eligibility and other requirements described in this part.
( 2 ) The imposition of sanctions or other actions taken against the ACO by an accrediting organization, State, Federal or local government agency leading to inability of the ACO to comply with the requirements under this part.
( 3 ) Violations of any applicable laws, rules, or regulations that are relevant to ACO operations, including, but not limited to, the laws specified at § 425.208(b).
( 4 ) Failure to comply with CMS requests for documentation or other information by the deadline specified by CMS.
( 5 ) Submitting false or fraudulent data or information.
( c ) CMS may immediately terminate a participation agreement without taking any of the pre-termination actions set forth in § 425.216.
( d ) *Notice of termination by CMS.* CMS notifies an ACO in writing of its decision to terminate the participation agreement.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32839, June 9, 2015; 89 FR 54717, July 1, 2024]
Exhibit
                  32.2





**Certification
      of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
      Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
      period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
      of
      operations as of and for the periods covered therein.








/s/
                  J. Kimbrough DavisJ.
                  Kimbrough DavisExecutive
                  Vice President andChief
                  Financial Officer
 
 Date:  November
        9, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
# C_2005229EN.01000401.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/4

---

Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-206/05)

(2005/C 229/08)

Language of the case: Swedish

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Friedrich Erlbacher and Knut Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | first, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;
  second, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion must be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

first, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;

second, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion must be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before it may be used for breeding with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, the Kingdom of Sweden is restricting trade in horses within the Community.

The fact that in Directive 90/427/EEC, or in any decision adopted on the basis of the directive, methods for assessment for stud purposes are not established does not mean that a Member State is entitled to lay down such a requirement. Moreover, the Swedish requirement for such an assessment is not justified by Article 30 EC in the interest of protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Sweden's requirement for an assessment seems to be more in order to improve the characteristics of current breeds than to protect the health and life of horses.

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Mongolia

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Mongolia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

July 15, 2021

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Mongolia from July 18 to July 25.

In Tokyo, the Deputy Secretary will meet with Japanese officials to discuss a broad range of issues, including combating the climate crisis and enhancing global health security.  Deputy Secretary Sherman, Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mori Takeo, and ROK First Vice Foreign Minister Choi Jong Kun will hold a joint meeting to discuss trilateral cooperation on pressing shared challenges, including regional security issues such as the DPRK, as well as climate change and global health. The Deputy Secretary will then travel to Seoul for meetings with ROK officials and a strategic dialogue with ROK First Vice Foreign Minister Choi to discuss bilateral and multilateral cooperation on shared priorities, including the climate crisis, pandemic relief, and post-COVID-19 economic recovery.

From Seoul, the Deputy Secretary will travel to Ulaanbaatar to meet with Mongolian officials to reinforce our Strategic Partnership and discuss our shared values of democracy and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and respect for traditional cultural identity and practice.

Throughout the trip, the Deputy Secretary will reaffirm the U.S. commitment to working with allies and partners to promote peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and to upholding the international rules-based order.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateMongoliaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSouth Korea

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Craig A. McCollam,Chief Financial Officer of Dionex Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:
3. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30,2004 and to which this Certification is attached (the “Annual Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 4. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.   By: /s/ Craig A. McCollamName: Craig A. McCollamTitle: Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDated: September 8, 2004
HomeGlobal Community Liaison Office Key Topics...Education and Youth

# Education and Youth

The quality of schooling available to one's family is one of the most important factors Foreign Service parents consider when choosing an assignment.
							Education FAQs							

## 						It is wise for families to explore the schooling options at all of the posts under consideration, including the Washington, DC area.					

(**DSSR270**) Special Needs Education Allowance (SNEA) amendments effective November 20, 2022.

Ask GCLO! Live Webinar – Education and Youth

Please view the topics listed below. For additional assistance, email **GCLOAskEducation@state.gov**

## 					Key Education Topics				

		Adult Education		Read more 

		Boarding Schools		Read more 

		Child Care, Preschool, and Summer Camps		Read more 

		College and Beyond		Read more 

		Home Study Resources and Curricula		Read more 

		Scholarships and Youth Awards		Read more 

		Special Needs and the Foreign Service Child		Read more 

		Transitioning from School to School		Read more 

		Virtual Learning Resources		Read more 

### 									Partners								

          -  														Contact Us - Office of Overseas Schools														 
          -  														For Parents - Office of Overseas Schools														 
          -  														Transitioning to an Overseas Assignment with a Child with Special Needs																											 
          -  														Foreign Service Youth Foundation														 

### 									Resources 								

          -  														Bouncing Back – Transition and Re-entry Planning for the Parents of Foreign Service Youth																											 
          -  														Schools Worldwide																											 
          -  														Education Frequently Asked Questions																											 
          -  														Transition Center's Guided Journal for FS Children and Parents														 

Back to Top
#### Giles *v.*Ackles.

A promise to pay *the debt*of another, if plaintiff would stay an execution, is binding, if the plaintiff does not proceed with his execution.until after the day agreed on.

In error from the District Court of Allegheny.

The plaintiff was an execution-creditor of Brown. Giles called on the plaintiff, and agreed if he would stay the writ, he would pay the debt in six weeks. The plaintiff consented, and did not proceed with his execution until requested by Giles.

Lowrie, J., told the jury it was immaterial that the writ was not stayed on the record; there was a contract to wait, and the plaintiff did wait.

*Woods,*for plaintiff in error. ■

*Gr. P. Hamilton,*contrd.

*Sept.*16.

Burnside, J.

The weight of authority is against the plaintiff in error; it being well settled, that an agreement to forbear to sue for a considerable time, is a consideration certain enough upon which to sustain an action: 1 Penn. Rep. 383. In New York it was held, that the adjournment of a suit is a sufficient consideration for a promise: Stewart *v.*McGuin, 1 Cow. 90. This case is not unlike that of Pullin *v.*Stokes, 2 H. Bl. 312. There, A. having obtained judgment against B., and a *fieri facias*being delivered to the sheriff, in Qonsideration that A., at the special instance *148and request of C., had requested the sheriff not to execute the writ, C.„promised to pay A. the debt and costs, together with the sheriff’s poundage, bailiff’s fees, and other charges, on a judgment by default and error brought, the promise was holden to be binding on C., though it was not averred that the sheriff did in fact desist from the execution of the writ. Here the execution was in the hands of the sheriff against Brown, who was down the river with coal. Giles promised to pay the debt if the plaintiff’s attorney would stay the writ for six weeks. The plaintiff’s attorney agreed to this. Nothing was done on the execution until Giles requested the attorney to proceed with the execution against Brown. If the jury believed the evidence, the plaintiff in error had no ground to stand on. Indeed, the consideration of forbearance generally has been held sufficient, without setting forth a specific time: 4 Johns. Rep. 239; see Cro. James, 683.

Judgment affirmed.
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3900

___________ Mary Bracey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jim Lawson, individually and the * [UNPUBLISHED] City of Little Rock, Arkansas, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 26, 2003 Filed: July 16, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mary Bracey appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging First Amendment retaliation. We affirm.-2- Bracey alleges that she was denied promotion in retaliation for having sent an anonymous electronic mail (e-mail) message two years earlier in which she had criticized a fellow employee’s job performance. The First Amendment protects a public employee’s speech so long as it addresses a matter of public concern. Meyers v. Neb. HHS , 324 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Connick v. Myers , 461 U.S. 138, 146 (1983)). Speech qualifies as a matter of public concern if it is “fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Id. Having reviewed the record in the light most favorable to Bracey, as we must on summary judgment, we conclude that the district court determined correctly that because Bracey’s e-mail message was purely job-related and thus did not qualify as a matter of public concern, it did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. Sparr v. Ward , 306 F.3d 589, 594 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Bauzard v. Meridith , 172 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 1999)). Additionally, Br acey failed to show any causal connection between the e-mail message and any adverse employment action, as is required of a successful claim of First Amendment retaliation under § 1983. Bechtel v. City of Belton , 250 F.3d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellees’ motion to strike a portion of Bracey’s appendix is denied as moot. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IB

House Calendar No. 239

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3364

[Report No. 104–611]

To designate a United States courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the

‘‘William J. Nealon United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 1996

Mr. MCDADE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

JUNE 6, 1996

Reported with amendments, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to

be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To designate a United States courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘William J. Nealon United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 235 North

5 Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, shall be
2

•HR 3364 RH

1 designated and known as the ‘‘William J. Nealon United

2 States Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

7 to be a reference to the ‘‘William J. Nealon United States

8 Courthouse’’.

9 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

10 The Federal building and United States courthouse lo11 cated at 235 North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Penn12 sylvania, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William

13 J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

14 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

15 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

16 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

17 building and United States courthouse referred to in section

18 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William J.

19 Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to designate

the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 235 North Washington Avenue in Scranton,

Pennsylvania, as the ‘William J. Nealon Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’.’’.

House Calendar No. 239

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3364

[Report No. 104–611]

A BILL

To designate a United States courthouse in ScranUnited States Courthouse’’. ton, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘William J. Nealon

JUNE 6, 1996

Reported with amendments, referred to the House

Calendar, and ordered to be printed