alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation Senior Officials Meeting

# 											Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation Senior Officials Meeting									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 20, 2024

Senior Coordinator for Atlantic Cooperation Ambassador Jessye Lapenn hosted the second virtual meeting of senior representatives from 34 members of the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation on February 15, 2024.  Partnership members agreed to advance collaboration on marine spatial planning, led by Spain, Morocco, and Angola; and scientific capacity building and exchange led by Portugal, the United States, and others.  Members also decided to convene a variety of workshops in 2024 on issues of mutual interest such as: marine plastic pollution; abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear; food and nutrition security; and innovative financing tools for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in the Atlantic Ocean. 

The Partnership will continue to advance scientific cooperation by sharing information and building capacity.  The senior officials agreed to support the development of marine spatial plans as a critical tool for sustainable economic and social development in Atlantic coastal states, and to foster comprehensive Atlantic Ocean data collection, sharing, and analysis.   

The Partnership engages in collective problem-solving of shared challenges and advances shared principles for Atlantic cooperation, as reflected in the Declaration on Atlantic Cooperation adopted in New York in September 2023.  Members share a commitment to a peaceful, prosperous, open, and cooperative Atlantic region, while protecting the ocean as a healthy, sustainable, and resilient resource for generations to come. 

The Partnership welcomed several new members and now totals 38 coastal Atlantic countries from Africa, the Americas, Europe, and the Caribbean. 

For more information, please visit the Atlantic Cooperation website.  For media inquiries, contact OES-Press@state.gov.

Tags

AngolaBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsMaritime MattersMoroccoOffice of the SpokespersonPortugalScientific and Technological CooperationSpain

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2869 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 373
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2869

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE FOR 
              HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN KENTUCKY.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 6641, the Commission shall, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 
public interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
procedures under that section, extend until June 15, 1998, the time 
period during which the licensee is required to commence construction 
of the project.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under section 13 
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection 
(a).
    (c) Reinstatment of License.--The Commission is authorized to 
reinstate the license for the project referred to in subsection (a), 
effective as of the date of its expiration or termination.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 373

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2869

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 17, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### Frank T. WALSH and American Motorists Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Neldys T. DIAZ f/k/a Neldys T. Lopez and Roberto Diaz, Appellees.

No. 81-802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 17, 1982.

J. Burke Culler, Jr., and James A. Reynolds, Jr., of Adams, Coogler, Watson & Smith, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Frank B. Kessler of Zwickel, Gross & Kessler, Lake Worth, and Jack E. Acker-man, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

The defendant-appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that the lower court reversibly erred in declining to submit a special interrogatory to the jury as to whether the plaintiff met the statutory no-fault threshold.1 The use of such a verdict form, however, is ordinarily for the trial judge alone to decide. *Lincenberg v. Issen,*318 So.2d 386 (Fla.1975); *Frank v. Ruwitch,*318 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In *Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Lawrence,*346 So.2d 1012 (Fla.1977), the supreme court adopted the only exception to this rule — and then only prospectively — by requiring special verdicts on the comparative negligence issue. We are neither empowered nor inclined to impose another such mandatory requirement in the present instance. Accord, *Souto v. Segal,*302 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

1

. Concededly, the jury was otherwise properly charged on the question in accordance with the standard jury instructions and verdict forms.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TODD W. STEPHENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-98

[July 14, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence Michael 

Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2012-CF-002034A.

Todd W. Stephens, Bonifay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.8  


 SIXTH EXTENSION OF THE AMENDED AND RENEWED MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT  


        THIS SIXTH EXTENSION OF THE AMENDED AND RENEWED MANAGEMENT SERVICES EXTENSION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of
January, 2009, by and between The Hearst Corporation ("Hearst"), a Delaware corporation, and Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation. 


 W I T N E S S E T H  


        WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into an Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement dated as of August 29, 2000
(the "Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement"); 


        WHEREAS,
Hearst and the Company extended the Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement pursuant to and initial Extension and subsequent Second Extension of the Management
Services Agreement; and 


        WHEREAS,
Hearst and the Company mutually desire to further extend the term of the Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement as set forth hereinafter; 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the term of the Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement is hereby extended for each of the Managed Stations respectively until the earlier of: (i) Hearst's divestiture
of such Managed Station to a third party; (ii) if applicable, the exercise of the option granted to The Company for certain of the Managed Stations, pursuant to the Option Agreement of even
date entered into between the parties hereto; or (iii) December 31, 2009, provided that, Hearst shall have the right to terminate this Agreement with respect to any Managed Station at
any time upon 90 days prior written notice if the option period or right of first refusal period with respect to such Managed Station, as applicable, each as set forth in the Option Agreement,
has expired without having been exercised. 


        This
Extension is subject to ratification by the independent members of the Company's Board of Directors. 


        Except
as expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. Unless otherwise defined
herein, all capitalized terms shall have their respective meanings as set forth in the Amended and Renewed Management Services Agreement. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 



											
	THE HEARST CORPORATION	 	HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.
	
 By:	
 	
/s/ RONALD J. DOERFLER







 	
 	
By:	
 	
/s/ JONATHAN C. MINTZER







 
	 	 	Name:

Title:	 	Ronald J. Doerfler
 Sr. VP and CFO	 	 	 	Name:

Title:	 	Jonathan C. Mintzer
 Vice President, General Counsel and
	 	 	Dated:	 	12/31/08	 	 	 	 	 	 Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Dated:	 	12/31/08
#### John Turbeville v. The State.

*No. 1142.*

*Decided February*10th, *1897.*

*1.*Playing Cards in a Public House—Printing Office—Indictment.

Where an indictment, for playing cards in a public house, charged that defendant “did then and there, in the county and State aforesaid, unlawfully play at a game with cards in a public house, to-wit: a certain printing office, commonly open to the public for business purposes.” Held: Sufficient.

2. Same—House Public at Times, and at Times Private—Evidence.

A house, according to its uses, may be public at certain times and private at other times; and, where the public house was alleged to be a printing office, and the proof showed it was public in the daytime, but there was no proof that it was used as a public house at night, at which time the playing of cards took place therein. Held: The evidence was insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.

Appeal from the County Court of Archer. Tried below before Hon. S. A. Denny, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for playing cards in a public house; penalty a fine of $10.

The opinion states the case.

No brief for appellant.

*Nat. P. Jackson*and *Mann*Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully playing cards at a public house, and fined $10, and appeals. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment. Said indictment, as to the charging part, is as follows: “That defendant did then and there, in the county and State aforesaid, unlawfully play at a game with cards in a public house, to-wit: a certain printing office, commonly, open to the public for business purposes,” etc. The court overruled the motion to quash. In this action of the court there was no error. The indictment in this respect is in accordance with the decisions of this court. See Willson, Grim. Forms, sec. 239, and authorities there cited. We have examined the testimony in this case, and in our opinion the evidence does not sustain the verdict of the jury. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a public place or house may be public at some time, according to its uses, and the public have the right to enter the same for the purpose of business, recreation, or amusement; but it may be private at other times. The proof in this case showed that in the daytime the printing office, where the game was alleged to have been played, was a public house, where the public had a right to and did enter for the purposes of business; but there is no proof whatever that it was used as a public place at night, at which time the game is shown to have been played. On the contrary, the proof is to the effect that it was not so used at night. The proof further shows that the office was *146shut, and all of the outside windows, except the one which opened into the hack yard, had blinds on them, and the office was made private, and not open to the public or to their observation. Because, in our opinion, there is no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and Remanded.*
§ 493.565 Selection for validation inspection—laboratory responsibilities. A laboratory selected for a validation inspection must do the following: ( a ) Authorize its accreditation organization or State licensure program, as applicable, to release to CMS or a CMS agent, on a confidential basis, a copy of the laboratory's most recent full, and any subsequent partial inspection.
( b ) Authorize CMS or a CMS agent to conduct a validation inspection.
( c ) Provide CMS or a CMS agent with access to all facilities, equipment, materials, records, and information that CMS or a CMS agent determines have a bearing on whether the laboratory is being operated in accordance with the requirements of this part, and permit CMS or a CMS agent to copy material or require the laboratory to submit material.
( d ) If the laboratory possesses a valid certificate of accreditation, authorize CMS or a CMS agent to monitor the correction of any deficiencies found through the validation inspection.
April 19, 2012

Docket Management Facility US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Extension of exemption number 10179 regarding Petition Docket Number FAA2010-0947.

Docket Management Facility:

Background: On September 22, 2010, Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., doing business as Seaborne Airlines submitted a request for exemption which was assigned Docket Number FAA-2010-0947. This exemption would allow Seaborne Airlines to use Supplement 37 to Viking Aircraft’s publication number 1-63-POH (rev 53) to demonstrate compliance with certain Part 23 performance requirement specified in 14CFR Part 121, Appendix K.

On December 16, 2010, the FAA issued Exemption Number 10179 which extended the compliance date for the referenced requirement to April 30, 2011. The stated purpose for the granting of this extension was to allow the FAA’s New York Aircraft Certification Office and the Canadian Civil Aviation Authority sufficient time to evaluate the request and make the determination if the document in question will be able to meet the aircraft certification requirements.

As April 2011, approached, Seaborne Airlines requested and was granted a second extension until November 30, 2011. Later as November 2011, approached, Seaborne Airlines requested and was granted a third extension until June 30, 2012.

Since the airline has not received any informatio n on the status of the FAA’s evaluation and less than 90 days remain until the expiration of Exemption 10179 on June 30, 2012, Seaborne Airlines is requesting that Exemption 10179 now be extended until June 30, 2013.

As stated in previous requests, there have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

Relief Sought and Justification for Relief As of the date of this request, less than 90 days remain until Exemption Number 10179 expires on June 30, 2012. Should the FAA delay further in rendering its decision, Seaborne Airlines would have insufficient time to develop, train and implement the provisions and conditions of the exemption. As a result, Seaborne Airlines is requesting that exemption number 10179 be extended to June 30, 2013, in order to avoid possible suspension of service by the

airline.

1 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

C.W., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-6156 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed November 7, 2014. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; J. Michael McCarthy, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

CRENSHAW, Judge. 

C.W., a minor, appeals from a judgment and restitution order after he 

entered a plea of no contest to grand theft. He was adjudicated delinquent and placed 

on probation for a period not to exceed his nineteenth birthday and restitution was 
- 2 - 

ordered to be paid in the amount of $664 at a rate of $25 monthly. On appeal, C.W. 

argues that it was error to hold the restitution hearing without his presence and that the 

court failed to find that C.W. had the ability to pay. As our ruling on his presence is 

dispositive, we do not reach the issue of ability to pay. 

The State agrees that the law precludes conducting a restitution hearing 

without the defendant's presence, unless waived, but does not agree that C.W. was not 

present. However, the record in this case affirmatively reveals that C.W. was not 

present at the restitution hearing and the State concedes that if C.W. was not present 

and had not waived his presence, reversal is required. See Bishop v. State, 143 So. 2d 

1073, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). The burden to prove waiver is on the State. Id. (citing 

Pierce v. State, 133 So. 3d 1186, 1187-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)). The State did not do 

so. 

Because the record is clear that C.W. was not present at his restitution 

hearing and the State has failed to meet its burden that C.W. waived his right to be 

present, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a new hearing. 

Reversed and remanded. 

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Chris Thomas

Aerial Pursuit Mapping/Bidgerland Applied Technology College

962 Canyon Road

Logan, UT 84321

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 21, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Aerial Pursuit Mapping filed 

in Docket No. FAA−2015−2843, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
HomeAntarctica Status Lists...49.  Measures adopted at the Forty-Third Consultative Meeting, done at Paris June 14-24, 2021

# 									49.  Measures adopted at the Forty-Third Consultative Meeting, done at Paris June 14-24, 2021							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force September 22, 20211.

Date of tacit approval is listed unless Consultative Parties directly notified the Depositary of their intent to adhere to the recommendations.
Download status lists						 [169 KB]

Tags

AntarcticMultilateralTreaties

Back to Top
§ 436.1100 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* Section 1920A of the Act allows States to provide Medicaid services to children under age 19 during a period of presumptive eligibility, prior to a formal determination of Medicaid eligibility.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart prescribes the requirements for providing medical assistance to special groups who are not eligible for Medicaid as categorically or medically needy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Statement  of  Financial  Condition  at August 31, 1999
(Unaudited) and the  Consolidated  Statement of Income for the nine months ended
August 31, 1999  (Unaudited)  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,759
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,398
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            61,365
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          21,863
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            52,255
<PP&E>                                         270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,220
<SHORT-TERM>                                   572
<PAYABLES>                                     8,626
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   77,197
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            16,445
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             23,614
<LONG-TERM>                                    4,106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,220
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              842
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           9,888
<COMMISSIONS>                                  343
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  942
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,548
<COMPENSATION>                                 1,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                651
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     452
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   452
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>