alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home2022 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Kneedler, Eric W. – Republic of Rwanda – August 2022

# 									Kneedler, Eric W. – Republic of Rwanda – August 2022							

Certificate of Competency

August 15, 2022

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate ofDemonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST: Republic of Rwanda

CANDIDATE: Eric W. Kneedler

Eric Kneedler is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor. He currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya and was Chargé d’Affaires, a.i. from 2021-2022. Earlier, Mr. Kneedler was the Counselor for Political Affairs at the Embassy in Nairobi and before that he served in the same role at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines. Previously, he served as the Deputy Political Counselor at the U.S Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand and as a Political Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. His demonstrated leadership ability as Deputy and Chargé d’Affaires, a.i. in Nairobi, coupled with his over two decades of service as a career diplomat, make Mr. Kneedler a well-qualified candidate for Ambassador to the Republic of Rwanda.

Among his other assignments, Mr. Kneedler was a Staff Assistant in the Bureau of European Affairs, a Senior Watch Officer in the State Department’s Operations Center, and he also held positions at the U.S. Embassy in Port Louis, Mauritius and the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong.

Mr. Kneedler earned his Bachelor’s degree from Pomona College, and his Master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He is the recipient of numerous State Department performance awards. His foreign languages include Thai, Indonesian, French, Cantonese and Italian.

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.720 State plan requirement: State assurance regarding data collection, records, and reports.

A State plan must include an assurance that the State collects data, maintains records, and furnishes reports to the Secretary, at the times and in the standardized format the Secretary may require to enable the Secretary to monitor State program administration and compliance and to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of State plans under Title XXI of the Act. This includes collection of data and reporting as required under § 431.970 of this chapter.

[71 FR 51084, Aug. 28, 2006]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Malaysia’s National Elections

# 									Malaysia’s National Elections							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 24, 2022

On behalf of the United States, I congratulate the people of Malaysia for their national elections and Anwar Ibrahim for his election as Prime Minister. Millions of Malaysians cast their ballots, many for the first time, making the 15th general election a demonstration of the power of democracy.

The United States and Malaysia have forged a strong relationship – a comprehensive partnership – rooted in close economic, people-to-people, and security ties.  We look forward to deepening our friendship and cooperation based on shared democratic principles and respect for human rights and the rule of law.  We remain committed to working with Malaysia to advance a free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsElectionsMalaysiaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 11.52 By when will the NIH Director post submitted clinical trial results information?

Except for clinical trial results information submitted under section 402(j)(4)(A) of the PHS Act and § 11.60, the Director will post publicly clinical trial results information on *ClinicalTrials.gov* not later than 30 calendar days after the date of submission.
ex10_4.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.4

     

    IRREVOCABLE
PROXY

    


    


    I,
JENNIFER S. HEALEY, a shareholder of KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a NEVADA
corporation ("Corporation"), do hereby irrevocably appoint PAUL O. KOETHER
(“Agent”), to be my proxy agent, with full power of substitution, and to vote
750,000 of my shares of common stock in the Corporation with respect to all
matters submitted to the shareholders at all meetings of the shareholders, or
any adjournments thereof, and in all consents to any actions taken without a
meeting.

    


    This
appointment shall continue from this date until the earlier of February 28, 2013
or the death or incapacity of the Agent stated above.  During said
period, my proxy shall have all of the power that I would possess with respect
to the voting my shares and granting my consent. I hereby ratify and confirm all
acts that my proxy shall do or cause to be done by virtue of and within the
limitations set forth in this proxy.

    


    I hereby
waive my right to cancel this Irrevocable Proxy at any time during the time
period described herein.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this proxy on February 25, 2009.

    


    


    _____________________

    


    Shareholder

    


    


    Jennifer S.
Healey

    


    Print
Name
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.2600 Payment appeals.

If the Part C RAC did not apply its stated payment methodology correctly, an MA organization may appeal the findings of the applied methodology. The payment methodology itself is not subject to appeal.
#### CAPITAL HOMES, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RELATOR-RESPONDENT, v. C. FRED DANDROW, AND THE TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued May 19, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the relator-respondent, *Davies & Davies (Frank J. Davies,*of counsel).

For the respondents-appellants, *Donald M. Waesche.*

Per Curiam.

The question raised on this appeal is whether or not the building zone ordinance of the township of Teaneck, appel*363lant, prohibits the building of an apartment house on property of relator-respondent on Teaneck road.

Finding that it did not, Mr. Justice Heher, sitting below as a single justice, granted a writ of *mandamus*to compel the appellant to grant a building permit. We are in accord with his conclusions.

The boundaries of the various zones are provided for in section 14 of the ordinance by reference to an accompanying map which is expressly made a part thereof. This map clearly shows that Teaneck road is zoned for business, which includes apartment houses, for a distance of one hundred and fifty feet back from its frontage on both sides of the road. Section 14 reads as follows: “The boundaries are, unless otherwise indicated upon the building zone map, either street lines or lines drawn parallel to and one hundred and fifty feet back from one or more of the street lines bounding the block. Where two or more designations are shown within a block three hundred feet or less in width, the boundary of the more restricted zone shall be deemed one hundred and fifty feet back from the street line, and where two or more zone designations are shown within a block more than three hundred feet in width, the boundary of the less restricted zone shall be deemed one hundred and fifty feet back from the street line.”

It appears that a street called Allen Court is shown on an assessment map of the municipality. It is in the rear of relator’s property and runs parallel to Teaneck road. Allen Court is not shown on the zoning map. This reduces the size of the block, as it appears on the zoning map, to less than three hundred feet in width. Appellant states that Allen Court is restricted to single-family dwelling houses. It is argued, therefore, that that classification applies to the frontage on Teaneck road under the above quoted portion of section 14 of the ordinance.

It does not appear when Allen Court was laid out and zoned, nor is it material.

The assessment map bears no relationship to the question of zoning. The zoning ordinance and map, which forms a part of it, must govern and control. Clearly under it the *364relator’s property was zoned for business or apartment house purposes. It was entitled to the permit and there was no abuse of discretion in the granting of the writ of *mandamus*to compel the granting of it.

The judgment is affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Tim Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— -None.
#### CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate, Appellee.

No. 73-969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1974.

Ralph J. Ray, Jr., W. W. Caldwell, Jr., and George V. Naze, II, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Edward J. Marko, of Marko, Stephany & Lyons, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties, we determine that Chapter 69-917 Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1969, as amended, expressly mandated that the School Board of Broward County was subject to the provisions of the South Florida Building Code, and authority vested in the City of Fort Lauderdale to require compliance therewith, including the required building permits and payment of building permit fees. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter final judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
HomeLocal Guard Force...Francisco Batz Ajanel

# 									Francisco Batz Ajanel							

DS Memorial

August 1, 2004

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Local Guard Force****Year of Death: 2004**

Francisco Batz Ajanel, Local Guard Force, died in August 2004, in Guatemala City, Guatemala. He was shot at the embassy gate while intervening in a robbery near his post.**(U.S. Government image)**

Tags

DS Local Guard ForceGuatemala

Back to Top
[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-3472.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100248

STATE OF OHIO

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs.

ALFRED ROGERS

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-08-518986 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 486377 

RELEASE DATE: August 25, 2015 
FOR APPELLANT

Alfred Rogers, pro se 

Inmate No. 574184 

Southern Ohio Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 45699 

Louisville, Ohio 45699 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Anthony Thomas Miranda 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.: 

{¶1} Alfred Rogers has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 

26(B). Rogers is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered by this court in 

State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100248 (Aug. 13, 2013). For the following 

reasons, Rogers’s application for reopening is not well taken. 

{¶2} Initially, we find that App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to 

the appeal in App. No. 100248. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Rogers’s plea 

of guilty to the offense of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized 

by this court. This court denied Rogers’s motion for a delayed appeal and dismissed the 

appeal on September 3, 2013. Thus, we are prevented from considering Rogers’s 

application for reopening. State v. Skaggs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76301, 1999 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 4680 (Sept. 21, 1999). See also State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 667 

N.E.2d 1209 (1996); State v. Halliwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999); State v. Fields, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68906, 1997 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 4109 (Sept. 5, 1997); State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69936, 1996 

Ohio App. LEXIS 4796 (Oct. 31, 1996). 

{¶3} Finally, even if Rogers were permitted to file an application for reopening, 

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Rogers establish a showing of good cause for untimely 

filing if the application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the 

appellate judgment, which is subject to reopening. Herein, Rogers is attempting to 
reopen the order of dismissal journalized on September 3, 2013. Rogers’s application for 

reopening was not filed until June 9, 2015, more than 90 days after journalization of the 

order of dismissal in App. No. 100248. Rogers has failed to establish good cause for the 

untimely filing of his application for reopening. Thus, we would be required to deny his 

application for reopening. State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 

N.E.2d 861; State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. 

{¶4} Application for reopening is denied. 

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
No. 99-725.

#### Casso v. United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mary
L. Dotz, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 of ADPT Corporation; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|                    |  |  |  | /s/  MARY L. DOTZ                   
|Date: July 28, 2010 |  |  |  | Mary L. Dotz Chief
Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,857,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,857,558
<PP&E>                                      22,395,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,315,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,936,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          996,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,940,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,936,828
<SALES>                                     25,688,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,850,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,350,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             24,499,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                24,499,892
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        

</TABLE>
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Multilateral (19-1007) – Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-Level Ozone

# 									Multilateral (19-1007) – Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-Level Ozone							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

Pollution: Long Range Transboundary Air

Done at Geneva May 4, 2012; entered into force October 7, 2019.

Protocol of Convention of November 13, 1979.  Agreement previously amended November 30, 1999: TIAS 13073.
Download Agreement						 [4 MB]

Tags

PollutionTreaties

Back to Top
#### Ephraim Corotinsky, Respondent, *v.*Michael Cooper, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

January, 1899.)

Conversion — Unlawful interference of lessee — Demand.

The acts of a lessee of a button-hole machine, in misusing it, in re- . moving certain of its parts and in attaching them to a machine of his own, show an unlawful assumption of dominion over the machine which makes the lessee liable to an action for its conversion and no prior demand of possession is necessary.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, borough of Manhattan, fifth district.

Samuel I. Frankenstein, for appellant.

John Bogart, for respondent.

*139
      *Per Curiam.*

This action was brought for the conversion of a button-hole machine which had been rented by the plaintiff to the defendant. The ground relied upon in support of the claim is that the machine was in bad order owing to the manner in which it had been used by the defendant, and that certain of its constituent parts had been removed and attached by the defendant to another machine that either belonged to him or was in his use at the time.

It is well settled that such an act constitutes a conversion of the whole property. Bowen v. Fenner, 40 Barb. 383. As it constitutes evidence in itself of an unlawful assumption of dominion over the property, no demand is necessary as a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action therefor.

It is true that the evidence was not at all as satisfactory as could be desired, but we cannot say that there was not sufficient upon which to rest a verdict for the plaintiff, and the jury having found in his favor, their action in that regard should not be disturbed on appeal. We also think there was sufficient competent evidence of value before the jury to support the assessment of damage which they made. The judgment must be affirmed.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3547

AN ACT

To provide for the conveyance of a parcel of real

school facilities and related playing fields.District 7 to be used for the construction ofState of Arizona to the Alpine Elementary Schoolproperty in the Apache National Forest in the
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3547

AN ACT

To provide for the conveyance of a parcel of real property

in the Apache National Forest in the State of Arizona

to the Alpine Elementary School District 7 to be used

for the construction of school facilities and related playing fields.

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

•HR 3547 EH

1 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, APACHE NATIONAL FOR2 EST, ARIZONA.

3 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—(1) The Secretary of

4 Agriculture shall convey, without consideration, to the Al5 pine Elementary School District 7 of the State of Arizona

6 (in this section referred to as the ‘‘School District’’), all

7 right, title, and interest of the United States in and to

8 a parcel of real property, including any improvements

9 thereon, consisting of approximately 30 acres located in

10 the Apache National Forest, Apache County, Arizona, and

further delineated as follows: North 1⁄2 of Northeast 1 11 ⁄4

of Southeast 1 12 ⁄4 of section 14, Township 5 North, Range

30 East, Gila and Salt River meridian, and North 1 13 ⁄2 of

South 1⁄2 of Northeast 1⁄4 of Southeast 1 14 ⁄4 of such section.

15 (2) The exact acreage and legal description of the real

16 property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be de17 termined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The

18 cost of the survey shall be borne by the School District.

19 (b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance

20 made under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition

21 that the School District use the conveyed property for pub22 lic school facilities and related public school recreational

23 purposes.

24 (c) RIGHT OF REENTRY.—The United States shall

25 retain a right of reentry in the property to be conveyed.

26 If the Secretary determines that the conveyed property is
3

•HR 3547 EH

1 not being used in accordance with the condition in sub2 section (b), the United States shall have the right to reen3 ter the conveyed property without consideration.

4 (d) ENCUMBRANCES.—The conveyance made under

5 subsection (a) shall be subject to all encumbrances on the

6 property existing as of the date of the enactment of this

7 Act.

8 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

9 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi10 tions in connection with the conveyance under subsection

11 (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the

12 interests of the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives September 4,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.