alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – December 11, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – December 11, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

December 11, 2021

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Hawaii from December 9-17, 2021. Please click here for more information.

**8:45 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign Ministers Session on Russia, Western Balkans, and China, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY ON ARRIVAL AND AT TOP)**

**10:45 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign Ministers Family Photo, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)**

**11:15 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign Ministers Session on Afghanistan, Iran, and DPRK, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**12:05 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**12:30 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign Ministers Working Lunch on Africa, Hot Topics, and German G7 Presidency Looking Forward, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**2:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**2:30 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign Ministers Session on Geopolitical and Security Issues – Hot Topics, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**3:15 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign and Development Ministers Session on Economic Partnerships and Investment, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**5:15 p.m.****LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**6:15 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign and Development Ministers Reception with Guest Countries and Local Representatives, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**8:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a G7 Foreign and Development Ministers Working Dinner with Guest Countries on Open Societies, in Liverpool, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
Title: Placer gold deposits of New Mexico
Sudoc No.: I 19.3:1348
Item No.:  0620
System No:  000995030
Link to: Report
Link to: Plate-1
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
  |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
HomeHuman Trafficking

# Human Trafficking

75 items

        -    Report  		Report to Congress on  2019 Trafficking in Persons Interim Assessment Pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as Reauthorized	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Report to Congress on 2018 Trafficking in Persons Interim Assessment Pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act	  February 5, 2018 
        -    DSS Releases  		On the International Day of Persons with Disabilities	  September 6, 2017 
        -    DSS Releases  		‘Cinderella Story’ Takes Down Human Trafficking Network	  September 6, 2017 
        -    DSS Releases  		Man Using False Identity Sentenced To 27 Years In Prison On International Sex Trafficking	  September 29, 2014 

previous page1…678

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 									Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 14, 2022

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD) will hold a virtual public meeting Thursday, February 24, 2022, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., to preview the *2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting.*  The meeting will feature a panel of practitioners from U.S. Department of State missions in Africa, Central Asia, and the Western Hemisphere who will discuss challenges to and opportunities for public diplomacy.

To obtain the web conference link and password please register.  Attendees should enter the web conference waiting room by 11:50 a.m. to allow for a prompt start.

Congress created the bipartisan ACPD panel in 1948 to appraise U.S. government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.  The Commission conducts research that provides honest assessments of public diplomacy efforts, and disseminates findings through reports, white papers, and other publications.  It also holds public symposia that generate informed discussions on public diplomacy issues.  The Commission reports to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

For more information on the ACPD, its congressionally mandated annual reports, or the upcoming public meeting, please visit this link.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonPublic DiplomacyU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICHARD LOUIS BUTLER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1535

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-02024-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Richard Louis Butler, Jr., appeals from the judgment 

of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing 

his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. He also moves for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel, 

and a temporary restraining order. We summarily affirm.

Mr. Butler filed a complaint at the Court of Federal 

Claims seeking compensation against “the entire African 

Case: 22-1535 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2022
2 BUTLER v. US

[i]mmigrant community employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice prison system.” See ECF No. 1-2 

at 7. On December 14, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims 

denied Mr. Butler’s motion to appoint counsel, concluding 

that he had not presented claims that permit civil legal assistance to be appointed by the court. And on January 24, 

2022, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

We conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate 

here because the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear 

as to warrant summary action. See Joshua v. United 

States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction 

to render judgment on Mr. Butler’s claims against employees of a state prison. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 

U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding Court of Federal Claims may 

only hear claims against the United States). Given that 

conclusion, there was no error to deny Mr. Butler’s request 

to appoint him counsel. See Omran v. United States, 629 

F. App’x 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims is affirmed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 April 22, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1535 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TRON ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-03-1140)

Submitted: October 24, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United

States Attorney, Tara L. McGregor, Assistant United States

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tron Anderson appeals from the judgment of the district

court convicting him of possession of a firearm as a convicted

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a), and 924(e), and

sentencing him to 188 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we

affirm. 

Anderson claims on appeal that the district court

unreasonably imposed his federal term of incarceration to run

consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, a previously imposed

state sentence. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(a)

(2003), a court is directed to apply a consecutive term of

imprisonment for any crime that occurs while a defendant is serving

an existing term of imprisonment. See USSG § 5G1.3(a). Anderson

does not dispute that he was serving an existing term of

imprisonment. In fact, Anderson’s possession of the firearm

occurred when he was attempting to escape from state custody, where

he was incarcerated for multiple drug charges. 

Instead, Anderson argues that the record is unclear as to

whether the district court recognized that it had the authority to

ignore the mandatory nature of § 5G1.3(a) and impose a concurrent

sentence, in light of the now-advisory nature of the sentencing

guidelines. He further contends that the district court made no

reference to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) when

determining his sentence.
- 3 -

Having reviewed the record, we find no error. The

district court was adequately informed of the discretion it had to

impose a concurrent sentence. Furthermore, the record reveals that

the district court was aware of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)

and that the sentence took these factors into account. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 10.29**

 

**DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

 
| **$25,000** | **October 17, 2003** |   |
|-------------|----------------------|--------|

 

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,PURCHASESOFT, INC, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), promises to pay to theorder of **FrankRedican**, an individual resident of the State of New York (“Lender”),at such place as the holder hereof may designate, in lawful money of the UnitedStates of America, the principal sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000),plus interest as hereinafter provided, on demand. This Note shall be due andpayable 180 days from the date hereof.  This Note shall bear interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof atthe rate of 6% per annum; provided that interest shall accrue at the rate of 8%per annum on any principal or accrued interest that is not paid within fivedays of written demand, from the date of such demand until the date of payment.

 

Borrower waives presentment,demand, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment,any and all other notices and demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance,performance, default or enforcement of this Note.  No delay by the holder hereof in exercising any power or right inrespect of this Note shall operate as a waiver of such or any other power orright.

 

Borrower may at any timeprepay in whole or in part, from time to time, the outstanding principal amountof this Note, together with accrued interest to date of payment on theprincipal amount so prepaid.

 

Borrower shall pay theholder hereof all costs and expenses of collection of this Note, including withoutlimitation reasonable attorneys’ fees.

 

This Note shall be deemed tobe made under and shall be construed in accordance with and governed by thelaws of the State of California.

 

 
|   | PURCHASESOFT, INC. |
|--------|--------------------|
|   |               |
|   |               |
|   | By                 |   /s/ Thomas B.  Marsh |   |
|   |               | Thomas B. Marsh |
|   |               | Secretary and Treasurer |

 

1

----
### -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/01 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – January 30, 2023

# 									Public Schedule – January 30, 2023							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

January 30, 2023

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

 

******SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Egypt, Israel, and the West Bank from January 28-31, 2023.

**9:00 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in Cairo, Egypt.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**10:30 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry in Cairo, Egypt.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**11:40 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a joint press availability with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry in Cairo, Egypt.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

**3:30 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**5:15 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deliver statements to the press in Jerusalem.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**5:45 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen in Jerusalem.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**6:45 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

**11:00 a.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman meets with Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Secretary General Paul Huijts at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**4:00 p.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman meets with Dr. Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**ACTING DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES JOHN R. BASS**

**11:45 a.m.** Acting Deputy Secretary Bass meets with Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Secretary General Paul Huijts at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND******

Under Secretary Nuland is on travel to Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, and Qatar from January 28-February 3, 2023.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

**5:00 p.m.**Under Secretary Zeya meets with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS LEE SATTERFIELD**

******12:15 p.m.**Assistant Secretary Satterfield participates in a working lunch with the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees and Chairman David M. Rubenstein in Washington, D.C.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Revised CMAS Preamble

Nick Parsons to: Cortney_Higgins 10/12/2012 04:00 PM

Cc: Paul Versace, Penny Lassiter, JohnB Chamberlin

Hi Cortney,

Attached are our revisions and responses to the latest interagency comments. A clean copy of the preamble is also 

attached.

Thanks,

Nick

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012 Clean.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012 Clean.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012.doc EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121012.doc
§ 489.70 Effect of payment by the Surety. A Surety's payment to CMS under a bond for an unpaid claim or an unpaid civil money penalty or assessment, constitutes— ( a ) Collection of the unpaid claim or unpaid civil money penalty or assessment (to the extent the Surety's payment on the bond covers such unpaid claim, civil money penalty, or assessment); and
( b ) A basis for termination of the HHA's provider agreement under § 489.53(a)(1).
#### Davis *v.*The State.

*Grand Larceny.*

(Decided Nov. 30, 1911.

Rehearing denied Dec. 14, 1911.

56 South. 739.)

*Trials Reception of Rviclence; Objection; Time.*— Where a question is asked and answered without objection at the time, the trial court will not be put in error for a failure to exclude such evidence on objection and motion íuade after the evidence has gone to the jury.

Appear from Lee Law and Equity Oourt.

Heard before Hon. Lum Dukes.

Hix, Alias John Davis, was convicted of grand larcey and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Barnes & Denson, for appellant.

Where testimony is illegal in whole or in part, and is given in answer to a legal question, objection to such testimony and motion to exclude it is proper and does not come too late. *—A. O. E. Go. v. Ryan,*112 Ala. 337; *McDonald v. Wood,*118 Ala. 589. The evidence objected to was clearly hearsay and illegal, and the action of the court in overruling defendant’s objection was reversible error. *—Stone v. The State,*105 Ala. 60; *Rivers v. The State,*97 Ala. 72.

B'obert C. Brickelu, Attorney Genéral, for the State,

question was asked and the answer given before objection was interposed, and the court’s failure to exclude the testimony under such circumstances was not *error.*— Dowling *v. The State,*151 Ala. 131; *L. & N. v. Butler,*55 So. 262.

*146de GRAFFENRIED, J.

The defendant was indicted for grand larceny, was tided by a jury, was convicted of the offense, and was sentenced to the penitentiary. From the judgment of conviction, he appeals.

During the progress of the trial a witness was permitted to testify that ‘‘Sam Davis said that Hicks Davis (defendant) went toward the fair ground, and that he would go with the witness and kelp find him.” The record does not show that the defendant objected to the question which called for 'this evidence; but it does show that the defendant *after*the evidence had gone to the jury, objected to it, and moved to exclude it, upon several grounds.

As the defendant failed to object to the question which called for this evidence, but waited until the witness had answered the question before making his objection, the trial court will not be put in error for its failure to exclude the *testimony.*—Dowling *v. State,*151 Ala. 131, 44 South. 403; *L. & N. R. Co. v. Butler,*1 Ala. App. 279, 55 South. 262.

There were some other objections to the admission by the trial court of certain evidence, but the objections were patently without merit, and we will not discuss them.

There was no error in the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8406

TOMMY BURGESS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

MCKITHER BODISON, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(4:08-cv-02477-HFF) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM OPINION. 

Tommy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Tommy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### LOUIS H. EBERLEIN v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls. 466; 257 U. S. 82.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided :

E, having been removed by the Secretary of the Treasury from a place in the customs service after due hearing upon charges, *591was later reinstated by tbe same authority, pursuant to an order of the President based on further investigations and findings that the charges were not just.

*Held:*(1) That the removal was an act of discretion not subject to revision by the court.

(2) That the power of appointment and removal in the case was constitutionally lodged in the Secretary of the Treasury; the president’s order could not and was not intended to operate as a reinstatement, but merely restored E’s eligibility to appointment.

(3) E had no claim to the salary between the dates of his removal and his reinstatement by the Secretary.

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November *1,*1921.