alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,592,163
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                        62,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,104,263
<PP&E>                                         38,297,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,549,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 44,954,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,594,710
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                           38,741
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   44,954,898
<SALES>                                         7,641,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,641,911
<CGS>                                             338,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,865,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,367,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (590,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,337,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,337,716)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.015)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.015)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jonathan I. Schwartz, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Sun Microsystems, Inc.; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report on Form 10-K/A 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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 6, 2009



/s/    JONATHAN I.
SCHWARTZJonathan I. SchwartzChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          9
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,902
<PP&E>                                           1,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,084
<COMMON>                                           422
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,212
<SALES>                                            482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   662
<CGS>                                              332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)


</TABLE>
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...Multilateral (20-629) – Air Transport Agreement

# 									Multilateral (20-629) – Air Transport Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

June 29, 2020

Transportation: Aviation Transport Services

Signed at Brussels and Washington April 25 and 30, 2007; entered into force June 29, 2020.

With Annexes and Joint Declaration.
Download Agreement						 [48 MB]

Tags

Air Transport AgreementsEuropean UnionTransportationTreaties

Back to Top
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Sept. 28, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10328

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A098-736-431

MARIA CLAUDIA FLOREZ ORDONEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(September 28, 2009)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Maria Claudia Florez Ordonez, a citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reconsider, 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of

discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). After

the BIA has affirmed an IJ’s order of removal, an alien may seek reconsideration

on the ground that the BIA has made a legal or factual error. 8 U.S.C.

§1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). “A motion to reconsider shall state the

reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA]

decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);

see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). A motion to reconsider that merely restates the

arguments the BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to change

its prior decision. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. “Therefore, merely reiterating

arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . .

errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (citing

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).

Florez merely reiterates her previous arguments the BIA considered. She

does not specify any “errors of fact or law” that would necessitate the granting of

her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion by denying Florez’s motion to reconsider, and we deny this portion of

her petition. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329.

2
Additionally, we lack jurisdiction to review Florez’s underlying motion to

reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later

than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”). The BIA denied

Florez’s motion to reopen on September 15, 2008. On October 15, 2008, she filed

a motion to reconsider with the BIA, and, on January 22, 2009, petitioned this

Court for review of the BIA’s December 23, 2008 order denying the motion to

reconsider. The filing of a motion to reconsider “does not toll the time to petition

for review.” Stone v. INS, 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1544 (1995). Therefore, we dismiss

Florez’s petition to the extent she attacks the BIA’s findings denying the

underlying motion to reopen.

PETITION DENIED as to the Motion to Reconsider, and DISMISSED

as to the Motion to Reopen.

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6743]

                    In a                     **Federal Register**                     notice dated September 9, 2009 (74 FR 46476), the Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) announced a meeting to be held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, in Room 1422 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice corrects the title and the agenda only. This is a meeting of the advisory committee. The corrected agenda follows.                

The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the ninety-sixth Session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Legal Committee (LEG) to be held be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, from October 5 to October 9, 2009.

The primary matters to be considered include:

—Provision of financial security;

—Fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident;

—International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution; Damage, 2001: implementation of the Convention;

—Piracy: review of national legislation;

—Matters arising from the one hundred and second regular session of the Council;

—Technical co-operation activities related to maritime legislation;

—Review of the status of conventions and other treaty instruments adopted as a result of the work of the Legal Committee;

—Work programme.

Instructions to members of the public wishing to attend this meeting were included in the original Notice.

                    Additional information regarding this and other IMO SHC public meetings may be found at:                    *http://www.uscg.mil/​hq/​cg5/​imo*.                

Dated: September 10, 2009.

J. Trent Warner,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-22310 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


      I, Keith Brackpool, herby certify that, to my
knowledge, that:

      1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Cadiz Inc. for the period ended ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Cadiz Inc.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Statement as of the date first written above.

Dated: May 16, 2005


                              /s/ Keith Brackpool
                              ----------------------------------
                              Keith Brackpool
                              Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer
§ 493.555 Federal review of laboratory requirements. CMS's review of an accreditation organization or State licensure program includes, but is not limited to, an evaluation of the following: ( a ) Whether the organization's or State's requirements for laboratories are equal to, or more stringent than, the condition-level requirements for laboratories.
( b ) The organization's or State's inspection process to determine the comparability of the full inspection and complaint inspection procedures and requirements to those of CMS, including, but not limited to, inspection frequency and the ability to investigate and respond to complaints against its laboratories.
( c ) The organization's or State's agreement with CMS that requires it to do the following: ( 1 ) Notify CMS within 30 days of the action taken, of any laboratory that has— ( i ) Had its accreditation or licensure suspended, withdrawn, revoked, or limited;
( ii ) In any way been sanctioned; or
( iii ) Had any adverse action taken against it.
( 2 ) Notify CMS within 10 days of any deficiency identified in an accredited or CLIA-exempt laboratory if the deficiency poses an immediate jeopardy to the laboratory's patients or a hazard to the general public.
( 3 ) Notify CMS, within 30 days, of all newly— ( i ) Accredited laboratories (or laboratories whose areas of specialty/subspecialty testing have changed); or
( ii ) Licensed laboratories, including the specialty/subspecialty areas of testing.
( 4 ) Notify each accredited or licensed laboratory within 10 days of CMS's withdrawal of the organization's deeming authority or State's exemption.
( 5 ) Provide CMS with inspection schedules, as requested, for validation purposes.
( 6 ) Notify CMS within 10 days of any conditional level deficiency under §§ 493.41 or 493.1100(a).
[63 FR 26732, May 14, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 54873, Sept. 2, 2020]
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT****TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Sabine Royalty Trust(the “Trust”) onForm 10-K for theannual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, not in its individualcapacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to itsknowledge:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Trust.     BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR     SABINE ROYALTY TRUST By:     /s/ Ron E. Hooper       Ron E. Hooper,     Senior Vice President, Royalty ManagementDate: March 15, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JOHN ROSACCI, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF CONROY RANDO, DECEASED, AND JOHN ROSACCI, GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CONROY RANDO, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided October 16, 1939.

*358For the plaintiff-appellant, *Irvin M.*Lichtenstein, *John R. DiMona*and *George G. Tartar.*

For the defendant-respondent, *John A.*Hartpence, *Thorn Lord*and *Marie Townsend.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment of nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The action was brought by the administrator *ad prosequendum*of the deceased under the Death act and also as his general administrator. There was evidence for the jury tending to show that the deceased, a young and vigorous man, died of silicosis poisoning. The building in which he worked was a wooden structure with a dirt floor. No provision whatever was made for ventilating the same nor were there any exhaust fans. He had been in the defendant’s employ for sometime and was engaged in rendering services in connction with the lining of pipes with a mixture of cement and sand. The mixing machine, from which the concrete to be placed in the pipes was made, was in the building where he worked, and the proofs indicate that the place of work was excessively dusty. Both the cement and sand were there sieved before being placed in the mixer and the air containing a concentrate of dangerous dust was ever present.

The basis of the action was the failure of the employer to use reasonable care to provide the deceased with a reasonably safe place in which to perform his work, and in the failure to give him warning of latent danger. Death from silicosis caused by dust laden air in the place of work is a well recog*359nized fact. Proofs of the failure to make any reasonable provision for the protection of workmen in such dangerous places and the failure to exercise any care whatsoever to eliminate the danger so far as reasonably practical presented a question for the jury’s determination. Under such circumstances the granting of a nonsuit was error. *Davis*v. *New Jersey Zinc Co.,*116 *N. J. L.*103.

*B. 8.*34:6-48 also provides as follows: “Every employer shall, without cost to his employes, provide reasonably effective devices, means and methods to prevent the contraction by them of any illness or disease incident to the work or process in which they are engaged.” This is no more than a restatement of the common law requirements.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— Parker, Case, Porter, Heteield, Wells, Hague, JJ. 6.

*For reversal*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Hehbr, Perskie, Dear, WolfsKeil, Eaffertt, JJ. 9.
Filed 10/22/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 179

Brian L. Sweeney, Plaintiff

v.

Dawn M. Kirby, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20130152

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven L. Marquart, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brian L. Sweeney, plaintiff; no appearance.

Vanessa Rose Berge, 808 3rd Avenue South, Suite 203, Fargo, ND 58103, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Sweeney v. Kirby

No. 20130152

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kirby appealed the order of the trial court denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child.  Kirby argues she provided sufficient evidence to grant her request to modify primary residential responsibility.  We hold the court’s determination that Kirby did not establish there had been a significant or material change in circumstances is not clearly erroneous, and we affirm the order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers
# Kyrgyzstan

96 items

        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Kyrgyz Republic Summary	   
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Kyrgyz Republic	  March 3, 2017 

previous page1…78910next page

Back to Top
§ 480.134 Verification and amendment of QIO information. ( a ) A QIO must verify the accuracy of its information concerning patients, practitioners, reviewers, and institutions and must permit the individual or institution to request an amendment of pertinent information that is in the possession of the QIO.
( b ) If the QIO agrees with the request for amendment, the QIO must correct the information in its possession. If the information being amended has already been disclosed, the QIO must forward the amended information to the requester where it may affect decisions about a particular provider, practitioner or case under review.
( c ) If the QIO disagrees with the request for amendment, a notation of the request, reasons for the request, and the reasons for refusal must be included with the information and attached to any disclosure of the information.
[50 FR 15358, Apr. 17, 1985; 50 FR 41887, Oct. 16, 1985. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999]
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

           The following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Registrant:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME                                     JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
         ----                                     -----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
Quarterdeck International Limited                 Ireland

Quarterdeck GmbH                                  West Germany

Quarterdeck  S.A.R.L.                             France

Quarterdeck U.K. Limited                          United Kingdom

Quarterdeck FSC, Ltd.                             U.S. Virgin Islands

Quarterdeck Australia                             Australia

   Pty Limited

Quarterdeck Select Corporation                    Florida

StarNine Technologies, Inc.                       California

Internetware, Inc.                                California

Datastorm Technologies, Inc.                      Missouri

Inset Labs, Inc.                                  Connecticut

Future Labs, Inc                                  California

Vertisoft Systems, Inc.                           California

Limbex Corporation                                California
</TABLE>


                                       72
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.124 Additional appeal rights under Medicare or Medicaid. A PACE organization must inform a participant in writing of his or her appeal rights under Medicare or Medicaid managed care, or both, assist the participant in choosing which to pursue if both are applicable, and forward the appeal to the appropriate external entity. ( a ) *Appeal rights under Medicare.* Medicare participants have the right to a reconsideration by an independent review entity. ( 1 ) A written request for reconsideration must be filed with the independent review entity within 60 calendar days from the date of the decision by the third party reviewer under § 460.122.
( 2 ) The independent outside entity must conduct the review as expeditiously as the participant's health condition requires but must not exceed the deadlines specified in the contract.
( 3 ) If the independent review entity conducts a reconsideration, the parties to the reconsideration are the same parties described in § 460.122(c)(2), with the addition of the PACE organization.
( b ) *Appeal rights under Medicaid.* Medicaid participants have the right to a State Fair Hearing as described in part 431, subpart E, of this chapter.
( c ) *Appeal rights for dual eligible participants.* Participants who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid have the right to external review by means of either the Independent Review Entity described in paragraph (a) of this section or the State Fair Hearing process described in paragraph (b) of this section.
[86 FR 6134, Jan. 19, 2021]