alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 483.366 Notification of parent(s) or legal guardian(s). If the resident is a minor as defined in this subpart: ( a ) The facility must notify the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of the resident who has been restrained or placed in seclusion as soon as possible after the initiation of each emergency safety intervention.
( b ) The facility must document in the resident's record that the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) has been notified of the emergency safety intervention, including the date and time of notification and the name of the staff person providing the notification.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Observance of the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

# 									Observance of the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

February 6, 2021

The United States in recent years has joined the international community on February 6 in observing the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). The United States remains committed to ending this egregious human rights abuse and supporting survivors of FGM/C, both at home and around the world.

According to the United Nations, more than four million women and girls are at risk of FGM/C globally each year, and the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have exacerbated the incidence of FGM/C due to economic drivers and loss of social protections. In this environment, it is more important than ever to renew our efforts to end FGM/C.

The United States recognizes that holding perpetrators accountable is essential both to punish human rights abusers and deter future instances of such abuse. That is why, on January 5, 2021, the United States signed into law the Strengthening the Opposition to Female Genital Mutilation Act (STOP FGM Act). This legislation strengthened the criminality of FGM/C and ensures that domestic violations of FGM/C can be prosecuted in federal court – and is one of the ways the United States can lead the world by example. Respect for women’s human rights is essential to sustained peace, prosperity, and security, and the United States will continue to work toward a future in which all women and girls are afforded enjoyment of their human rights.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborCrimeHuman RightsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceWomen's IssuesWomen's Rights

Back to Top
#### § 435.608 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 175 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 175

   To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Ms. Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN INDIA.

    Section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) is amended 
by inserting ``India,'' after ``Haiti,''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    In addition to any amounts otherwise available for such purpose, 
there is authorized to be appropriated to the President such sums as 
may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2008 to provide 
assistance to India pursuant to the United States Leadership Against 
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et 
seq.) and the amendments made by that Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 28, 2014

p0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

147953

STEPHEN PORTIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 147953

Wayne CC: 13-007243-AV

CITY OF TAYLOR and

MAYOR OF TAYLOR,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.
AAM-12-064-E November 16, 2011

Exemption No. 9963A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0991

Mr. Christopher J. Siderwicz

President The Mills Air Service, Inc.

1000 Race Lane Marstons Mills, MA 02648

Dear Mr. Siderwicz:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9963, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 15, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of The Mills Air Service, Inc. (MAS), for an extension of Exemption No. 9963, as amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows MAS to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Mills Air Service.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9963, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.2

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Mills Air Service are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Mills Air Service part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9963, as amended, to November 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
§ 493.25 Laboratories performing tests of high complexity. ( a ) A laboratory must obtain a certificate for tests of high complexity if it performs one or more tests that meet the criteria for tests of high complexity as specified in § 493.17(a).
( b ) A laboratory performing one or more tests of high complexity must meet the applicable requirements of subpart C or subpart D, and subparts F, H, J, K, M, and Q of this part.
( c ) If the laboratory also performs tests of moderate complexity, the applicable requirements of subparts H, J, K, M, and Q of this part must be met. Under a registration certificate or certificate of compliance, PPM procedures must meet the inspection requirements at §§ 493.1773 and 493.1777.
( d ) If the laboratory also performs waived tests, compliance with §§ 493.801(a) and 493.801(b)(7) and subparts J, K, and M of this part are not applicable to the waived tests. However, the laboratory must comply with the requirements in §§ 493.15(e), 493.801(b)(1) through (6), 493.1771, 493.1773, and 493.1775.
[57 FR 7139, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 20044, Apr. 24, 1995; 68 FR 3702, Jan. 24, 2003; 68 FR 50723, Aug. 22, 2003; 87 FR 41232, July 11, 2022]
#### PLACID OIL COMPANY v. Watson TAYLOR et al.

No. 56597.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 11, 1975.

In re: Mrs. Betty Beason applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the court of appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchi-toches. 313 So.2d 626.

Granted. Applicant is entitled to rear-gument in the court of appeal under the provision of Art. 5 § 8, Const. 1974. The Court of Appeal’s denial of rehearing (of June 18, 1975) is vacated, and the matter remanded to the Court of Appeal for rear-gument before a 5 judge panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,321,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,321,723
<PP&E>                                      22,395,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,848,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,868,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          983,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,885,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,868,761
<SALES>                                     22,173,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,315,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,343,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,972,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                20,972,323
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3572 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 243
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3572

                          [Report No. 104-626]

 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 1996

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             June 18, 1996

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 243

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3572

                          [Report No. 104-626]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 18, 1996

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         108,388
<SECURITIES>                                   948,156
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,520
<INVENTORY>                                    863,632
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,164,668
<PP&E>                                       1,532,072
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,011,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,695,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,341
<BONDS>                                          9,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,768
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,488,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,695,291
<SALES>                                        517,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,520,720
<CGS>                                          220,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  498,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,002,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,002,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,002,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-22508]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9952-03-Region 6]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of 
Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal 
Implementation Plan

Correction

    In rule document 2016-22508 beginning on page 66331 in the issue of 
Tuesday, September 27, 2016, make the following correction:
    1. On page 66332, in the first column, after the DATES heading, the 
second line, ``October 27, 2017'' should read ``October 27, 2016.''

[FR Doc. C1-2016-22508 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
```
#### ADCO SIGN COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. BEVELITE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 74-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 12, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Programs
- Regional Offices
- Notes and Notices
- Contact Us
- OFM COVID-19 Resources

HomeRegional Offices – Office of Foreign Missions...OFM New York – Regional Office

# 									OFM New York – Regional Office							

OFM New York provides reciprocal services to and liaises with the foreign consulates in the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
        -  NY-Specific Gasoline Tax Exemption 

#### CONTACT US:

OFM New York799 United Nations Plaza, 8th floorNew York, NY 10017Phone: (646) 282-2825E-Mail: OFMNewYork@state.gov

 

Tags

Embassies and ConsulatesForeign Consular Offices in the U.S.Foreign Diplomats in the U.S.Foreign Embassies in the U.S.Foreign Missions

Back to Top
#### PEPPAS CONTRACTOR AND DEVELOPER and Commercial Union Assurance Companies, Appellants, v. Robert AYERS, Appellee.

No. AB-227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 11, 1981.

*1288Ronnie K. Witlin, Miami, for appellants.

Jay M. Levy of Silver, Levy *&*Hershoff and R. Cory Schnepper, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal from a compensation order awarding claimant 30 percent permanent partial disability benefits based on a loss of wage earning capacity and refusing to grant the employer/carrier a credit for temporary total compensation paid by the employer/carrier after MMI. We affirm the award of compensation benefits and reverse the deputy commissioner’s disallowance of credit for the temporary total compensation paid after MMI.

In *Belam Florida Corporation*v. *Dardy,*397 So.2d 756, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), we held that an overpayment of compensation benefits may be applied as a credit against compensation found to be due in another class if a reasonable basis for the overpayment exists. In this case, the deputy disallowed the credit prior to this court’s decision in *Dardy,*supra. We, therefore, remand for a determination by the deputy of whether a reasonable basis for the overpayment exists. *University of West Florida v. Nall,*404 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7702

JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-136-6-20AK)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Alexander v. South Carolina, No. CA-97-136-6-20AK (D.S.C.

Oct. 27, 1997). 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
No. 99-707.

#### Hightower *v.*Kendall Co., an Unincorporated Division of TYCO International (US) Inc.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Long *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided Nov. 30, 1911.

57 South. 62.)

1. *Trial; Objections to Evidence; Time.*— Where the question eliciting the evidence is not objected to when asked, a motion to exclude the evidence comes too late after the question has been answered.

2. *Evidence; Res Gestate.*— A question as to what was said between deceased and a witness sometime after the difficulty was over and at a place other than where the difficulty occurred, was too remote and not of the res gestate.

3. *Trial; Argument of Counsel; Objection.*— Objection to an argument of the solicitor and motion to exclude same, must be made pending the trial, and before the jury has retired, otherwise they come too late.

Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Lum Duke.

Lee Long was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Barnes & Denson, for appellant.

The question to the witness Lucius Pope and his answer, thereto should have been *excluded.*— Watkins *v. The State,*89 Ala. *9782; *Fuller v. The State,*117 Ala. 86; *McKee v. The*State, 82 Ala. 32. The court should have sustained objection to the argument of the solicitor, and should have excluded *it.*— Dollar *v. The*State, 99 Ala. 236.

R. G. Bmckell, Attorney General, for the State.

WALKER, P. J.

From anything that appears from the bill of exceptions the statement of Lucius Pope, a wiitness for the state, that “I saw the place where the knife stabbed him,” may have been in response to a' question clearly seeking to elicit such a statement. It not appearing that the question calling for the statement was objected to, it cannot be said that the defendant was entitled to have his motion to exclude that statement sustained, conceding that the testimony would have been subject to objection duly interposed.

The court was not in error in sustaining the objection to the question of the defendant to his witness Blackmore: “What did you say to him, and he to you, at O’Grady’s store after the difficulty was over, about the knife in his hand?” What the witness may have said to the deceased some time after the difficulty, at a place other than that at which the difficulty occurred, clearly was not admissible over the objection duly interposed by the state to such evidence; nor was it made to appear that the statement of the deceased which was called for by the question was so connected in time and place with the difficulty to which it referred as to constitute it a part of the *res gestae*of the occurrence whicli was under investigation.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that the defendant's objection to, or his motion to exclude, a statement made by the solicitor in his closing argument to the jury was taken or reserved pending the *98trial, or before the *jury*bad retired to consider its verdict. For anything disclosed by the record both the objection and the motion to exclude may not have been made until after the jury had retired, and, if so, they were too *late*.—Donahoo *& Matthews v. Tarrant,*1 C. of App. 446; 55 So. Rep. 270; *Moore v. The State,*40 So. Rep. 345.

Affirmed.
yearIDsourceTypeIDsourceTypePopulation

2013 11 16618.04086 2013 21 436804.7808 2013 31 140235.5535 2013 32 46850.35515 2013 41 582.9733939 2013 42 294.3262679 2013 43 3933.131211 2013 51 207.7847794 2013 52 16492.65731 2013 53 2291.94151 2013 54 3860.910471 2013 61 3140.110164 2013 62 3974.484999