alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home2024 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Lord, Peter W – The Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau – March 2024

# 									Lord, Peter W – The Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau – March 2024							

Certificate of Competency

March 20, 2024

UNITED STATES SENATE

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

POST: The Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau

CANDIDATE: Peter W. Lord

Peter W. Lord, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor, currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Africa, Sudan, and South Sudan in the Bureau of African Affairs at the Department of State. Prior to this assignment he served as the Director of the Office of Southern African Affairs. Previously, he was Deputy Chief of Mission at Embassy Windhoek, Namibia. Earlier assignments include Deputy Director of the Office of East African Affairs; Deputy Political Counselor at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Lord’s extensive knowledge of Africa and demonstrated ability to lead large interagency teams, coupled with over twenty years of broad diplomatic experience, make him a well-qualified candidate for Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and Republic of Guinea-Bissau.

Lord’s other diplomatic assignments include Malawi, Syria, Iraq and the United Kingdom. He also served as the State Department’s Cullom Davis Foreign Service Fellow at Columbia University and participated in the Transatlantic Diplomatic Fellowship on exchange to the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A native of Florida, Lord holds a B.A. in philosophy and French literature from Furman University and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College. He is the recipient of numerous State Department performance awards. He speaks French and some Arabic.

Back to Top
April 30, 2013

Mr. David L. Potts

131 Llanfair Lane NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663

Dear Mr. Potts:

This letter is in response to your September 1 8 and November 29, 2012 submissions to the public docket (No. FAA

- 2012

- 1024) in which you petition the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for exemption from § 21.191(i)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . The relief you seek would enable you to obtain an experimental certificate for the purpose of operating a light

- sport aircraft for your Buc keye Dream Machine powered parachute even though your aircraft has previously been issued a U.S. airworthiness certificate and the January 31, 2008 cutoff date for the issuance of these experimental certificates has passed.

We are unable to process your request because the additional information you submitted does not address the requirements of 14 CFR § 11.81(d) and (e). Specifically, you have not addressed the reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is how it

would benef it the public as a whole and why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

Section 21.191(i) specifies the eligibility requirements for issuing an airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of operating a light

- sport aircraft. G ranting your request would be contrary to the specified intent of th at section as set forth in the final rule, Certif ication of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light

- Sport Aircraft (69 FR 44772 ; July 27, 2004 and 69 FR 53335; September 1, 2004 ). This section was promulgated to provide a means for persons operating ultralight

- like aircraft that d id not meet the provisions

of 14 CFR § 103.1 to obtain airworthiness certification for previously non

- certificated aircraft. Section 21.191(i)(1) specifically allowed experimental certificates to be issued for existing aircraft that exceeded the weight, occupant, or perf ormance limitations of § 103.1 provided the aircraft had not previously been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate

and the certificate was issued on or before January 31, 2008. The date was established to provide applicants with sufficient ti me to register their aircraft and take those actions necessary to obtain an initial experimental certificate.2

The FAA notes that an ultralight

- like aircraft that has not been issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191(i)(1) may still be issued an experimental certificate for other

purposes under other paragraphs of § 21.191 (e.g., exhibition ) provided the applicable provisions of those paragraphs are met. A person operating an aircraft issued such a certificate would also be required to comply wi th any operating limitations issued with that

certificate.

You have not provided a compelling safety argument nor adequately explained how an exemption would be in the public interest. Therefore, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerel y,

/s/

Frank P. Pask iewicz Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification

Service
U.S. SmallBusiness Administration

----
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...First Meeting of Artemis Accords Signatories

# 									First Meeting of Artemis Accords Signatories							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

September 19, 2022

On Monday, September 19, 2022, representatives of Artemis Accords signatory nations met at the International Astronautical Congress in Paris for the first in-person meeting since the launch of the Accords. At an event co-hosted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Agência Espacial Brasileira (AEB) of Brazil, and the Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES) of France, signatories discussed next steps in assuring the safe and responsible exploration of space.

The Artemis Accords, which are grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, establish a common framework to guide responsible space exploration. The Accords’ principles reflect the signatories’ mutual dedication to the responsible and sustainable exploration and utilization of space.

The Department of State, which co-leads the Artemis Accords for the United States together with NASA, was represented by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Jennifer R. Littlejohn. PDAS Littlejohn highlighted the diversity of signatories in their space capabilities and interests and encouraged all spacefaring nations to sign the Accords. Noting NASA’s objective to land the first female and the first person of color on the Moon, she emphasized that both our space missions and our space diplomacy efforts must fully represent the people of the United States. Diversity is essential for U.S. space objectives as outlined in the United States Space Priorities Framework and the Interagency Roadmap to Support Space-Related STEM Education and Workforce.

Launched by eight nations on October 13, 2020, 21 countries have now signed the Accords: Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Together, we are working to increase the predictability, transparency, safety, and sustainability of human space exploration, and to ensure space exploration is carried out for the benefit of all countries and of all humankind. For media inquiries, please contact OES-PA-DG@state.gov.

Tags

Artemis AccordsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSpace

Back to Top
#### McKeon *v.*King.

Where the petition of a landlord to recover possession of the demised property under the act of 1830 sets out the facts necessary to give the magistrates jurisdiction, and their inquest recites that they found these facts to be true, it is sufficient, though the facts found are not otherwise stated in the inquest.

A sheriff’s vendee of the landlord’s title is within the act.

A bill of exceptions cannot be taken in such proceedings.

In error from the Common Pleas of Allegheny.

The plaintiff was the sheriff’s vendee of the title of defendant’s landlord. The petition presented by him to two justices, set out the demise to defendant, the sale to plaintiff, that the rent was in arrear, &c. The inquests recited this petition, and found “that the particulars of the complaint were just and true.” Objections were taken to certain witnesses, and the proceedings were affirmed by the court.

*Mellon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dunlop,*contó.

*Sept.*23.

Gibson, C. J.

The statute expressly gives jurisdiction of a case like the present; and policy requires that the proceedings be not too nicely scanned as to form. The plaint and inquisition before us wouldj however, stand the test of a severe scrutiny even as to that. True, it is not detailed in the inquisition, which is the material part of it, that the complainant had demised *214the premises for years to a person from whom the complainant derives title, that rent was in arrear, and that there was not sufficient unprivileged property on the premises to answer a distress for it: but the plaint contains explicit averments of these several facts, and they are generally found in the inquisition, to be “in all particulars just and true.” They might have been found directly and specially; but surely enough was found by a tribunal of laymen, without the tautology of repeating them. As to the fact that the lease was not made directly by the complainant, it is entirely clear that an assignee is entitled to the remedy. The exceptions to evidence were out of place; for there is no such thing at common law, and the statute extends no further than to courts of record.

Judgment affirmed.
41301.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANSLEY.

Russell, Judge.

A decision of an appellate court based on evidence adduced on the trial of a case becomes the law of the case as to the effect of the same or substantially identical facts on another trial. *Scott v. Sanders,*27 Ga. App. 128 (107 SE 494); *New York Life Ins. Co. v. Ittner,*62 Ga. App. 31 (8 SE2d 582); *Beale v. Grimsley,*105 Ga. App. 733 (125 SE2d 554). Under the decision on the first appearance of this case (s.c., 107 Ga. App. 586, 130 SE2d 808) it was adjudicated that the assignment contract and the 61 receipts signed by an insurance salesman for advances made against earned premiums “is subject only to the construction that it effectuated express promises by the agent to repay to the company any excess of advances over the commissions earned.”

On the second trial it appeared that Fowler, manager of the plaintiff’s agency in Atlanta prepared the assignment contract and the defendant signed it, as the defendant testified, on or before he went to work with the company. Fowler stated, “It had been authorized in Hartford. I could only prepare the file and send it to Hartford with recommendation that *785advance be made. I had no authority to make it myself . . . Mr. Ansley was told that ... I would recommend that an advance be made to him.” Subsequently, 61 advances were made and on each occasion the defendant gave a receipt agreeing to repay the unpaid balance on demand. The court again entered judgment in favor of the defendant, for the reasons (1) that the promise contained in the receipts was *nudum factum,*and (2) that Fowler, the plaintiff’s local agent, had no authority to execute the agreement and obtain, the receipts except upon authorization from the home office. The first of these issues was decided against the plaintiff on the former trial. As to the second, Fowler did have authority from the home office to make advances, the advances were made by him and the home office ratified the ensuing contracts by suing on them. *Wilson v. Ward,*149 Ga. 325, 329 (100 SE 205). One acts as agent for another whenever the principal ratifies the acts done on his behalf. *Code*§ 4-101. Since it has been held by this court that the receipts constituted a valid modification of the original contract, and since, whether or not Fowler had authority from the plaintiff in the first instance, the plaintiff ratified the act by suing on the express promises to repay on demand, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in whatever amount the evidence showed to be owing on the advances made.

Submitted May 3, 1965

Decided May 27, 1965

Rehearing denied June 8, 1965.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, James H. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. T. Hendon, Jr.,*contra.

The trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
§ 493.859 Standard; ABO group and D (Rho) typing. ( a ) Failure to attain a score of at least 100 percent of acceptable responses for each analyte or test in each testing event is unsatisfactory analyte performance for the testing event.
( b ) Failure to attain an overall testing event score of at least 100 percent is unsatisfactory performance.
( c ) Failure to participate in a testing event is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event. Consideration may be given to those laboratories failing to participate in a testing event only if— ( 1 ) Patient testing was suspended during the time frame allotted for testing and reporting proficiency testing results;
( 2 ) The laboratory notifies the inspecting agency and the proficiency testing program within the time frame for submitting proficiency testing results of the suspension of patient testing and the circumstances associated with failure to perform tests on proficiency testing samples; and
( 3 ) The laboratory participated in the previous two proficiency testing events.
( d ) Failure to return proficiency testing results to the proficiency testing program within the time frame specified by the program is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event.
( e ) ( 1 ) For any unsatisfactory testing event for reasons other than a failure to participate, the laboratory must undertake appropriate training and employ the technical assistance necessary to correct problems associated with a proficiency testing failure.
( 2 ) For any unacceptable analyte or unsatisfactory testing event score, remedial action must be taken and documented, and the documentation must be maintained by the laboratory for two years from the date of participation in the proficiency testing event.
( f ) Failure to achieve satisfactory performance for the same analyte in two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
( g ) Failure to achieve an overall testing event score of satisfactory for two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
#### Ex Parte Rickey Lee BROWN. (Re: Rickey Lee BROWN v. STATE of Alabama).

80-103.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 30, 1981.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, EM-BRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.110 Participation by Indian Health Service facilities. ( a ) *Basis.* This section is based on section 1902(a)(4) of the Act, proper and efficient administration; 1902(a)(23), free choice of provider; and 1911, reimbursement of Indian Health Service facilities.
( b ) *State plan requirements.* A State plan must provide that an Indian Health Service facility meeting State requirements for Medicaid participation must be accepted as a Medicaid provider on the same basis as any other qualified provider. However, when State licensure is normally required, the facility need not obtain a license but must meet all applicable standards for licensure. In determining whether a facility meets these standards, a Medicaid agency or State licensing authority may not take into account an absence of licensure of any staff member of the facility.
#### KENNETH R. MILLER *v.*ALFRED J. ONORATO ET AL.

*Alexander Scheirer,*in support of the petition.

*Patrick M. Noonan,*in opposition.

Decided February 4, 1997

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 16142) is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3367 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3367

    To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to 
    increase the number of States that may participate in the State 
       infrastructure bank pilot program authorized by that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 1996

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to 
    increase the number of States that may participate in the State 
       infrastructure bank pilot program authorized by that Act.

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

SECTION 1. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 350(a)(1) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 109 Stat. 619) is amended by striking ``10 
States'' and inserting ``20 States''.
                                 <all>
```
Home2013 Treaties and Agreements...Japan (13-1008) – Agreement on Space Cooperation

# 									Japan (13-1008) – Agreement on Space Cooperation							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

October 8, 2013

Space Cooperation: X-Ray Astronomy Satellite (ASTRO-H) Project

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at Washington October 8, 2013; entered into force October 8, 2013.  With memorandum of understanding.
Download attachment						 [2 MB]

Tags

JapanSpaceTreaties

Back to Top
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                     APACHE OFFSHORE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
                     BY APACHE CORPORATION, GENERAL PARTNER

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      I, G. Steven Farris, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and
that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.

/s/ G. Steven Farris
-------------------------------
By: G. Steven Farris
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
       and Chief Operating Officer of
       Apache Corporation, General Partner

      I, Roger B. Plank, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and
that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.

/s/ Roger B. Plank
-----------------------------
By: Roger B. Plank
Title: Executive Vice President
       and Chief Financial Officer of
       Apache Corporation, General Partner
Sunday, March 06, 2016

Petition for Exemption

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

800 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

Mr. Roberts.

I received your letter and will try to expand on the criteria of:

 How it would benefit the public as a whole.

1. Dillingham Airfield is an historic site. Established in the 1920’s for the Army, it was later

improved to accommodate P-40’s & B-29’s. The airfield operates in a deficit every year. 

Increasing skydiving operations and landing fees will help offset that deficit.

2. The skydiving businesses are some of the largest employers on the North Shore of Oahu.

3. It is the only place to skydive on Oahu.

4. Tourist travel to the Hawaiian Islands from all over the world to participate in adventure 

sports and skydiving over the island is a big attraction. Having to turn away hundreds of 

tourists a month because the weather is not perfectly clear to jump is a true hardship to 

them. They can’t understand why jumping is not allowed when they’re looking up 

through their sunglasses at few broken clouds. 

5. It would benefit the local farmers and house ranches in the area by preventing many off 

airport landings.

6. Enabling more efficient use of the airspace will reduce noise pollution and the carbon 

footprint of each jump operation. 

7. The majority of our guests are vacationing on Oahu from all over the world and they have 

their activities planned out in advance. Every extra hour they spend at our facility waiting 

for conditions to clear is revenue taken from the vendors of the next activities they have 

planned. Our delays have a rippling effect on the general economy. 

8. During each parachute flight with our customers we are educating them as to the fragile 

nature of the ocean ecology. We send over 40,000 tourists back to the beach with a better 

understanding of how not to damage the delicate ecosystem.

Thank you for giving us the time to consider our request.

Sincerely,

Randy Pacheco

68-615 Farrington Hwy. 14A

Waialua, HI 96791

(916) 765-6516 emailrandypacheco@yahoo.com

ATP # 3134763 other pilots to be added later:
HomeNew START Treaty: Fact Sheets...New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms

# 									New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms							

Fact Sheet

Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability

December 1, 2020

						Download Fact Sheet												[64 KB]

(Data in this Fact Sheet comes from the biannual exchange of data required by the Treaty.  It contains data declared current as of September 1, 2020.  Data will be updated each six month period after entry into force of the Treaty.)1

## United States of America Data

Effective Date: September 1, 2020

 

----

1The complete unclassified data for the United States is available upon request from the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Please contact AVC Press.

Tags

Arms Control and NonproliferationBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityNew START TreatyNuclear NonproliferationNuclear WeaponsRussiaTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 423.2130 Effect of the Council's decision.

The Council's decision is final and binding unless a Federal District Court issues a decision modifying the Council's decision or the decision is revised as the result of a reopening in accordance with § 423.1980. An enrollee may file an action in a Federal District Court within 60 calendar days after the date the enrollee receives written notice of the Council's decision.

[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5139, Jan. 17, 2017]