alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elvert C. CRUCE v. DEMARCO CONCRETE AND BLOCK COMPANY and State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations.

Civ. 2047.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 6, 1980.

Henry E. Lagman, of Joel C. Watson, Birmingham, for appellant.

George Cocoris, Gen. Counsel and Frank D. Marsh, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept, of Industrial Relations, Montgomery, for appel-lee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Claimant Cruce was denied unemployment compensation benefits by the Board of Appeals for the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). He filed an appeal pursuant to § 25-4-95, Code of Alabama (1975) in Shelby County Circuit Court on January 25, 1977. Upon testimony by the claimant at trial that he was a resident of Jefferson County at the time the appeal was filed in Shelby County the trial court ordered the case transferred to Jefferson County Circuit Court.

On May 14, 1979, DIR filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction of the appeal because claimant had not complied with the requirements of § 25 — 4—95. Specifically, the appeal was not filed “within 10 days after the decision of the board of appeals has become final, ... in the circuit court of the county of the residence of the claimant . . . .” The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on May 30, 1979. Claimant appeals from the order granting the motion to dismiss.

Claimant argues that the provision in § 25 — 4-95 requiring that an appeal from a decision of the board of appeals be filed in the circuit court of the county of the residence of the claimant is a venue requirement which was waived by DIR when it failed to plead improper venue before trial. This court has responded to that argument in *Director of the State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations*v. *Nolin,*374 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). In *Nolin*we held that the requirements of § 25-4-95 are *901jurisdictional and require dismissal of an appeal when it is filed in the wrong county. Rule 82(d) ARCP, relating to venue is not applicable. We find *Nolin*to be dispositive of the issue here.

Claimant contends for the first time on appeal that § 25 — 4-95 is unconstitutional in that it denies equal protection to resident claimants. It has long been the practice of our courts to refuse to hear an attack on the constitutionality of a statute when it is not raised in a timely manner before the trial court. *Caylor v. Caylor,*344 So.2d 173 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). A careful review of the record before us discloses that this issue was not raised before the court below and we will not allow a party to raise such an issue for the first time on appeal. *Dale v. Dale,*54 Ala.App. 505, 310 So.2d 225 (1975).

The order of the trial court dismissing claimant’s appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
# C_2006121EN.01001602.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/16

---

Action brought on 4 April 2006 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-102/06)

(2006/C 121/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005;

| — | declaration under Article 241 EC that points B.12 and C.2 of Datasheet No 19 annexed to Commission Decision 97/322/EC of 23 April 1997 are unlawful and inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

declaration under Article 241 EC that points B.12 and C.2 of Datasheet No 19 annexed to Commission Decision 97/322/EC of 23 April 1997 are unlawful and inapplicable;

| — | order that the Commission pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled on grounds similar to those put forward in Case T-418/05 Investire Partecipazioni v Commission (OJ C 22 of 28.1.06, p. 21).

Investire Partecipazioni

Commission

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         742,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,035,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    770,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,079,077
<PP&E>                                         471,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,726,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,321,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,777
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,755,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,726,664
<SALES>                                     10,748,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,748,893
<CGS>                                        6,606,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,606,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,103,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                975,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                   406,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            569,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   569,683
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
```

[107th Congress Public Law 65]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ065.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 484]]

Public Law 107-65
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
  Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential 
 addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
             purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 6, 2001 -  [H.R. 182]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Eightmile River Wild and 
Scenic River Study Act of 2001. 16 USC 1271 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River 
Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut 
        possesses important resource values, including wildlife, 
        ecological, and scenic values, and historic sites and a cultural 
        past important to America's heritage;
            (2) there is strong support among State and local officials, 
        area residents, and river users for a cooperative wild and 
        scenic river study of the area; and
            (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local 
        officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a 
        concerted cooperative effort to manage the river in a productive 
        and meaningful way.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

    Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(138) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The segment from its 
headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut River.''.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

    Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut, named in 
paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be completed by the Secretary of 
the Interior and the report thereon submitted to Congress not later than 
3 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.

[[Page 115 STAT. 485]]

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

    Approved November 6, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 182:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-36 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-75 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            May 1, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 56.703 Project elements. A project for the provision of technical assistance to migrant health centers and entities which intend to become migrant health centers which is supported under this subpart must: ( a ) Provide to such centers and entities as are specified in the grant award, such technical and other nonfinancial assistance (such as fiscal and program management assistance or training of the staff of such center or entity in such management) as may be specified in the grant award. Such technical or other nonfinancial assistance shall be designed to assist such centers and entities in: ( 1 ) Developing plans for becoming migrant centers; and/or
( 2 ) Meeting the requirements of sections 319(f)(2) of the Act.
( b ) Provide such assistance through its own staff or resources.
( c ) Where the project will provide training to the staff of a center or entity in management or the provision of health services, provide such training consistent, as applicable, with § 56.108(b)(7).
( d ) Maintain such records and make such reports on the expenditure of funds under this subpart and provision of such assistance as the Secretary may require.
41229.

#### BROWN v. JOHNSON et al.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff in this automobile negligence action assigns error on the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer of one of the co-defendants.

The petition alleged: The plaintiff’s automobile was parked facing south at the west curb on the street in front of her home. An agent of the defendant Platt's Funeral Home was driving this defendant’s ambulance along the street traveling south. The defendant Johnson was drunk and was driving an automobile traveling north. The Johnson automobile jumped the east curb' and ran the curb for a distance of approximately 127 feet and then re-entered the street, crossed the north-bound traffic lane, crossed the center line and struck the left side of the ambulance as it was attempting to pass the plaintiff’s parked automobile, and the right rear of the ambulance struck the left side of the plaintiff’s automobile. Johnson was negligent in driving while intoxicated, speeding, and failing to control his automobile. The negligence alleged against Platt was *.*. not keeping sufficient lookout ahead and in not keeping its ambulance under such control so as to have been *377able to stop without striking plaintiff’s automobile when the driver of the ambulance discovered or in the exercise of ordinary care could have observed defendant Johnson’s automobile coming over the center line and endangering defendant Platt’s unobstructed passage between the center line and plaintiff’s parked automobile.” *Held:*

Decided March 19, 1965.

*O. L. Collins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, William C. Reed,*contra.

The alleged negligence of Platt’s driver consisted merely in the failure to stop so as to avoid the consequences of the active negligence of Johnson. Whether Platt’s driver was negligent or not depends upon whether or not, by exercising ordinary care, he should have seen that the active negligence of Johnson was such that unless he did something to avoid it there would be a collision involving the plaintiff’s car. This petition presents an issue of fact upon which fair minded men could differ that Platt’s driver in the exercise of ordinary care in observing approaching vehicles could have anticipated the course of Johnson’s vehicle and upon becoming aware of the danger could have taken action to avoid colliding with the plaintiff’s automobile. *Buice v. Atlanta Transit System, Inc.,*105 Ga. App. 795, 797 (125 SE2d 795); accord *Lusk v. Smith,*110 Ga. App. 36, 40 (137 SE2d 734). The case of *Pfeifer v. Yellow Cab Co. of Atlanta,*88 Ga. App. 221 (76 SE2d 225), where the facts alleged in the petition did not create an issue that one defendant should have anticipated that a co-defendant wo.uld collide with another vehicle, is not controlling in the present case.

The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – May 6, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – May 6, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

May 5, 2021

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

 

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to London, United Kingdom and Kyiv, Ukraine from May 3-6, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**9:20 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Members of the Ukrainian Rada, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**9:40 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP FOR REMARKS)**

**10:10 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a Donbas Conflict Memorial Flower Laying with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and Metropolitan Epiphaniy, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**10:20 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken tours St. Michael’s Monastery with Metropolitan Epiphaniy, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**10:45 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**11:55 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds in a joint press availability with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**12:30 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP FOR REMARKS)**

**3:25 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a virtual Reform/Anti-Corruption Roundtable, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP FOR OPENING REMARKS)**

**4:15 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken participates in a virtual U.S. Embassy Kyiv Meet and Greet, in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP FOR OPENING REMARKS)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**Deputy Secretary Sherman attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

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

Under Secretary Nuland accompanies Secretary Blinken to London, United Kingdom, and Kyiv, Ukraine, from May 5-6, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY****FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS PHILIP T. REEKER**

Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker accompanies Secretary Blinken to London, United Kingdom, and Kyiv, Ukraine, from May 3-6, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
HomeStatus Lists for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...Private International Law Status Lists

# 						Private International Law Status Lists					

1 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year1973

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypeDepositary – Treaty Affairs

          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		Convention Providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will, done at Washington October 26, 1973	   

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 422.1014 Charge for transcripts.

A party that requests a transcript of prehearing or hearing proceedings or Board review must pay the actual or estimated cost of preparing the transcript unless, for good cause shown by that party, the payment is waived by the ALJ or the Departmental Appeals Board, as appropriate.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 180 (Friday, September 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47933-47934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22657]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting roundtable discussion.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. (EST).

PLACE: Kellogg Conference Center, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida 
Ave., NE., Washington, DC 20002. (202) 651-6000.

AGENDA: The Commission will host a roundtable discussion regarding 
research, development and implementation of technologies and other 
assistance to make voting more accessible. Panelists at the roundtable 
will help to inform the Commission regarding the types of research that 
should be supported through the Accessible Voting Technology Initiative 
(AVTI). The AVTI is a competitive grant program that will fund research 
and technology adoption to make voting systems (including paper 
ballots) more accessible to all voters and make the entire election 
process more welcoming and accessible to individuals with disabilities. 
Competitive grants for this initiative will be issued under the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002 and funded by the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8). The Commission is currently 
accepting comments on the plan for development of a notice of funding 
announcement here: http://www.eac.gov/program-

[[Page 47934]]

areas/grants/eac-seeks-input-on-voting-system-verification-and-
technology-grants.
    Members of the public may observe but not participate in EAC 
meetings unless this notice provides otherwise. Members of the public 
may use small electronic audio recording devices to record the 
proceedings. The use of other recording equipment and cameras requires 
advance notice to and coordination with the Commission's Communications 
Office.*
    *View EAC Regulations Implementing Government in the Sunshine Act.
    This meeting will be open to the public.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mark Abbott, Telephone: (202) 566-
3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-22657 Filed 9-16-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. DeMarco, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Peoples Educational
Holdings, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2004

/s/ Michael L. DeMarco
------------------------
Michael L. DeMarco,
Chief Financial Officer
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-10-84 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 20
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-10-84 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-10-84 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-10-84 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 20
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

 for PMN P-10-84 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 20
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 20
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 20
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 20
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 20
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

 for PMN P-10-84 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 20
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 20
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 20
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 20
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

 for PMN P-10-84 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 20
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 20