alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41652, 41653.

#### PARHAM v. THE STATE (two cases). HUDSON v. THE STATE.

41654.

Submitted November 2, 1965

Decided November 10, 1965.

*637
      *James 'E. Weldon, Ben B. Freeman,*for appellants.

*Wright Lip ford, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“While a defendant is entitled to be tried upon a perfect indictment or accusation, such right may be waived by failure to object until after conviction, and unless the accusation or indictment is so defective as to be absolutely void a motion in arrest of judgment, made after verdict, will not lie. *Lanier v. State,*5 Ga. App. 472 (63 SE 536); *Gravitt v. State,*36 Ga. App. 301 (136 SE 829).” *Davis v. State,*106 Ga. App. 133 (1) (126 SE2d 486). The failure of the indictment to allege the correct date of the alleged larceny would make it subject to demurrer *(Bailey v. State,*65 Ga. 410), but where no demurrer is filed and the case is tried, or plea is entered, such failure to allege the date of the alleged larceny will not subject the judgment to a motion in arrest. See *Adkins v. State,*103 Ga. 5 (29 SE 432); *Draper v. State,*6 Ga. App. 12, 15 (64 SE 117).

Accordingly, the indictments against Parham and Hudson were not subject to the motion in arrest for failure to allege the date of the alleged larceny, nor were the other alleged defects in the indictments (dealing with descriptions of the property allegedly stolen), such as to support a motion to arrest the judgment. The description was not so defective as to make the indictments absolutely void and the failure to demur to such allegations before pleading constituted a waiver of such defects.

The remaining ground of each motion in arrest is as follows: “That said indictments show that the defendant was not represented by an attorney, and he was not offered an attorney, *638which is illegal under the law of the State of Georgia and violated the constitutional rights of the defendant.”

Assuming, but not deciding, that the defendants were not represented by an attorney, and that the signature of the defendant waiving arraignment, and pleading guilty makes such fact apparent from the face of the record, it does not appear from the face of the record that the defendants were indigent, that they did not intelligently waive counsel, or that they were not offered counsel, or the opportunity of obtaining counsel if not indigent.

Accordingly, to establish the fact of whether the defendants’ constitutional rights were violated would requiré a hearing of evidence,' which procedure is not provided for in determining the' merits of a motion in arrest of judgment to determine what actually transpired on the trial of the cases. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Pippin v. State,*172 Ga. 224 (157 SE 185), the trial court did not err in overruling the motions in arrest of judgment since nothing appears on the “face of the record” that would invalidate in any way the judgments in such cases.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2140]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,342]


Hyosung (America), Inc.; American Steel Cord Including On-Site 
Leased Workers From CBS Personnel Services and EMS (Environmental 
Management Solutions, Inc.), Scottsburg, IN; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on November 20, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Hysung (America), Inc., American Steel Cord, including on-site leased 
workers from CBS Personnel Services, Scottsburg, Indiana. The notice 
was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
75135).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of steel tire cords.
    New information shows that workers leased from EMS (Environmental 
Management Solutions, Inc.) were employed on-site at the Scottsburg, 
Indiana location of Hyosung (America), Inc. The Department has 
determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of 
Hyosung (America), Inc. to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from EMS (Environmental 
Management Solutions, Inc.) working on-site at the Scottsburg, Indiana 
location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers employed at Hyosung (America), Inc., Scottsburg, Indiana who 
were adversely affected by increased imports following a shift in 
production of steel tire cords to China and South Korea.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,342 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Hyosung (America), Inc., American Steel Cord, 
including on-site leased workers of CBS Personnel Services and EMS 
(Environmental Management Solutions, Inc.), Scottsburg, Indiana, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
November 3, 2007 through November 20, 2010, are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of December 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-2140 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.30 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 Second Amendment (“Amendment”) made as of the 15th day of December, 2008 to the Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) dated as of August 25, 2005, as subsequently amended as of
November 1, 2007, by and between Boston Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Company”), and Peter D. Johnston (“Employee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement further
to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that this Amendment be deemed a modification and an amendment to the Employment Agreement. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
  
 1. Subparagraph
8(e)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting the penultimate sentence of clause (A) thereof and substituting therefor the following: 
  
 “The Severance Amount shall be paid in equal installments in accordance with the Company’s then payroll practice over a twelve (12) month
period beginning with the first payroll date that occurs at least thirty (30) days after the Date of Termination.” 
  
 2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms, and nothing contained
herein shall be deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing under the Employment Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for herein. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Company and by
Employee as of the date first above written. 
  

					
	 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Douglas T. Linde

		 	 Name:
	 	 Douglas T. Linde

		 	 Title:
	 	 President

	
	 /s/ Peter D. Johnston

	 PETER D. JOHNSTON



  

 2
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – March 17, 2023

# 									Public Schedule – March 17, 2023							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

March 16, 2023

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Ethiopia and Niger from March 14-17, 2023.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

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

Acting Deputy Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

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

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS BARBARA LEAF**

Assistant Secretary Leaf is on travel to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia from March 15-25, 2023.

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

Assistant Secretary Satterfield is on travel to South Africa from March 13-17, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY RESOURCES GEOFFREY R. PYATT**

Assistant Secretary Pyatt is on travel to the Republic of Korea from March 16-18, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS TODD D. ROBINSON**

Assistant Secretary Robinson is on travel to Georgia, Italy, Vatican City, and Austria from March 6-17, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS MICHELE SISON**

Assistant Secretary Sison is on travel to Switzerland from March 15-20, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS JESSICA LEWIS**

Assistant Secretary Lewis is on travel to the Netherlands and Germany from March 13-18, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION JULIETA VALLS NOYES**

Assistant Secretary Noyes is on travel to Belgium from March 16-21, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS MONICA P. MEDINA**

Assistant Secretary Medina is on travel to Pakistan from March 15-17, 2023.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org May 10, 2012

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division

California Air Resources Board

PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, Negative Declaration for CTG for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008)

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of a revision to the State Implementation Plan. On March 22, 2012, the SMAQMD Board of Directors adopted a negative declaration, finding that there are no District sources to which the following Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document applies:

Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008.

Clean Air Act Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires states/districts to revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions for each category of VOC sources covered by all CTG documents issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area’s date of attainment. This negative declaration is being submitted in lieu of a RACT rule.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, a notice was prominently displayed on the District’s web site, providing a 30-day period for the public to request a public hearing. The notice procedure is

consistent with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation Memo to Regional Administrators, “Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use of ‘Letter Notices’,” April 6, 2011. No request for a hearing was received during the 30-day period. Therefore, the public hearing was cancelled and the negative declaration was adopted.

Please forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:Mr. Michael Guzzetta May 10, 2012 Page 2

1. SIP Checklist 2. Negative Declaration for the Automobile Assembly Coating CTG

3. Public Notice Evidence

4. Resolution

5. Rule Evaluation Form 6. Staff Report
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT








I, Ryan M. Hershberger, certify that:





(a)    A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 has been made under my supervision.





(b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.








Dated March 23, 2022


/s/ Ryan M. HershbergerRyan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2020-A
#### Leslie Wilson et al. *v.*Arthur P. Bliss et al.

Mabtbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ebbs and Dickenson, Js.

Argued June 3—

decided June 12, 1947

*694
      *James M. Lynch,*with whom, on the brief, was *John F. Tobin,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Stephen K. Elliott,*with whom was *Francis B. Feeley,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

On the dark and misty evening of December 24, 1945, the plaintiff Wilson, with five passengers, was driving east from Waterbury toward Cheshire on an icy state highway, eighteen feet wide with four-foot shoulders on each side. There were no chains on his ear. The defendant Wynkoop, as agent of the defendant Bliss, was driving the latter’s car, equipped with chains, west on the same highway. As Wilson approached a dangerous curve in the highway, another car headed east was stalled on or near the center of the highway. The driver of the stalled car signaled Wilson to stop. The latter pulled to the north, his left, and applied his brakes. His car went into a skid, turned completely around and finally collided with the Bliss car. As Wynkoop approached the curve he slowed to about twenty miles per hour and reduced his speed still further as he rounded it. He then saw the two cars described about one hundred and fifty feet ahead of him. At that time the Wilson car was out of control and in the middle of its spin. Wynkoop attempted to drive the Bliss car towards the northerly shoulder, his right, *695and when its front end was off the cement portion of the highway and on the north shoulder the right side of the Wilson car came into collision with the Bliss car. The trial court concluded that the negligence of Wilson was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that Wynkoop was free from negligence.

The plaintiffs moved to correct this finding by adding a paragraph of their draft finding to the effect that Wynkoop could have stopped his car in time to avoid the collision, and they have had certified a portion of Wynkoop’s testimony in support of the motion. This motion, authorized by Practice Book (1922) p. 308, § 9, is no longer a part of appellate procedure. Error is now directly assigned. Practice Book (1934) p. 101, § 345.

The addition of the paragraph in question would not help the plaintiffs. It is obvious that when Wynkoop rounded the curve he was faced with an emergency not due to his negligence, and two possible courses of conduct were open to him. He could attempt to stop or he could try to get out of the way of the car skidding toward him by turning onto the shoulder of the road. The conclusion of the court that he was not negligent, under the circumstances, in following the latter course was one which the facts justified. See *Puza*v. *Hamway,*123 Conn. 205, 213, 193 A. 776. The guests in Wilson’s car, even though their contributory negligence is not in issue, cannot recover without proof of Wynkoop’s negligence.

There is no error.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Persecution of Journalists in Guatemala

# 									Persecution of Journalists in Guatemala							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

March 2, 2023

We are deeply concerned by reports of a court order to investigate nine Guatemalan journalists for obstruction of justice.  These individuals include journalists from El Periódico and an independent media organization founder, José Rubén Zamora, who has been held in pre-trial detention since his arrest in July 2022.

Peaceful, prosperous, and inclusive societies depend on the free flow of information and ideas, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information both online and offline.  Criminalizing the work of journalists and civil society undermines democratic norms and respect for freedom of expression.  We urge the Guatemalan justice system to reject the criminalization of independent journalists and support independent journalism as one of the foundations of a secure and prosperous democratic society.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsGuatemalaOffice of the SpokespersonPress Freedom

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         676,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  579,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,256,529
<PP&E>                                      15,794,172
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,709,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,341,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          642,315
<BONDS>                                     11,193,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,493,897)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,341,657
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,023,421
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  608,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             220,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            194,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   194,902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.62<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>This entity is a limited partnership. The Other Stockholders Equity line
represents total Partnership equity.
<F2>The EPS-Primary line represents net income per limited partnership unit.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
RLED 'Ncou~c-atoms'

i2yCiM-;o' Appeas 3taris

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

;

FILECOl

11/25/2015

PIERCE, JOSEPH MICHAEL Tr. Ct. No. 114-0648-13

COANo. 12-14-00073-CR

PD-0651-15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court of appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL*
§ 56.107 Priorities for grants. ( a ) Grants under sections 319(c) (1)(A), 319(d)(1)(A), 319(d)(1)(B) of the Act and subparts B, C, and D of this part shall be made in accordance with the following priorities: ( 1 ) Highest priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which 6,000 or more migratory agricultural workers and members of their families reside for more than two months in the calendar year.
( 2 ) Second priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which fewer than 6,000 but more than 1,000 migratory agricultural workers and members of their families reside for more than two months in the applicable calendar year.
( 3 ) Third priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which migratory agricultural workers and members of their families reside but in which fewer than 1,000 such persons reside for more than two months in the applicable calendar year.
( 4 ) Fourth priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which migratory agricultural workers and members of their families reside in the applicable calendar year but in which no such persons reside for more than two months in such year.
( 5 ) Fifth priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which no migratory agricultural workers or members of their families reside for any period in the applicable calendar year but in which 6,000 or more seasonal agricultural workers and the members of their families reside.
( 6 ) Lowest priority will be given to approvable applications which propose to serve catchment areas in which no migratory agricultural workers or members of their families reside for any period in the applicable calendar year and in which fewer than 6,000 seasonal agricultural workers and the members of their families reside.
( b ) Grants under sections 319(c) (1)(B) and 319(d)(1)(C) of the Act and subparts E and F of this part will be made in accordance with priorities set forth in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) of this section, in the order set forth.
( c ) For the purposes of this section, the applicable calendar year will be the calendar year for which data is provided in accordance with § 56.104(b)(3) of this subpart.
#### CHARLES F. HUNT, EXECUTOR OF WILLIAM WEIGHEL, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[55 C. Cls. 77; 257 U. S. 125.]

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

*United States*v. *Utah, Nevada & California Stage Co,.,*199 U. S. 414, follows to the effect that a general stipulation in a mail-carriage contract obliging the contractor to perform new, additional, or changed service without additional compensation, when ordered by the Postmaster General, does not authorize the exaction without pay of a heavy and expensive service not within the contemplation of the parties.

Where a contract for mail carriage was sublet, without filing a copy of the subcontract under c. 116, 22 Stat. 54, or obtaining the written consent of the Postmaster General, required by sec. 2, c. 107, 20 Stat. 62, and the Government, though accepting the service performed, by the subcontractor, neither had nor recognized any contractual relation except with his principal, treating the former as the agent of the latter, an action in the Court of Claims for extra service exacted by the Government *592over his protest, but performed by the subcontractor, was properly brought by and in the name of the contractor.

Mr. Justice Clarke

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 7, 1921.