alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41678.

#### SELLERS v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Submitted October 25, 1965

Decided October 28, 1965

Rehearing denied November 12, 1965.

*Sumner & Boatright, W. T. Mobley,*for petitioner.

*George Rains, Solicitor General,*for respondent.

Pannbll, Judge.

Section 7 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 22; *Code Ann.*§ 6-1001), provides that after conviction the notice of appeal shall serve as a supersedeas in all cases where death sentence has been imposed or where the defendant is admitted to bail and that “if the sentence is bailable” the defendant may give bond. The language, “if the sentence is bailable,” means where it was bailable in the sound discretion of the presiding judge. See *Finley v. Thompson,*100 Ga. App. 508 (112 SE2d 166); *Vandeford v. Brand,*126 Ga. 67 (2), 69 (54 SE 822, 9 AC 617); *Crumley v. Gibbs,*149 Ga. 119 (99 SE 297). See also *Fountain v. Crum,*148 Ga. 272 (96 SE 337); *Antonopoulas v. State,*26 Ga. App. 113 (105 SE 384). It is only in misde.meanor cases that one convicted is entitled to bail as-a matter of law. *Code*§ 27-901. *Bennett v. Davis,*100 Ga. App. 432 (111 SE2d 733). There having been a conviction of a felony in the present case, and there being no allegation that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing bail to the defendant, the petition for mandamus nisi is

*Denied.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
§ 52i.7 Grant awards. ( a ) Within the limits of funds, and upon such review and recommendation as may be required by law, the Director shall award a grant to those applicants whose approved projects will in the Director's judgment best promote the purposes of this part.
( b ) An institution described in § 52i.3 that receives a grant under this part or an institution described in section 464z-4(f) of the Act authorized to use grant funds for endowment purposes shall follow the spending rules under the law of the state in which the institution is located and the spending rules/policies adopted by the recipient institution, provided that such spending rules are not inconsistent with applicable federal regulations/policies.
( c ) Grants awarded under this part or grant funds designated for endowment purposes as described under section 464z-4(f) of the Act must be invested no later than 90 days after the start date of the grant.
( d ) The institution, in investing the endowment fund established under this section, shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a person of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would exercise in the management of such person's own affairs and avoid all appearances of conflict of interest in the management of this fund.
( e ) The total amount of an endowment grant under this part or the designated amount of the grant under section 464z-4(f) of the Act must be maintained as corpus by the institution for 20 years from the end of the project period.
( f ) In the case of situations in which investment conditions result in the corpus referred to in paragraph (e) of this section having a net market value less than the value of the funds at the time of their receipt, appropriate actions must be taken (*e.g.,* careful review of the investment strategy) in order to preserve the value of the endowment corpus.
( g ) An institution described in § 52i.3 receiving an endowment grant under section 464z-3(h) of the Act may not simultaneously receive endowment funds under section 464z-4(f) of the Act.
( h ) Consistent with section 464z-4(f) of the Act, the Director, NIMHD, may designate for a research endowment some of the funds awarded to a Center of Excellence for research education and training.
#### § 456.351 Definition.

As used in this subpart:

*Intermediate care facility services* means those items and services furnished in an intermediate care facility as defined in §§ 440.140 and 440.150 of this subchapter, but excludes those services if they are provided in religious nonmedical institutions as defined in § 440.170(b) of this chapter.

[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 64 FR 67052, Nov. 30, 1999]
41548.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. GEEHR.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. In the trial of an appeal from an award in condemnation proceedings to acquire a part of condemnee’s tract of land as a right of way for highway purposes, the condemnee, over condemnor’s objection, elicited testimony calculated to impress the jury that a curve in the proposed highway would constitute a hazard to persons and property so as to diminish the market- value of the land not taken. The possible danger of collision of vehicles using the proposed highway' with persons and property upon the remaining portion of condemnee’s land was not an independent element of damages for which compensation could be awarded. *Guess v. Stone Mountain Granite &c. Co.,*72 Ga. 320, 328 (2). However, under the facts of this case, the existence of the curve in the proposed highway might have served to illustrate to the jury a possible diminution of market value of the remainder area. For that purpose and that purpose alone, the evidence complained of was admissible. *South Carolina R. Co. v. Steiner,*44 Ga. 546, 559; *Atlantic & B. R. Co. v. McKnight,*125 Ga. 328, 331 (54 SE 148); *Southern R. Co. v. Leonard,*58 Ga. App. 574, 580-581 (199 SE 433); *Savannah &c. R. Co. v. Williams,*133 Ga. 679, 680 (66 SE 942); Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 14.256.

*665Argued September 14, 1965

Decided November 18, 1965.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Horace E. Campbell, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William L. Preston,*for plaintiff in error.

*D. M. Pollock,*contra.

2. Special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for new trial are controlled by the decision of this court in *State Hwy. Dept. v. Ford,*112 Ga. App. 270 (144 SE2d 924), in which error was assigned for the same reasons upon charges of the court identical with the charges attacked in these grounds.

The charge attacked in special ground 2 is not subject to the exceptions stated in this ground.

The charge attacked in special ground 3 was erroneous for the reason indicated in the *Ford*case in Divisions 2, 3 and 4 of the opinion.

*Judgment is reversed on special ground 8 of motion for new trial.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
HomeArms Control and Nonproliferation...Arms Control and Nonproliferation

# Arms Control and Nonproliferation

235 items

        -    		Export Controls Policy	  August 30, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Statement of the United States to Commemorate and Promote the International Day Against Nuclear Tests at the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly	  Bonnie Denise JenkinsAugust 29, 2023UN General AssemblyNew York, New York 
        -    DipNote  		Doubling Down on the NPT	  Adam ScheinmanJuly 27, 2023 
        -    		Report On The Reasons That Continued Implementation Of The New START Treaty is in The National Security Interest Of The United States	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Visit of a Delegation from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Executive Council Visit, June 12-14, 2023	  June 12, 2023Richmond, Kentucky / Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to New Mexico	  April 24, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Jenkins Opening Remarks for the 18th Annual NATO WMD Conference	  Bonnie Denise JenkinsApril 18, 2023Washington D.C. 
        -    FPC Briefing  		U.S. Space Force – Together Expanding our Competitive Advantage in Space	  April 14, 2023Friday, April 14, 2023, 2:00 p.m. ETNew York City 
        -    Media Note  		18th Annual NATO Conference on Arms Control, Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction Non-Proliferation, April 17-20	  April 13, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Helping Countries Transition from Soviet Legacy to Democratic Governance	  April 7, 2023 

previous page1…45678…24next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Opposing International Criminal Court Attempts to Affirm Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Palestinian Situation

# 									Opposing International Criminal Court Attempts to Affirm Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Palestinian Situation							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

February 5, 2021

Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision claiming jurisdiction in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, while expressly recognizing the serious legal and factual questions that surround its ability to do so.

As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute in 2015, we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state, and therefore are not qualified to obtain membership as a state, or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC.

We have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.  The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsInternational Criminal CourtIsraelOffice of the SpokespersonPalestinian TerritoriesWest Bank

Back to Top
### Illinoian outwash in southeastern Pennsylvania

By: W.N. LockwoodHarold Meisler

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1121B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
From: Christopher Bolduc To: Richard Parker Cc: Alex Hofmann ; Andrew Delaski ; Aris Marantan ; Art Rosenfeld ; Bob Saint ; Bob Smith ; Brenda Edwards ; Brian Coffey ; Caitlin Johnson ; Carlos Gaytan ; Caskey, John ; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens ; Chris Brown ; Clark Silcox ; Creevy, Jim ; Dan Cohen ; Daniel Young ; David Flaten ; Emily Marchetti ; Eric Peterson ; Freeman, Jeremiah ; Gary Fernstrom ; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist ; Hirsch, Bruce R ; James Lass ; Jennifer Tiedeman ; Jerry Corkran ; Jerry Hodge ; Jerry Schoen ; Jim Raba ; Joanna Mauer ; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti ; Katie Coughlin ; Ken Winder ; Mahesh P. Sampat ; Matthew Nardotti ; Maxine Savitz ; Meg Waltner ; Meyers, Aaron ; Michael Hyland ; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave ; Pam Costello ; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson ; Polinski, Raymond ; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson ; Rob Greeson ; Robert Berman ; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy ; Ryan, Paul ; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel ; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone ; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo ; Tom Eckman ; Wes Patterson ; Zhimei Luo Subject: Re: Updated MVDT LCC Results for 10/17 1:00 pm Conference Call Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:27:51 AM Attachments: DT-MV-DryType Results-111711.pdf



## Dear Committee Members, There was a small labeling error in the LCC results tables in the attachment dated 111511, the labels for: Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) and Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) should be transposed.
The attached presentation corrects this. Thank you, - Chris Bolduc
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Richard Parker <richardparkerdc@gmail.com> wrote: > Colleagues,

> > Attached for your review are the updated LCC results for medium-voltage dry > type DLs 11 and 12 for discussion on tomorrow's 1:00 pm Webinar/conference > call. It includes a "default" run as well as our group's requested > sensitivity run excluding ZDMH and amorphous.

> > You should have received an invitation to register for the call and an email > with call-in information. If you have not yet received an invitation and > would like to join the call please contact Emily Marchetti immediately, at > emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov.

> > Best wishes, > Richard Parker > Facilitator

>

--

---- Chris Bolduc Energy Efficiency Standards Group Environmental Energy Technologies Division

## Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory t. 416-535-7546 c. 647-832-4021
#### Mary Frances BAKER, Appellant, v. Lawrence James BAKER, Appellee.

No. 78-1019.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1979.

David R. Schwartz, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The sole relief requested by appellant in the trial court, in the suit for dissolution commenced by appellee, was visitation rights concerning their twelve year old daughter. The final judgment is silent concerning visitation. The failure to provide for visitation is the sole error claimed on appeal. Apparently no report of the proceedings was made and appellant thereafter filed a “proposed statement of facts” mailing a copy to counsel who was then representing appel-lee. No objection or amendment was filed by appellee. However, it does not appear from the record that the statement was ever submitted to the trial court for approval. See Rule 9.200(b)(3) Fla.R.App.P. Ergo, it cannot be considered. Visitation rights concerning minor children should not be denied either parent so long as he or she conducts himself or herself, while in the presence of such children, in a manner which will not adversely affect their morals or welfare. *Yandell v. Yandell,*39 So.2d 554 (Fla.1949).

The final judgment should specifically provide when visitation rights are granted or denied. When visitation rights are denied it would assist this court upon review . of such denial if the trial judge would set forth the basis for his ruling. We remand this case to the trial judge so that the final judgment may be amended to *874grant or deny visitation rights to appellant. The amended judgment would be subject to appeal.

REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
EX-10.7.2






Exhibit 10.7.2




DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PARTY TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS




     Schedule identifying agreements, entered into between the Company and each of the following
persons, substantially identical to the Form of Indemnification Agreement constituting
Exhibit 10.1.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File No. 001-33217):




	1.	 	Noam Gottesman
	 
	2.	 	Ian G.H. Ashken
	 
	3.	 	Martin E. Franklin
	 
	4.	 	James N. Hauslein
	 
	5.	 	Pierre Lagrange
	 
	6.	 	William P. Lauder
	 
	7.	 	Emmanuel Roman
	 
	8.	 	Peter A. Weinberg
	 
	9.	 	Simon White
	 
	10.	 	Alejandro R. San Miguel
	 
	11.	 	Jeffrey M. Rojek
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         548,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  592,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    452,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,891,606
<PP&E>                                         194,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,804,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,255,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,670,565
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,065
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,804,102
<SALES>                                      1,097,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,097,246
<CGS>                                          458,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               685,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,178)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,218)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.301 Applicability to new and previously approved CCERs. ( a ) Any CCER approval issued after April 9, 2012 must comply with the technical requirements of subpart O.
( b ) The continued manufacturing, labeling, and sale of closed-circuit apparatus previously approved under subpart H is authorized for units required for use in underground coal mines pursuant to 30 CFR 75.1714-1.
( c ) Any manufacturer-requested modification to a device approved under the subpart H technical requirements must comply with the subpart H technical requirements and address an identified worker safety or health concern to be granted an extension of the NIOSH approval. Major modifications to the configuration that will result in a new approval must meet and be issued approvals under the requirements of this subpart O.
[84 FR 16412, Apr. 19, 2019]
§ 600.710 Fiscal policies and accountability. The BHP administering agency must assure the fiscal policies and accountability set forth in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. This assurance must be reflected in the BHP Blueprint. ( a ) *Accounting records.* Maintain an accounting system and supporting fiscal records to assure that the BHP trust funds are maintained and expended in accord with applicable Federal requirements, such as OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133.
( b ) *Annual certification.* Obtain an annual certification from the BHP trustees, the State's chief financial officer, or designee, certifying all of the following: ( 1 ) The State's BHP trust fund financial statements for the fiscal year.
( 2 ) The BHP trust funds are not being used as the non-Federal share for purposes of meeting any matching or expenditure requirement of any Federally-funded program.
( 3 ) The use of BHP trust funds is in accordance with Federal requirements consistent with those specified for the administration and provision of the program.
( c ) *Independent audit.* Conduct an independent audit of BHP trust fund expenditures, consistent with the standards set forth in chapter 3 of the Government Accountability Office's Government Auditing Standards, over a 3-year period to determine that the expenditures made during the 3-year period were allowable as described in § 600.705(b) and in accord with other applicable Federal requirements. The independent audit may be conducted as a sub-audit of the single state audit conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, and must follow the cost accounting principles in OMB Circular A-87.
( d ) *Annual reports.* Publish annual reports on the use of funds, including a separate line item that tracks the use of funds described in § 600.705(e) to further reduce premiums and cost sharing, or for the provision of additional benefits within 10 days of approval by the trustees. If applicable for the reporting year, the annual report must also contain the findings for the audit conducted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Restitution.* Establish and maintain BHP trust fund restitution procedures.
( f ) *Record retention.* Retain records for 3 years from date of submission of a final expenditure report.
( g ) *Record retention related to audit findings.* If any litigation, claim, financial management review, or audit is started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken.
Docket No. FAA-2016-3990 Dir ID 2015-NMM-153-AD
- Office Home
- About Us
- Members
- Remarks and Releases

HomeThe Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS...Remarks and Releases – The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS

# 						Remarks and Releases – The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS					

46 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202420232022202120202019

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAntony J. BlinkenIan J. McCaryIan MossMatthew MillerNed PriceTimothy Alan BettsVedant Patel

Select a LocationAfghanistanBelgiumIraqItalyKyrgyzstanLibyaMoroccoMozambiqueNigerNorwayOmanRussiaSaudi ArabiaSomaliaSyriaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUzbekistanYemen

Select a Release TypeFact SheetMedia NoteOther ReleasePress StatementRemarksSpecial Briefing

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of CounterterrorismBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonThe Global Coalition To Defeat ISISThe Secretary of StateUnder Secretary for Political Affairs

          -    Special Briefing  		Briefing with Acting Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS John Godfrey on U.S. Participation in the Upcoming D-ISIS Ministerial	  March 29, 2021Via Teleconference 
          -    Media Note  		Ministerial Meeting of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS’s Small Group	  March 26, 2021 
          -    Press Statement  		On the Second Anniversary of ISIS’s Territorial Defeat	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 23, 2021 
          -    		The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS	  January 20, 2021 
          -    		David A. Schlaefer	  September 1, 2020 
          -    		John T. Godfrey	  April 25, 2019 

previous page1…345

Back to Top