alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Release of the Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan

# 									Release of the Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

October 7, 2021

The climate crisis poses a serious threat to the Department of State’s mission of advancing the interests, health, safety, and economic prosperity of the American people.  With thousands of personnel spread out over 270 posts in 190 countries, the Department understands the urgency of frequent extreme weather events and other climate impacts taking place around the world and is committed to enhancing resilience in our workforce, facilities, and operations.

In response to E.O. 14008 “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” the Department of State has released its 2021 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan, which will be implemented in FY 2022 and reviewed and updated annually.  The plan commits the Department to assessing our immediate and long-term vulnerabilities to climate hazards and outlines five priority actions to advance our operational resilience and adapt to climate change.  These actions include enhancing mobility in the workforce; improving emergency management planning and preparedness; enabling climate-ready sites and facilities; evaluating climate risks in supply chain and procurement; and improving local infrastructure through host country engagement.  These efforts model U.S. climate innovation and leadership abroad.

The Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan complements the forthcoming Sustainability Plan, which will set the Department on a trajectory to meet the Administration’s ambitious federal sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

For additional information, access the 2021 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan at www.state.gov/office-of-management-strategy-and-solutions/reports-and-scorecards/.

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsClimate ChangeOffice of Management Strategy and SolutionsOffice of the SpokespersonState Department At Work

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21834]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Hawaii Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10 a.m. 
and adjourn at approximately 1 p.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2009, at 
the Hilton Hawaiian Village, 2005 Kalia Road, Honolulu, Hawaii. The 
purpose of the meeting is to plan Committee projects for the coming 
2010 fiscal year.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by October 31, 2009. 
The address is 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 4333, Los Angeles, 
California 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments or who desire 
additional information should contact Peter Minarik, Regional Director, 
at (213) 894-3437 or 800-877-8339 for individuals who are deaf, hearing 
impaired, and/or have speech disabilities or by email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8c8d5d1d6d9cad1d3f8cdcbdbdbca96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e898858186899a8183a89d9b8b8b9ac68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, September 3, 2009.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E9-21834 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0340 Directorate ID: 20 10 - SW - 081 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, and MBB - BK 117 C - 2 He licopters . Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 350 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 10,833 to replace 

### the hoist and boom assembly . Labor per Helicopter ( 1.5 work-hour s x 

### $ 85/work hour for 

### removing the hoist and boom assembly , performing the dye penetrant inspection, and reinstalling the equipment . ) $ 128

(0.33 work hour X $85/workhour to replace the hoist and boom assembly if needed) Other (Explain) $28

Total Cost per Helicopter $ 128 to 

### remov e the hoist and boom assembly , performing the dye penetrant inspection, and reinstalling the equipment . Total US Fleet Cost Total Cost per Helicopter $ 44,800 $10,861 to replace the hoist and boom assembly. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD KNIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-01-48)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Lisa A. Broccoletti,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia; Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United

States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Knight appeals the district court’s order

imposing a thirty-six month term of imprisonment and a twenty-four

month term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, upon

revocation of his supervised release. Knight’s counsel filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but

suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing

Knight. Although informed of his right to do so, Knight has not

filed a supplemental brief.

We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence

after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 438, 442-43 (4th Cir. 1995).

Moreover, because Knight’s sentence does not exceed the maximum

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to

determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude

Knight’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Knight’s

sentence. This court requires counsel inform her client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests a petition be
- 3 -

filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[107th Congress Public Law 75]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ075.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 703]]

Public Law 107-75
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through 
November 1, 2003, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 28, 2001 -  [H.R. 
                                1552]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Internet 
Tax Nondiscrimina- tion Act.>> 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. <<NOTE: 47 USC 609 note.>> 

    This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MORATORIUM.

    Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) 
is amended by striking ``3 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act'' and inserting ``on November 1, 2003''.

    Approved November 28, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1552:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-240 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            Oct. 16, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
            Nov. 28, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 54a.1 Scope.

These provisions apply only to funds provided directly to pay for substance abuse prevention and treatment services under Title V of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 290aa, *et seq.,* which are administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. This part does not apply to direct funding under any such authorities for only mental health services or for certain infrastructure and technical assistance activities, such as cooperative agreements for technical assistance centers, that do not provide substance abuse services to clients. This part implements the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 300x-65 and 42 U.S.C. 290kk, *et seq.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00446-CV

Paul WILLIAMS and SACC, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Barbara GRANT,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI09043

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the joint motion filed by the parties is 

GRANTED, the trial court’s judgment signed on February 19, 2019 is REVERSED, and a takenothing judgment against appellee, Barbara Grant, is RENDERED in accordance with the terms 

of the parties’ settlement agreement. 

We order that appellee, Barbara Grant, recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from 

appellants, Paul Williams and SACC, Inc. 

SIGNED October 16, 2019.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
#### § 57.318 Noncompliance.

Whenever the Secretary finds that a participating school has failed to comply with the applicable provisions of the Act or the regulations of this subpart he or she may, on reasonable notice to the school, withhold further payments of Federal capital contributions and take other action, including the termination of any agreement, as he or she finds necessary to enforce the Act and regulations. In such case no further expenditures shall be made from the nursing student loan fund or funds involved until the Secretary determines that there is no longer any failure of compliance.
Exhibit 10.5.2


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO

ARCH CAPITAL GROUP LTD. 

LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN FOR NEW EMPLOYEES


 


The Arch Capital Group Ltd. Long Term
Incentive Plan for New Employees is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.             A
new subsection (d) is added to Section 3 to read in its entirety as
follows:


 


“(d) Limitation on
Committee’s Authority under Code Section 409A.  Anything in this Plan to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Committee’s authority to modify outstanding Awards shall
be limited to the extent necessary so that the existence of such authority does
not (i) cause an Award that is not otherwise deferred compensation subject
to Section 409A of the Code to become deferred compensation subject to Section 409A
of the Code or (ii) cause an Award that is otherwise deferred compensation
subject to Section 409A of the Code to fail to meet the requirements
prescribed by Section 409A of the Code.”


 


2.             Subsection
(c) of Section 4 is amended by adding the following sentence at the
end thereof:


 


“Anything in
this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, no adjustment shall be made pursuant
to this Section 4(c) that causes any Award that is not otherwise deferred
compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code to be treated as deferred
compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code.”


 


3.             A
new subsection (m) is added to Section 7 to read in its entirety as
follows:


 


“(m)  Section 409A.  It is intended that
the Plan and the Awards granted thereunder will comply with Section 409A
of the Code (and any regulations and guidance issued thereunder) to the extent
the Awards are subject thereto, and the Plan and such Awards shall be
interpreted on a basis consistent with such intent.  The Plan and any Award Agreements issued
thereunder may be amended in any respect deemed by the Board or the Committee
to be necessary to preserve compliance with Section 409A of the Code.”
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–160 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED IN 

PROCLAMATION 7463 WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST 

ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, IS 

TO CONTINUE FOR ONE YEAR BEYOND SEPTEMBER 14, 2016, 

PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); PUBLIC LAW 94–412, SEC. 202(d); 

(90 STAT. 1257) 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 30, 2016. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of 

a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal 

Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the 

emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. 

Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register 

the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared in Proclamation 7463 with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United 

States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year. 

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 

2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have 

determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2016, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 

50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 

7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the 

United States. 

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency 

declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities 

adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2016. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for 

an additional year the national emergency that was declared on 

September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 30, 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Randy A. LEDET v. Ashby W. PITTIGREW and William Bass, Attorneys at Law.

No. 63086.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Randy A. Ledet applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Terrebonne.

Writ denied.
****Search in:****Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume 1****Search For:****Options:** Show only records with hits**
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*TAVARES COSBY

*Richard Emanuel,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Decided February 20, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 26 (AC 14048), is denied.
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the joint petition for reprimand by consent in which the 

parties advise that the Respondent agrees that his conduct violated Rules 1.1 and 1.15 of 

the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and § 14.5-810 of the Estates and 

Trusts Article of the Maryland Code, it is this 19th day of January 2024

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the Respondent, Henry Mark 

Bobotek, is REPRIMANDED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Henry Mark Bobotek, shall pay costs in this 

matter in the amount of $1,114.65.

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader

 Chief Justice

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

HENRY MARK BOBOTEK

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 31

 September Term, 2023
#### § 61.6 Method of application.

Application for a regular fellowship shall be made on forms prescribed by the Surgeon General. In addition to the information supplied by the applicant in his application, such further information may be required as is necessary to determine his qualifications and fitness.
#### Richard A. WHALEN, Appellant, v. The ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; William F. Clark, Individually; Raymond Eugene Robertson, Individually; Appellees.

No. 83-2095.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 3, 1986.

Decided July 28, 1986.

*171S. Strother Smith, III, Abingdon, Va., for appellant.

William B. Poff (Thomas A. Leggette; Woods, Rogers, Muse, Walker & Thornton, James E. Buchholtz, Roanoke, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, ERVIN, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Being convinced that the district court ruled correctly in granting William F. Clark’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the jury verdict in favor of Richard A. Whalen, we affirm the district court’s decision.* The bases for our conclusion are set forth in the concurring and dissenting opinion filed by Judge Ervin as part of the opinion of the original panel. *Whalen v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors,*769 F.2d 221, 226 (4th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

*

 In light of our action concerning the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we need not address the propriety of the conditional denial of Clark’s motion for a new trial. *See*9 C. Wright and A. Miller, *Federal Practice and Procedure*§ 2540 at 618 (1971).

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in Parts II and III of Judge Butzner’s panel opinion, and Part III of my concurring and dissenting panel opinion. I would reverse the judgment of the district court without remanding the case for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial.
#### Deniston *v.*Webb.

4-9076

226 S. W. 2d 809

Opinion delivered February 13, 1950.

*A. D. Chavis,*for appellant.

*John E. Hooker,*for appellee.

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.

Eobert Deniston, who was plaintiff below, appeals from the Court’s finding that he was not entitled to an undivided half interest in lands within the south half of block twenty-seven, etc.

When the S. Geisreiter property adjoining Pine Bluff was platted as a subdivision, a part then thought to l)e unimportant was disregarded because it was cut by gulleys, ravines, and other malformations to such an extent as to render it of little value for residential or commercial purposes. Therefore, says the complaint, “it was left unplotted — was thrown away, so to speak— and not put on the tax assessment rolls until recently.”

Because ownership of the Geisreiter lands was nonresident, the estate was represented locally by Frank W. Berry. E. B. Webb, for a recited consideration of *656$25.00, procured from the owner, through Berry, a quitclaim deed dated August 2, 1948. The conveyance was to Felton Webb, who is R. B. ’s son.1

Appellant’s claim rests upon the dealings he alleges were had with Webb, beginning in the spring of 1948 when Webb approached him to borrow $25 for use in buying the land. At that time each thought that title was in the State. Appellant refused to make the loan until something more definite as to the title could be ascertained; whereupon appellee, after a visit to the Land Office, reported that there had not been a tax forfeiture. Appellant then informed Webb that he would make further investigations in an effort to find “how and where they might get a deed”.

In testifying to his part in the transaction, Berry said that “some time last Spring” Webb had asked him if it would be possible to procure a deed. He thought the conversation occurred ‘ ‘ about February ’ ’. Presumptively Berrjr communicated with his principal, for on July 20th Webb paid $20, and later took care of the balance. Although Berry says he told Webb the land was too rougli for *any*use, the purchaser industriously contrived a pile-supported building for a storehouse, thereby enhancing the value of the realty by several hundred dollars.

Appellant thinks that Webb impliedly acquiesced in his (appellant’s) suggestion that a second survey be made. This occurred after the two had discussed a survey that Webb was familiar with. Appellant at that time thought the drawing was worthless, and that it would give way to a survey by a competent man whom appellant paid.

We agree with counsel for appellant that the case, as developed, became factual, and that the only question is, On which side does the evidence preponderate?

Clearly, the Chancellor was correct. Appellant is almost alone in asserting that the negotiations were such as to create a common enterprise. The element of *657time is highly persuasive. It discloses independent activities by appellee as early as February and March when appellant was not known in the deal.

Affirmed.

1

 All references to “Webb”, or “appellee” are to R. B. except when otherwise shown.