alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41360, 46389.

#### DAVIS HOUSE, INC. v. JENNINGS; and vice versa.

Erankum, Judge.

“No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals upon any bill of exceptions while *186the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause or final as to some material party thereto.” *Code Ann.*§ 6-701. The only judgment excepted to in this case in the main bill of exceptions is a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County modifying a prior judgment of that court (that is, the appellate division) granting to the defendant in error, the plaintiff in a dispossessory warrant proceeding brought on account of the tenant’s holding over and beyond its term, a new trial as to all issues. The judgment excepted to modified the prior judgment by granting a judgment for the plaintiff as to the issue of possession alone, leaving the issue as to rent to be tried under the original order granting the new trial. No exception is taken to the modified judgment itself. Plainly, the judgment excepted to is not a final disposition of the case, since it expressly remanded the case to the trial judge for a further hearing and decision on the issue as to the reasonable rental value of the premises in question (a jury trial having been waived) and for the making of an award in favor of the appellant for such amount of double rent as might be found to be due. The assignment of error merely contends that the judgment modifying the judgment granting a new trial was contrary to law, and, assuming that this assignment of error is sufficient to present a question for decision by this court as to the correctness of the judgment excepted to (see *Garland v. State of Ga.,*101 Ga. App. 395, 397 (1), 114 SE2d 176), if all of the relief sought by the plaintiff in error be granted by this court by ordering the trial court to vacate or set aside the order complained of, the case would still be pending in the trial court on the original judgment of the appellate division granting a new trial as to all issues. Thus, there is no final judgment excepted to, and the writ of error must be dismissed. *Perdue v. Anderson,*137 Ga. 512, 514 (73 SE 1050); *Flemister v. Alaculsey Lumber Co.,*143 Ga. 416 (85 SE 342); *Prater v. Crawford,*143 Ga. 709 (85 SE 829); *Leary v. First Nat. Bank of Shellman,*177 Ga. 179 (170 SE 84); *Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham,*193 Ga. 179 (17 SE2d 267); *Beard v. Beard,*194 Ga. 560 (22 SE2d 39); *Quillian v. Golson,*54 Ga. App. 409 (187 SE 892); *Johannesen v.*
      *187
      *Whiddon,*85 Ga. App. 252 (69 SE2d 118); *Virginia Well & Supply Co. v. Landers,*99 Ga. App. 397 (2) (108 SE2d 756).

Submitted June 9, 1965

Decided September 8, 1965.

*George Carroll,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter A. Smith, William F. Lozier,*contra.

*Writs of error on main bill and cross bill dismissed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20861

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BRETT WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CR-19-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

September 3, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Michael Brett Walker has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and Walker has filed a response to that brief. Our independent

review of the brief, Walker’s response, and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
# Countering Terrorism

471 items

        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Brazil	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Argentina	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Uzbekistan	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Tajikistan	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Pakistan	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Maldives	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Kyrgyz Republic	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Kazakhstan	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Sri Lanka	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: India	  November 29, 2023 

previous page123456…48next page

Back to Top
WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

July 1,2013 

Matthew Lakin 

Air Quality Analysis Office Chief 

Air Division, US EPA Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street, AIR-7 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Dear Mr. Lakin: 

PublicHealth 

PTevent. Promote. Protect. 

Enclosed is the "Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division 2013 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan". This plan was prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10 and was available for public inspection from June 1 to June 30, 2013 at the Washoe 

County Health District, Air Quality Management Division (WCAQMD) website (ourcleanair.com). 

A hardcopy of the plan was also available at the AQMD office. No public comments were 

received during the public inspection period. If you have any questions or comments regarding 

this submittal, feel free to contact Mr. Craig Petersen or me at (775) 784-7200. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel Inouye 

Monitoring and Planning Branch Chief 

Air Quality Management Division 

Washoe County Health District 

cc: Elfego Felix, Region IX via email 

Craig Petersen, WCAQMD 

P.O. BOX 11130 Reno, NY 89520-0027· (775) 784-7200 • FAX (775) 784-7225 

www.washoecounty.us/health Printed Oil Recycled Paper
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)In connection with the Quarterly Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending October 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Gary McRae, President and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ D. Gary McRae D. Gary McRae
§ 93.300 General responsibilities for compliance. Institutions under this part must— ( a ) Have written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct that meet the requirements of this part;
( b ) Respond to each allegation of research misconduct for which the institution is responsible under this part in a thorough, competent, objective and fair manner, including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent or witnesses;
( c ) Foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, research training, and activities related to that research or research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct;
( d ) Take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses and committee members and protect them from retaliation by respondents and other institutional members;
( e ) Provide confidentiality to the extent required by § 93.108 to all respondents, complainants, and research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence;
( f ) Take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and evidence;
( g ) Cooperate with HHS during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review;
( h ) Assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on its institutional members; and
( i ) Have an active assurance of compliance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7008

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE HAMILTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

H. R. ARTHUR, SR., Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00682-jlk)

Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher George Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances

Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher George Hamilton seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hamilton has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hamilton’s motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

DISMISSED
- Our Ocean Home
- Remarks and Releases

HomeOur Ocean Conference...Our Ocean Conference

# Our Ocean Conference

> 
Our Ocean – An Ocean of Potential.

The Government of Greece will host the ninth Our Ocean Conference in Athens, Greece, from April 16-17, 2024. The 2024 Our Ocean Conference theme is “An Ocean of Potential.” The conference will be organized around six Areas of Action: promoting marine protected areas, fostering a sustainable blue economy, tackling the climate crisis, supporting maritime security, advancing sustainable fisheries, and combating marine pollution. Greece will also focus on four cross-cutting themes: green shipping, sustainable tourism in coastal areas and islands, reduction of marine plastic and microplastic pollution, and the green transition in the Mediterranean.

The Our Ocean Youth Leadership Summit (OOYLS) will take place in Athens, Greece from April 15-17, 2024, co-hosted by the government of Greece and the Sustainable Ocean Alliance.  OOYLS will empower young leaders (ages 18-35) to gain valuable experience and knowledge in the ocean sector, expand their network, and develop their professional skill sets while making a positive impact on ocean health and resilience.  Applications to participate in OOYLS are now open and due February 15, 2024 11:59pm PST.

The Our Ocean Conference began in 2014 as a U.S. initiative to draw international attention to the serious threats facing the world’s ocean and to take concrete action around the globe to support marine conservation and sustainable development. Since 2014, the Our Ocean Conferences have generated over 2,100 announcements worth nearly $128 billion. At the 2023 Our Ocean Conference in Panama, the United States made 77 announcements worth nearly $6 billion.

The United States will send a high-level and robust interagency delegation to the ninth Our Ocean Conference.  The United States delegation will bring major new announcements to the conference in the six areas of action.

FIND THE AGENDA AND MORE DETAILS ON THE 2024 OUR OCEAN CONFERENCE WEBSITE

SIGN UP FOR UPDATES FROM THE U.S. DELEGATION

The 2023 conference resulted in new, voluntary announcements for significant and meaningful action on some of the most complex issues facing the ocean today.

There are six broad areas of action:

Tackling the climate crisisAdvancing sustainable fisheriesFostering sustainable blue economiesPromoting marine protected areasSupporting maritime securityCombatting marine pollution

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2025 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 308
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2025

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2007

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Willye B. 
                     White Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WILLYE B. WHITE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Willye B. White Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Willye B. 
White Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 308

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2025

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Willye B. 
                     White Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0 317.0 2 .005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR20 1 3 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 02/ 13 /15 Time: 9:4 7 am

pm

Company Name: Utah Department of Environmental Quality ERG Staff Name:

Kara Edquist

Contact Name: Rhonda Thiele Contact Phone Number: ( 801 ) 536

- 4396

General Subject: 2013 DMR Discharges for United Park City Mines Co., Park City, UT



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On February 13 th , 2015 at 9:47am I called Rhonda Thiele and left a message.

On February 18 th , 2015 at 11:54am I called Rhonda Thiele and left a message.

On February 18 th , 2015 at 6:32pm Ms. Thiele called and left a message saying Dave W h am (801

- 536

- 4337)

would be a better contact since he is the permit writer.

On February 23 rd , 2015 at 6:01pm I called Mr . W h am and gave give the NPDES ID for the facility he said he

would look into the information and get back to me.

On February 23 rd , 2015 at 6:34pm Mr. Wham returned my call and left a message. He stated that the mercury

val ue had been reported as 0.6 nan ograms per liter . He also stated Matthew Garn is the permit writer for this

particular permit.

United Park City Mines Co. (UT0022403): Mercury concentration should be in ng/L not mg/L
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference Grant Meeting.
    Date: November 17, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, 223, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ruth Grossman, DDS, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institutes of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 960, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8775, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cfa8bda0bcbca2aea1bdbc8fa2aea6a3e1a1a6a7e1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3c4d1ccd0d0cec2cdd1d0e3cec2cacf8dcdcacb8dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22976 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
41343.

#### HILLHOUSE v. C. W. MATTHEWS CONTRACTING COMPANY.

*74Submitted June 8, 1965

Decided June 24, 1965

Rehearing July 13, 1965.

*75
      *Johnson & Johnson, Jean E. Johnson, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. M. Beed,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“It is a well settled rule that pleadings must be construed in the light of their omissions as well as their averments. *Houston v. Pollard,*217 Ga. 184 (121 SE2d 629); *Strother v. Kennedy,*218 Ga. 180, 186 (127 SE2d 19).” *Reserve Ins. Co. v. Campbell,*107 Ga. App. 311, 313 (130 SE2d 236). And if an inference unfavorable to the right of the party claiming a right under such pleadings may be fairly drawn from the facts stated therein, such inference will prevail in determining the rights of the parties. See *Chalverus v. Wilson Mfg. Co.,*212 Ga. 612 (1) (94 SE2d 736), and citations.

The plaintiff alleged that he gave a turn signal and proceeded to make a left turn at a time when the intersection was clear of oncoming traffic. However, there was no allegation that there was no oncoming traffic “so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard,” as required by *Code Ann.*§ 68-1651, before the plaintiff would obtain the right of way in such intersection. Nor did the allegation that the plaintiff observed the defendant’s truck *after*he had reached the southeast corner of such intersection show such oncoming traffic was not an immediate hazard at the time the plaintiff began to make his left turn, there being no facts alleged as to why the defendant’s truck was not visible to the plaintiff.

Therefore, construing the petition in the light of its averments as well as its omissions, under *Code*§ 105-603, the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence by waiting until oncoming traffic was not so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, and the allegations of negligence all being allegations of acts observable to the plaintiff if he had looked, and based, either directly or indirectly, on the excessive speed of the defendant’s agent, failed to set forth a cause of action against the defendant, and the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer was not error for any reason assigned.

*76
      *Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt, J., concurs. Pannell, J., concurs, specially.*

Pannell, Judge,

concurring specially. I cannot agree that the failure on the part of the plaintiff to allege the existence of all the requirements of Art. IX, § 73 of the Act of 1953 approved January 11, 1954 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 590; *Code Ann.*§ 68-1651), necessary to entitle plaintiff to the right of way when making a left turn at an intersection, precludes a recovery as a matter of law under the facts of the present case. I agree, however, that the failure of the plaintiff to look for oncoming traffic before making a left turn at the intersection does bar his recovery, and for this latter reason only I concur in the judgment affirming the trial judge in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.
§ 205.12 Process served on the Register of Copyrights or an employee in his or her official capacity. ( a ) Summonses, complaints and all other process directed to the Copyright Office, the Register of Copyrights or any other Copyright Office employee in his or her official capacity should be served on the General Counsel of the Copyright Office or his or her designee as indicated in § 205.2 of this part. To effect proper service, the requirements of Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must also be satisfied by effecting service on both the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought and the Attorney General, Attn: Director of Intellectual Property Staff, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.
( b ) If, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, any employee of the Office is served with a summons or complaint in connection with the conduct of official business, that employee shall immediately notify and deliver the summons or complaint to the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office.
( c ) Any employee receiving a summons or complaint shall note on the summons or complaint the date, hour, and place of service and mode of service.
( d ) The Office will accept service of process for an employee only when the legal proceeding is brought in connection with the conduct of official business carried out in the employee's official capacity.
( e ) When a legal proceeding is brought to hold an employee personally liable in connection with an action taken in the conduct of official business, rather than liable in an official capacity, the employee is to be served in accordance with any applicable statute, court rule, or rule of procedure. Service of process in this case is inadequate when made only on the General Counsel. An employee sued personally for an action taken in the conduct of official business shall immediately notify and deliver a copy of the summons or complaint to the General Counsel of the Copyright Office.