alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE TERMINAL & NAVIGATION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES1 ATLAS LINE STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

(Nos. C-315, C-317.

Decided March 17, 1924)

*On Defendant's Demurrers*

*Jurisdiction.*— See *DeutscU-Australische, etc.,*v. *United States, ante,*p. 450.

*The Reporter's*statement of the cases:

The defendant’s demurrers in the above-entitled cases were sustained and the petitions dismissed, with the following

1

 Appealed.

*462MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

1. The action sounds in tort. *Hijo case,*194 U. S. 315; *Herrera case,*222 U. S. 558.

2. The court is without jurisdiction. Cases *supra.*See also opinion in *Deutsch-Australische, etc., case*No. C-576, decided this day, *ante,*p. 450.
###### Editorial Note on Part 212

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 212 appear at 82 FR 9366, Feb. 6, 2017.

#### § 212.1 Scope.

The provisions of this part apply to the protection and registration of original designs of vessels under chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code. Design protection and registration under this part are separate from copyright protection and registration. Copyright registration is governed by the provisions of part 202 of this subchapter.

[64 FR 36578, July 7, 1999, as amended at 82 FR 9366, Feb. 6, 2017]
#### Phineas Gallerstein, an Infant, by William Gallerstein, His Guardian *ad litem,*appellant, *v.*The Manhattan Railway Company, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

Bill of particulars — Affidavit must foe made foy party.

;.An attorney,¿employed -iti .the' office o£,,the,.defendant,srattorney. cannot make an affidavit which will afford a proper basis for an order . requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars of the complaint, as such an affidavit should be made by. the party.

Gallerstein v. Manhattan Railway Co., 26 Misc. Rep. 852, reversed.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming an order requiring plaintiff to serve a verified bill of particulars.

Emanuel Hertz, for appellant.

Charles A. Gardiner (Julien T. Davies and Joseph H. Adams, of counsel), for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The motion -resulting in the order -appealed, from was based upon an affidavit of an attorney employed in the. office of the- attorney for the defendant, and upon the pleadings.. The only proof as to the alleged necessity of the order consisted in the affidavit referred to. That such an affidavit, even if made *507by the attorney of record, is wholly insufficient has been expressly determined in Dueber Watch Case Manf’g Co. v. Keystone Watch Case Co., 21 N. Y. Supp. 342. To the same effect are Mayer v. Mayer, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1079; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Pro. 215.

The order should be reversed.

Leventbitt, J., concurs; MacLeae, J., taking no part.

Order reversed, "with costs to appellant.
§ 63a.1 To what programs do these regulations apply? ( a ) The regulations of this part apply to: ( 1 ) Grants awarded by the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences, NIH, for training in international cooperative biomedical research endeavors, as authorized under section 307(b)(3) of the Act;
( 2 ) Grants awarded by NIH for research training with respect to the human diseases, disorders, or other aspects of human health or biomedical research for which the institute or other awarding component was established, for which fellowship support is not provided under section 487 of the Act and which is not residency training of physicians or other health professionals, as authorized by sections 405(b)(1)(C), 452G, 485B(b), 2315(a)(1), and 2354(a)(3)(C) of the Act; and,
( 3 ) Grants awarded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, for the education and training of physicians in environmental health, as authorized under section 103(h)(2) of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
( b ) The regulations of this part also apply to cooperative agreements awarded to support the training specified in paragraph (a) of this section. References to “grant(s)” shall include “cooperative agreement(s).”
( c ) The regulations of this part do not apply to: ( 1 ) Research training support under the National Research Service Awards Program (see part 66 of this chapter);
( 2 ) Research training support under the NIH Center Grants programs (see part 52a of this chapter);
( 3 ) Research training support under traineeship programs (see part 63 of this chapter);
( 4 ) Research training support under the NIH AIDS Research Loan Repayment Program (see section 487A of the Act); or
( 5 ) Research training support under the National Library of Medicine training grant programs (see part 64 of this chapter).
[61 FR 55111, Oct. 24, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 42296, July 26, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 68 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### §§ 5.31-5.33 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### Service by Certified Mail

*116September 30, 1955.

Garfinkel, Assistant Deputy Attorney General,

You have requested an opinion as to whether service of process or notice by certified mail will satisfy those statutory provisions which call for service of process or notice by registered mail.

An analytical comparison of the distinctive attributes of certified and registered mail is necessary to determine whether certified mail is so similar to registered mail as to satisfy such statutory provisions.

A new service known as certified mail was introduced by the United States Post Office Department on June 7, 1955. For the most part, letters sent by certified mail are handled and dispatched as ordinary, first class mail. However, certified mail differs from ordinary mail in that prior to dispatch a receipt, which upon delivery must be signed by the addressee or his agent, is attached to each piece of certified mail. Should the sender so request, the addressee or his agent will also be required to sign a receipt to be returned by the postal authorities to the sender. During transportation, certified mail is commingled with ordinary mail and no special precautions, other than those applicable to first class mail generally, are taken to protect certified mail from loss or theft. The Post Office Department maintains no record of the receipt of an individual piece of certified mail from the sender. Thus, if a piece of certified mail were lost or misplaced the postal authorities would have no way of learning of ,the loss and, consequently, the sender would receive no notification thereof. Records of certified mail delivery slips are destroyed by the Post Office Department after six months.

On the other hand, special precautions are provided to protect registered mail against loss or theft. For example, registered mail is not commingled with ordinary mail and when such mail is transferred within the Post Office Department the recipient must acknowl*117edge possession by his signature. As a result of these special precautions, the postal authorities would be alerted to any loss of a particular piece of registered mail, and their records would enable them to notify, the sender of such loss immediately. Registered mail records are retained for three years.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that certified mail is not substantially the same as registered mail. It is, rather, a distinct service having some of the attributes of both registered mail and ordinary mail.

It is our opinion, therefore, and you are accordingly advised that in the absence of specific statutory authorization, certified mail may not be used in place of registered mail for the service of process or notice where a statute provides for the use of registered mail.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 188 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain 

provisions of law to Public Law 105–331. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 

4 purposes of Public Law 105–331, the end of the 2-year 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 188 RFS

1 period specified in subparagraph (B) of section 5134(f)(1) 

2 of title 31, United States Code, shall be July 1, 2007. 

3 This section shall apply on and after December 31, 2006, 

4 as if the section had been enacted on such date. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 16, 

2007. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
HomeLocal Guard Force...Ramadhani Mahundi

# 									Ramadhani Mahundi							

DS Memorial

August 6, 1998

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Local Guard Force****Year of Death: 1998**

Ramadhani Mahundi, Local Guard Force, died on August 7, 1998, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He was killed in a terrorist bombing ofU.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam.

**Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have an image of this individual.**

Tags

DS Local Guard ForceTanzania

Back to Top
**Secondary Market Report**
**January 1999**
TABLE 9
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6041-6042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Task Force on Community Preventive Services

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:

    Name: Task Force on Community Preventive Services.
    Times and Dates: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST, February 11, 2009; 8 a.m. 
to 1 p.m. EST, February 12, 2009.
    Place: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2500 Century 
Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30345.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The mission of the Task Force is to develop and publish 
the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide), which 
consists of systematic reviews

[[Page 6042]]

of the best available scientific evidence and associated 
recommendations regarding what works in the delivery of essential 
public health services.
    Topics include:

--Update: Home Visits to Increase Vaccination Coverage in Children, 
Adolescents, and Adults
--Update: Vaccination Programs in WIC Settings to Increase 
Vaccination Coverage in Children, Adolescents, and Adults
--Group-based Interventions to Prevent Adolescent Pregnancy, HIV, 
other Sexually Transmitted Infections
--Asthma Home Visits Economic Evaluation Review
---Effects of Policies Restricting Hours of Alcohol Sales on 
Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms
--Population Levels of Alcohol Consumption Are a Good Indicator of 
Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms
--Update: Health Marketing Review
--Update on the Community Guide Website
--Introduction of the new Youth Development Review

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Persons interested in reserving a space for this meeting should 
call Charmen Crawford at 404.498.2498.
    Contact person for additional information: Charmen Crawford, 
Coordinating Center for Health Information and Services, National 
Center for Health Marketing, Office of the Director, 1600 Clifton 
Road, M/S E-69, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone: 404.498.2498.

    Dated: January 27, 2009.
James D. Seligman,
Chief Information Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-2300 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
EXHIBIT 21.1


SUBSIDIARIES OF DIONEX CORPORATION


	The following table sets forth the names of the subsidiaries of the
Registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization of each, and the names under which subsidiaries do business
as of June 30, 1999.


                            State or other
                            jurisdiction of     Name under which
                            incorporation or    subsidiary does
Name of Subsidiary          organization	        business


Dionex (U.K.) Limited       England             Dionex (U.K.) Limited

Dionex GmbH                 Federal Republic    Dionex GmbH
                            of Germany

Dionex S.r.l.               Italy               Dionex S.r.l.

Dionex S.A.                 France              Dionex S.A.

Dionex Export Corporation   U.S. Virgin Islands Dionex Export Corporation

Dionex Canada Ltd./Ltee.    Canada              Dionex Canada Ltd./Ltee.

Dionex B.V.                 The Netherlands     Dionex B.V.

Nippon Dionex K.K.          Japan               Nippon Dionex K.K.

Dionex N.V.                 Belgium             Dionex N.V.

Dionex (Switzerland) AG     Switzerland         Dionex (Switzerland) AG

Dionex Austria GmbH         Austria             Dionex Austria GmbH

Dionex Softron GmbH         Germany             Dionex Softron GmbH

Dionex Holding GmbH         Germany             Dionex Holding GmbH
#### Georgie ROBIE et al *v.*Lanita BOLTON

76-281

541 S.W. 2d 310

Opinion delivered October 4, 1976 (In Banc)

*Kenneth L. Schorr,*for appellants.

*Daily, West, Core*<2? *Coffman,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

A Fort Smith ordinance, adopted in 1972, requires that initiative petitions be filed with the city clerk “at least 90 days before the regular municipal election” at which the proposed measure is to be voted upon. The appellants tendered such a petition to the appellee, as city clerk, some 64 days before the next election (to be held in November). Upon the appellee’s refusal to accept the petition the appellants brought this suit for a judgment declaring the tender to have been timely. This appeal is from a decree upholding the city clerk’s refusal to accept the petition.

The Constitution provides that the time for filing a municipal initiative petition “shall not be fixed at less than sixty days nor more than ninety days” before the election. Ark. Const., 1874, Amendment 7. The appellants argue that the Fort Smith ordinance is contrary to the Constitution, because, they say, the municipal requirement that the petition be filed “at least 90 days” before the election fixed the filing date one day earlier than the constitutional mandate that it be not “more than ninety days” before the election.

*430The trial court’s decision is right. What the Constitution contemplates is that the city fix the last permissible date for the filing of the petition. That is the only date that is involved, because the proponents of the measure are at liberty to file their petition before that date. *Fine*v. *City of Van Buren,*237 Ark. 29, 371 S.W. 2d 132 (1963). Unquestionably the city of Fort Smith could have required that the petition be filed “at least 60 days” before the election, because that language is an accurate paraphrase of the constitutional reference to not less than 60 days. That being so, the city must be entitled to move the date forward to any point up to and including “at least 90 days” before the election, as in the ordinance actually in force. Otherwise the 30-day leeway allowed by the Constitution would be reduced to only 29 days. Hence the ordinance is valid.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.939 Unauthorized papers in *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) If an unauthorized paper is filed by any party at any time during the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding it will not be considered and may be returned.

(b) Unless otherwise authorized, no paper shall be filed prior to the initial Office action on the merits of the *inter partes* reexamination.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### The New York Mercantile Loan Association, Respondent, *v.*The National Sewing Machine Co., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, third district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff. .■ ,

Kenneson, Crain & Ailing, for appellant.

McCrea, Somerville & Taylor, for respondent;

MacLean, J.

Following the doctrine set out in Rieser v. Parker & Co., 27 Misc. Rep. 205, in which case the facts were similar to those in this, excepting that the defendant corporation in this case was created in and by the state of Illinois, the judgment should be reversed.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.-

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### § 303.2 Representation.

Individual parties in proceedings before the Judges may represent themselves or be represented by an attorney. All other parties must be represented by an attorney. Cf. Rule 49(c)(11) of the Rules of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The appearance of an attorney on behalf of any party constitutes a representation that the attorney is a member of the bar, in one or more states, in good standing.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 27 December 2004         

on the allocation of additional days absent from port to the Netherlands in accordance with Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003

(notified under document number C(2004) 5269)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(2005/38/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (1), and in particular paragraph 6(c) of Annex V,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Two additional days, in relation to those set out in paragraph 6(a) of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003, shall be allocated to the Netherlands in each calendar month for vessels carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 27 December 2004.

For the Commission

Joe BORG            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1928/2004 (OJ L 332, 6.11.2004, p. 5).

----
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 10 December 2003         

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/E-2/37.857 — Organic peroxides)

(notified under document number C(2003) 4570 final and corrigendum C(2004) 4)

(Only the English, German and Spanish texts are authentic)

(2005/349/EC)

On 10 December 2003, the Commission adopted a decision (C(2003) 4570 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. On 7 January 2004, the Commission approved by written procedure E/2/2004 (C(2004) 4) a corrigendum to the German and Spanish versions of Decision C(2003) 4570 final. In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Regulation 17 (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business interests. A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic languages of the case and in the Commission’s working languages at DG COMP’s website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

I.   SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

Addresses and nature of the infringement

Duration of the infringement

The market for Organic Peroxides

Functioning of the cartel

II.   FINES

Basic amount

Differential treatment

Duration

Aggravating circumstances

Attenuating circumstances

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice

Non-imposition or a very substantial reduction in its amount (Section B: 75 to 100 % reduction)

Significant reduction of a fine (Section D: reduction from 10 to 50 %)

Ability to pay

Decision

----

(1)OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

----