alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DANIEL FISH v. AL. P. ERICKSON.2

May 29, 1914.

Nos. 18,861—(284).

Primary election — correction of ballot — candidates for judge.

Where, after expiration of the time for filing nominations, a third vacancy *526was created by the resignation of a district court judge, the county auditor,, in proceedings under G. S. 1913, § 398, was directed to indicate on the official ballots for the primary and the general election that three vacancies were to be filled» [Reporter.]

Upon the affidavit of Daniel Fish the court made its order directing Al. P» Erickson, county auditor of Hennepin county, to insert in the official notice of the-primary election to be held in that county on June 16, 1914, a statement that candidates for three district judgeships, instead of two, were to be voted for at. that election and to make provision that six names for such judgeships, instead of four, be selected from the names appearing on the primary ballot as eandidatesfor nomination for that oifice, or show cause why he had not done so.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss was denied.

*Lyndon*A. *Smith,*Attorney General, for petitioner.

*James Robertson,*County Attorney, for respondent.

2

 Reported in 147 N. W. 426.

Per Curiam.

Proceedings under section 398, G. S. 1913, for the correction of the ballot for the primary election to be held in June, 1914, in so far as such ballot has reference to candidates for district judge of the Fourth judicial district, composed of Hennepin county. The motion of respondent to dismiss is denied.

At the expiration of the time for filing for the nomination for such office at the June, 1914, primary election there were two vacancies for which nominations were to be made, and seven candidates had filed therefor. Subsequent to such date for filing another vacancy was created by the resignation of one of the-members of that court, which, under section 10, art. 6, of the Constitution, must be filled at the November general election. The respondent, county auditor, who-has charge under the statute of the preparation of the official ballots, intends to indicate thereon that only two vacancies in the office are to be filled, and this-proceeding is to require him to provide for three vacancies.

It is ordered that in the preparation of the ballots for the June primary election, and for the general November election, the respondent, in the manner provided for by the statute, indicate thereon that three district judges are to be elected at the November election, and so prepare the primary and general election ballot that each elector may cast his vote accordingly.
§ 21.7310 Civil rights. ( a ) *Delegation of authority concerning Federal equal opportunity laws.* The Under Secretary for Benefits is delegated the responsibility to obtain evidence of voluntary compliance with Federal equal opportunity laws from educational institutions and from recognized national organizations whose representatives are afforded space and office facilities under his or her jurisdiction. See part 18 of this chapter. These equal opportunity laws are: ( 1 ) Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964;
( 2 ) Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, as amended;
( 3 ) Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
( 4 ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
( b ) *Role of State approving agencies.* In obtaining evidence from educational institutions of compliance with Federal equal opportunity laws, the Under Secretary for Benefits may use the State approving agencies as provided in § 21.4258(d).
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000)
[62 FR 55761, Oct. 28, 1997]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 10, 2017

Order 

Clerk

March 10, 2017

155116(84)

TAYLOR SCHOOL DISTRICT and TAYLOR

FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFT, LOCAL

1085,

Respondents-Appellants,

SC: 155116

v COA: 326128

MERC: 13-000133; 13-000029

NANCY RHATIGAN, REBECCA METZ,

and ANGELA STEFFKE,

Charging Parties-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Education Association 

to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the application for leave to appeal is 

GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on March 1, 2017, is accepted for filing.
**Bonneville Power Administration**	http://www.bpa.gov	

| Agency TopicsFinance & RatesJobsPublic InvolvementContact										 									AdvancedAbout BPANewsroomPublicationsCommunityDoing Business |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  **BPA Home****Publications****Journal****BPA Journal** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |

| General InformationBrochures/PublicationsRecords of DecisionAuditsReportsTribalMapsOther Publication LinksDiscontinued Publications | 2011 BPA Journals
- December    NovemberOctober
The Oct. 25 Stategic Capital Discussion has been postponed until sometime in November. Please check the 
 2011 Strategic Capital Discussions page
 for more information. 	
- September    Update: Strategic Capital Discussion meetings will now only take place Sept. 19 and 20. Please see the  BPA Calendar  for more information. 	 AugustJuly
- June  MayApril
- March  FebruaryJanuary
 Update to January BPA Journal - The information under Energy Efficiency post-2011 Phase 2 proposal on page 3 has been updated since press time.
											* Opening pdf files
Other Years
2010200920082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995
			Need help finding something? Send us a message, or give us a call at 800-622-4519.			**NOTICE:** This site is owned and operated by the Bonneville Power Administration, United States Department of Energy. Use of this system is monitored by system and Security personnel. Anyone using this system consents to MONITORING of this use by system or security personnel. BPA Privacy Policy |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
###### 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.

#### § 41.64 Jurisdiction over appeal in *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) Jurisdiction over the proceeding passes to the Board upon transmittal of the file, including all briefs and examiner's answers, to the Board.

(b) If, after receipt and review of the proceeding, the Board determines that the file is not complete or is not in compliance with the requirements of this subpart, the Board may relinquish jurisdiction to the examiner or take other appropriate action to permit completion of the file.

(c) Prior to the entry of a decision on the appeal by the Board, the Director may sua sponte order the proceeding remanded to the examiner.
#### Paul C. Forst, Respondent, *v.*Sarah E. Marshall, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Clark B. Augustine, for appellant.

Heston A. Alexander, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The evidence warranted findings of employment and performance. Enough appeared to show that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the exchange.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 in connection with the evidence is quite convincing that Mr. Grlickman’s memory was at fault when he was examined as a witness, and that the probabilities were with the version presented on behalf of the plaintiff as to the source of Mr. Grlickman’s information as to the Edgecombe avenue lots. There is no merit in the appeal, as there was no error which affected the result.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### OSGOOD *v.*OSGOOD.

Cancellation of Instruments — Fraud—Equity.

A decree canceling a deed of real property, executed by complainant’s deceased husband, is denied on review of conflicting evidence, claimed by her to prove fraud.

Appeal from Benzie; Lamb, J.

Submitted March *2,*1911.

(Docket No. 145.)

Decided May 8, 1911.

Bill by Cynthia M. Osgood against Tillie M. Osgood to cancel a deed. From a decree dismissing her bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*570
      *Gaffney & Miltner,*for complainant.

*D. G. F. Warner,*for defendant.

Ostrander, C. J.

Complainant charges in her bill that her deceased husband, whose sole devisee she is, and she herself, were overreached, deceived, and defrauded when they joined, during the lifetime of the husband, in executing and delivering a deed of real estate for a valuable, but it is claimed an inadequate, consideration. She prays for a decree canceling the said conveyance and the record thereof, and requiring defendant to reconvey to complainant. Incidentally the construction of a last will is asked for, and an accounting for the rents and profits of the said land. If complainant and her husband were defrauded, then the other questions become material. Whether they were defrauded, as charged, is a question of fact. It will profit no one to set out or to analyze the testimony. We are of opinion that the fraud alleged is not made out, and agree with the court below that the bill of complaint should be dismissed. The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

McAlvay, Brooke, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.
|   |                                                               LATEST NEWS
COUNTRYREPORTS

 INDUSTRY REPORTS

  LEADS

EVENTS
PUBLICATIONSSOURCES OFFINANCECUSTOMS CORNERU.S. STATEEXPORTSUSEFUL LINKS
*BISNIS* the NIS market resource at the USA Trade Center  
 Energy Sector      Industry Reports  

Search Industry Reports***Search tips****Search:**Industry Reports     Entire site     BISNIS Bulletin     Embasy Reports     Country Reports     Sources of Finance     Leads     **for:*** |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Lamora, Christopher John – Republic of Cameroon – July 2021

# 									Lamora, Christopher John – Republic of Cameroon – July 2021							

Certificate of Competency

July 15, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT:            Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  Republic of Cameroon

CANDIDATE:     Christopher John Lamora

Christopher Lamora, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Accra, Ghana.  Previously, he was Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Africa and African Security Affairs, during which time he also served as the U.S. representative to the Great Lakes Contact Group.  Prior to that, he was the Director of the Office of Central African Affairs and the Deputy Director of the Office of Economic and Regional Affairs, both in the African Affairs Bureau.  Mr. Lamora has nearly 30 years of Foreign Service experience, 12 of which he has spent focused on African policy, security, and economic development and partnerships.  He has served in three African countries, including Cameroon, and has demonstrated his leadership as the Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires a.i at the fifth-largest U.S. embassy in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in his senior positions in Washington.  All of these combine to make him an excellent candidate to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon.

Mr. Lamora previously served as the Director of the Los Angeles Passport Agency, the Deputy Consular Section Chief in Guatemala City, and Desk Officer for the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  He spent a year as a Pearson Fellow in the Washington, D.C. office of Senator Richard Durbin.  Other assignments include two tours in the Consular Affairs Bureau’s Office of Children’s Issues and one as the Consular Affairs Bureau’s press spokesperson.  Overseas he held positions at the U.S. Embassies in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Athens, Greece; Bangui, Central African Republic; and the U.S. Consulate General in Douala, Cameroon.

Mr. Lamora earned his B.S. degree from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.  He is the recipient of numerous State Department awards.  His foreign languages are French, Spanish, Modern Greek, and Russian.

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION 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, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., Vice President of Finance of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr. Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.
#### § 17.129 Retroactive payments prohibited.

When a claim for payment or reimbursement of expenses of services not previously authorized has not been timely filed in accordance with the provisions of § 17.126, the expenses of any such care or services rendered prior to the date of filing the claim shall not be paid or reimbursed. In no event will a bill or claim be paid or allowed for any care or services rendered prior to the effective date of any law, or amendment to the law, under which eligibility for the medical services at Department of Veterans Affairs expense has been established.

[39 FR 1844, Jan. 15, 1974. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21966, 21968, May 13, 1996]
Office £*$fe*j£ Canadian

des transports ^^^m<9 Transportation du Canada o^M>/ Agency

May 1,2012 M4820-U5-19

BY FACSIMILE

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

X40, suite 6402

400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Gretch

Reference: OST 2006-24269

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by United

States air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada, including charters

between Canada and third countries, in accordance with the provisions ofthe Air Transport

Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007

(Agreement). In addition, as established in the Agreement, charter services not specified in the

Annex to that Agreement, are considered on the basis of comity and reciprocity.

Yours .sincerely

J/^

lerine MacDonald

Manager International Agreements

cc Robert Ready, ANA

Marc Rioux, ACEA.

Brian Hedberg, US DoT

Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N9 Ottawa Ontario K1A 0N9

www.otc.gc.ca www.cta.gc.ca

Canada
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.669 Forfeiture. ( a ) *General.* Upon receipt of notice from a Regional Counsel (or in cases under the jurisdiction of the Manila Regional Office, the Veterans Service Center Manager) that a case is being formally submitted for consideration of forfeiture of a payee's rights under § 3.905 of this part or that the payee has been indicted for subversive activities, payments will be suspended effective date of last payment.
( b ) *Fraud or treasonable act* — ( 1 ) *Fraud.* If forfeiture of rights is not declared, payments shall be resumed from date of last payment, if otherwise in order. If it is determined that rights have been forfeited, benefits shall be discontinued effective the commencing date of the award or the day preceding the commission of the act resulting in the forfeiture, whichever is later.
( 2 ) *Treasonable acts.* If forfeiture of rights is not declared, payments shall be resumed from date of last payment, if otherwise in order. If it is determined that rights have been forfeited, benefits shall be discontinued the date of the forfeiture decision or date of last payment, whichever is earlier.
( c ) *Subversive activities.* If the payee is acquitted of the charge, payments will be resumed from date of last payment, if otherwise in order. If the payee is convicted, benefits will be discontinued effective the commencing date of the award or the day preceding the commission of the act resulting in the forfeiture, whichever is later.
( d ) *Pardons.* ( 1 ) Where the payee's offense has been pardoned by the President of the United States, the award will be resumed, if otherwise in order, effective the date of the pardon if claim is filed within 1 year from that date; otherwise benefits may not be authorized for any period prior to the date of filing claim. The award will be subject to any existing overpayment.
( 2 ) Payments to a dependent of the person whose benefits were declared forfeited before September 2, 1959, will be discontinued effective the day preceding the date of the pardon. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)


Cross References:
Fraud. See § 3.901. Treasonable acts. See § 3.902. Subversive activities. See § 3.903. [27 FR 8616, Aug. 29, 1962, as amended 28 FR 5618, June 7, 1963; 39 FR 28630, Aug. 9, 1974; 46 FR 34801, July 6, 1981; 71 FR 52290, Sept. 5, 2006]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Autism Therapy Evaluation Effects of Hyperbaric 
Oxygen Therapy on Children With Autism, Request For Application (RFA), 
DD8EM-801

    Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on 
January 27, 2009, Volume 74, Number 16, page 4752. The aforementioned 
meeting has been rescheduled to the following:
    Time and Date: 3:30 p.m.-5 p.m., February 12, 2009 (Closed).
    Contact Person for More Information: Brenda Colley Gilbert, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Administrator, 2877 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, Georgia 
30341, telephone: (770) 488-8390.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: January 27, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-2302 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
###### 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.

#### § 42.70 Oral argument.

(a) *Request for oral argument.* A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper at a time set by the Board. The request must be filed as a separate paper and must specify the issues to be argued.

(b) Demonstrative exhibits must be served at least seven business days before the oral argument and filed no later than the time of the oral argument.

[77 FR 48669, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 18765, Apr. 1, 2016]