alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pasquale DeLuca *vs.*Angeline DeLuca.

JULY 2, 1946.

Present: Flynn, C. J., Moss, Capotosto and Baker.

Moss, J.

This divorce case is before us solely on respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s appeal from the final decree of the superior court granting an absolute divorce to the respondent.

*35The facts are undisputed. On May 15,1944 the petitioner filed a petition for divorce from the respondent on the grounds of extreme cruelty and of wilful desertion. Thereafter the respondent filed a cross-petition for divorce on the ground of neglect to provide. On December 18, 1944 the case was heard on the merits by a justice of the superior court, who then rendered a decision granting the cross-petition and denying and dismissing the original petition. Apparently at that time an agreement was made between the parties according to which alimony was permanently waived in consideration of the disposition in a certain manner of the real estate in the town of Westerly belonging to the parties as tenants in common. He was to convey to her his interest therein and she was to pay him $4000. This agreement, as so made, was approved by the trial justice, who ordered that it be incorporated in the interlocutory decree based on his decision, which was done. On November 13,1945 a final decree was entered, the provisions thereof being substantially the same as those in the interlocutory decree based on the decision.

On November 16, 1945 the respondent filed in the superior court a petition praying that the petitioner be adjudged in contempt for failure to comply with the final decree. This petition was continued *nisi.*On that same day, the petitioner, through another attorney, filed in that court a claim and' reasons of appeal from the final decree, alleging in substance that such decree and the findings of fact therein were contrary to the law and the evidence; that the court had abused its discretion; and that such decree was erroneous and should be reversed. After the case reached this court the respondent moved that the petitioner’s appeal from the final decree of the superior court be dismissed on the ground that such a decree in a divorce case will not be reviewed by this court on an appeal therefrom. This motion.is the only matter now before us for determination.

In *Fidler*v. *Fidler,*28 R. I. 102, this court fully considered the question whether an appeal from a final decree in a di*36vorce case could properly be filed and it then definitely held that it could not. That decision has been consistently followed in later cases. See *Thrift*v. *Thrift,*30 R. I. 357; *Bajakian*v. *Bajakian,*57 R. I. 470, 474; *Sullivan*v. *Sullivan,*68 R. I. 25, 27. There is nothing in the instant case to take it out of this now well-established rule.

*Louis B. Cappuccio, Clarence E. Roche,*for petitioner.

*Thomas J. Capalbo,*for respondent.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal is therefore granted; that appeal is dismissed, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.
§ 217.286 Letter of Authorization. ( a ) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to this subpart, LOA Holder must apply for and obtain an LOA;
( b ) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed February 21, 2029, the expiration date of this subpart;
( c ) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, LOA Holder must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.287;
( d ) The LOA must set forth: ( 1 ) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
( 2 ) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (*i.e.,* mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and
( 3 ) Requirements for monitoring and reporting;
( e ) Issuance of the LOA must be based on a determination that the level of taking must be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations of this subpart; and
( f ) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA must be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.
#### § 31.16 Trapping program.

Except as hereafter noted, persons trapping animals on wildlife refuge areas where trapping has been authorized shall secure and comply with the provisions of a Federal permit issued for that purpose. This permit shall specify the terms and conditions of trapping activity and the rates of charge or division of pelts, hides, and carcasses. Lands acquired as “waterfowl production areas” shall be open to public trapping without Federal permit provided that trapping on all or part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. Each person trapping on any wildlife refuge area shall possess the required State license or permit and shall comply with the provisions of State laws and regulations.

[36 FR 17998, Sept. 8, 1971]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 169 (Thursday, August 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 51833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting; Amendment of 
Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an 
amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Anti-Infective Drugs 
Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register 
of July 25, 2006 (71 FR 42096). The amendment is being made to reflect 
a change in the Date and Time and Agenda portions of the document. The 
meeting scheduled for September 11, 2006, has been cancelled. There are 
no other changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sohail Mosaddegh, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ae9f5f2fbf3f6b4f7f5e9fbfefefffdf2dafcfefbb4f2f2e9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6615090e070f0a480b091507020203010e26000207480e0e1548010910">[email protected]</span></a>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information 
Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area), code 
3014512530. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information 
on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 25, 2006 (71 
FR 42096), FDA announced that a meeting of the Anti-Infective Drugs 
would be held on September 11 and 12, 2006. On page 42096, in the 
second column, the Date and Time portion of the meeting is amended to 
read as follows:
    Date and Time: The meeting will held on September 12, 2006, from 8 
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    On page 42096, third column, the Agenda portion of the meeting is 
amended to read as follows:
    Agenda: On September 12, 2006, the committee will discuss 
supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 21-158/S-006, FACTIVE 
(gemifloxacin mesylate) Tablets, submitted by Oscient Pharmaceuticals 
Corp., for the proposed treatment of acute baterial sinusitis.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: August 25, 2006.
Randall W. Lutter,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 06-7310 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- November Photo Contest Winner
        - Procedural Justice and Legitimacy
        - Lessons from Ferguson
        - Child Sex Trafficking Online Training
        - COPS Office Collaborative Reform

Subscribe

 The Beat

 Learning

 Archives

Search Dispatch:Search

### COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance 

In  response to requests from the law enforcement community for a proactive,  non-adversarial, and cost-effective form of technical assistance for agencies  with significant law enforcement-related issues, the U.S. Department of Justice  (DOJ), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) developed  the Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance (CRI-TA).

The  purpose of CRI-TA is to improve trust between agencies and the communities they  serve by providing a means to organizational transformation around specific  issues. It is not a short-term solution for a serious deficiency but rather a  long-term strategy that first identifies issues within an agency that may  affect public trust and then offers recommendations based on a comprehensive  agency assessment for how to resolve those issues and enhance the relationship  between the police and the community.

The COPS Office issues a series of findings and recommendations  that are consistent with best practices in policing. The agency’s progress  toward addressing the recommendations is monitored over a period of 18 months  to ensure the changes are sustained. Reports summarizing the status of each  recommendation are publicly released, offering a level of accountability to the  community. In addition, in the spirit of the collaborative nature of this work,  the COPS Office provides technical assistance and other resources to the agency  to help it address its specific needs.

CRI-TA helps to proactively promote organizational and cultural  changes in law enforcement agencies across the United States, because the  recommendations have applicability beyond the individual agencies in which  these reviews are conducted. The recommendations and outcomes from these sites  benefit agencies nationwide because they can adapt them to their own critical  needs. Because all reports are released publicly, they serve as a road map for  change for other agencies. 

In  2013, the COPS Office completed CRI-TA work in Las Vegas, Nevada. Since then,  the COPS Office initiated CRI-TA work in Spokane, Washington; Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania; St. Louis County, Missouri; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Salinas, California; and Calexico, California. For more  information,  visit the Collaborative Reform website or  contact us by e-mail at TechnicalAssistance@usdoj.gov or by phone at 202-353-4400. 

**Back to top**

November Photo Contest Winner | Procedural Justice and Legitimacy | Lessons from Ferguson | Child Sex Trafficking Online Training | COPS Office Collaborative Reform

FOIANo Fear ActOpen GovernmentPlain WritingPrivacy PolicyUSA.govLegal Policies and DisclaimersLanguage Access Plan
Argued and submitted November 17, 1993,

reversed and remanded July 6,

petition for review allowed December 13,1994 (320 Or 453)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of David F. Meissner, Claimant. ALL AMERICAN AIR FREIGHT and Industrial Indemnity Company, *Petitioners, v.*David F. MEISSNER, *Respondent, and*DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCE, *Intervenor.*

(91-04509; CA A78817)

876 P2d 866

John E. Snarskis argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

Daniel J. DeNorch argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for intervenor.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton,* Judges.

*

 Haselton, J., *vice*Durham, J.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded. *Harsh v. Harsco Corp.,*123 Or App 383, 859 P2d 1178 (1993), *rev den*318 Or 661 (1994).
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 179 (Friday, September 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 54507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7672]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, CDRC Conflict.
    Date: October 24, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Stanley C. Oaks, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 
Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, 6120 Executive Blvd.--MSC 7180, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c1f035d581f2c020504420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f7c603e3b7c4f61666721686079">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, Translational 
Research.
    Date: November 9, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Stanley C. Oaks, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 
Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, 6120 Executive Blvd.--MSC 7180, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35465a040146755b5c5d1b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcafb3ede8af9cb2b5b4f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 7, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-7672 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES, CO., LTD. (KOREA), a Korean corporation 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES, JAPAN KK, a Japanese corporation 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, an English corporation

 

TRIKON EQUIPMENTS LIMITED, an Englishcorporation 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES (ISRAEL)LIMITED, an English corporation 

 

E.T.ELECTROTECH RESEARCH LIMITED, an English corporation 

 

E.T. EQUIPMENTS LIMITED, an English corporation 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES, GmbH, a German limited liability company 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES, SARL, a French limited liability company 

 

TRIKON HOLDINGS LTD., an English corporation 

 

TRIKON TECHNOLOGIES B.V., a Dutch Limited Liability Company
§ 296.8 Amount of award. ( a ) *Actual damages.* The award for damaged fishing gear will be the lesser of the gear's repair cost or replacement cost. The award for lost fishing gear will be the gear's replacement cost.
( b ) *Consequential damages.* An award may also include compensation for any damage or loss (except personal injury) that is incurred as a consequence of the fishing gear damage or loss.
( c ) *Resulting economic loss.* An award may also include 50 percent of the resulting economic loss from damage to or loss of fishing vessels and gear.
( d ) *Attorney, CPA, consultant fees.* An award may also include compensation for reasonable fees paid by the claimant to an attorney, CPA, or other consultant for the preparation or prosecution of a claim.
( e ) *Negligence of claimant.* ( 1 ) An award will be reduced to the extent that the loss or damage was caused by the negligence or fault of the claimant. (For example, a claimant who sustained $10,000 in damages and whose negligence or fault was found to be responsible for 40% of the damage would receive $6,000 in compensation. If the same claimant were responsible for 99% of the negligence or fault that caused the damage, the claimant would receive $100 in compensation).
( 2 ) Negligence of the owner or operator of the fishing vessel or gear will reduce crewmember awards to the same extent that it reduces an award to the vessel's owner or operator.
( f ) *Insurance proceeds.* An award will be reduced by the amount the claimant has, or reasonably would have, received under a commercial policy of full hull and machinery and protection and indemnity insurance, whether or not such insurance was in effect at the time the casualty occurred.
[47 FR 49600, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 13796, Apr. 8, 1985]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5305

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to air carrier safety.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Mr. OBERSTAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to air carrier

safety.

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

3 That section 44701 of title 49, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(f) STANDARD OF SAFETY FOR AIR CARRIERS.—

6 Not later than March 1, 1996, the minimum safety stand7 ards prescribed by the Administrator under subsection

8 (b)(1) shall apply uniformly to all operations by air car9 riers providing air transportation, without regard to the

10 seating or payload capacity of the aircraft involved; except

11 that the Administrator may—
2

HR 5305 IH

1 ‘‘(1) prescribe alternative safety standards for

2 the operation of aircraft of a type approved by the

3 Administrator for transportation of no more than 9

4 passengers (exclusive of flight crew);

5 ‘‘(2) prescribe alternative safety standards for

6 operation of an aircraft of a type approved by the

7 Administrator for transportation of no more than 30

8 passengers (exclusive of flight crew) if such aircraft

9 is not used to provide scheduled air transportation;

10 and

11 ‘‘(3) prescribe alternative safety standards, en12 suring an equivalent level of safety, for the operation

13 of aircraft of a type designed for the transportation

14 of no more than 19 passengers (exclusive of flight

15 crew) for which application for design approval was

16 made to the Administrator prior to February 17,

17 1987.

18 Alternative standards may be prescribed under paragraph

19 (3) only for specific areas as to which the Administrator

20 finds that alternative standards are necessary because the

21 aircraft’s approved design makes compliance with one or

22 more of the uniform standards impossible.’’.

Æ
c%

P(JBLICATIONSAUTHORI7LlrI ..,ND INVOICE 154632

JJBLICATIONS AUTHORlZA11ojj be conipøiited by agency)

TO: (N E AND ADDRESS OF NEWSPAPERI - • FEDERAL LO. NO/SOC. SEC. NO. FROM: (NAME ArD ADDRESS OF AGENCY) AGENCYTELEPHONE ND

lliaMaport Sun—Gazette 24—0736730 Yvette M. House 71Z—Zj9.49,.

.

. Box 728 . Bureau of Air Quality Williamaport, PA 17703 400 Market St , 12th Floor •( Harrisburg, PA 17105

HEREWITH IS ENCLOSED COPY FOR PUOUCATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO TYPE OF AD

EMPLOY LI PURCHASE El CONTRACT SELL. CLASSIFiED LEGAL NOTICE

PUBUSH ADVERTISEMENT (NO. OF TIMES) MALIMUM NO. OF LINES DATE ORDER NO.

1 October 15, 2009

DATES OF INSERTION SIGN RE FOR AG CY

October 16, 2009, Friday edition

You, as vendor, are• authorized- to’ publish this adtertisement in your newspaper, subject- to the terms of this order, as

follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature

to be in capitals and subject matter and title of officer.to be set solid in type regularly used by_your newspaper for public (legal)

notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and

occupying similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any

contract awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employe or other persons on account of race, color,sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such

discrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract. Return this copyat once if you will not accept this advertisement underthe terms

set forth.

Proof of advertising in the form of a tearsheet must be included on Parts 1,2 & 3. Return original and two copies (signed

by the editor or publisher) to Agency listed above. Part 1 must be notarized. Part 4 is yours.

Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

ACCOUNT

FUND DEPT APP YEAR LOG ORG COST FUNCTION OBJ AMOUNT

CODE SA P olOO 7O90 I

CC 35 Z7jc*YOc’ (, 3

INVOICE (To be completed by publisher):

DATE OF INSERTION ACTUAL NO. OF PRINTED UNES COST PER LINE TOTALAMOUNT

istAd 1-5 37 tO

1’

3rdAd

.

‘-:

.. ..i__-_—,_I

PASTE TEARSHEET HERE

Cornri 3wpahoPe 9r)s’lvpia

County of (‘Of

Before m, the subscriber5aJiotary Public in and fJ¶,u 1]ty. ersonally came

_____

j

t

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

STD—52) REV. 2-a8

3t4A56&4 14J107

•vOicE.:i

2nd Ad •E. :. — .

GRAND TOTAL-’ &c)

7c -‘ q
[Civ. No. 1359.

First Appellate District.

July 21, 1914.]

#### ALDEN ANDERSON, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California, Appellant, v. Y. NAWA et al., Respondents.

Banks—Enforcement of Liability of Stockholders—Action by Bank Commissioner—Dismissal for Delay in Service of Summons.—The judgment entered in favor of the respondent T. Shibata, on January 14, 1913, is affirmed, and the appeal from the judgment entered on February 14, 1913, is dismissed, on the authority of *Anderson*v. *Nawa, ante,*p. 151.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George A. Sturtevant, Judge.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Anderson*v. *Nawa, ante,*p. 151.

F. A. Cutler, A. A. De Ligne, and H. W. Johnson, Jr., for Appellant.

J. J. Lerman, C. L. Tilden, and W. F. Postel, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

The parties to the above entitled cause having stipulated that the appeals from the two judgments rendered in the said action in favor of the respondent T. Shibata present questions identical to those presented in the appeals in the case, No. 1359, *Anderson*v. *Nawa et al.,*(opinion filed July 17, 1914), *ante,*p. 151, [143 Pac. 555], and the said parties having further stipulated that the facts in both cases upon which the judgments of dismissal are respectively based are in all respects substantially the same, and having further stipulated that the transcript and briefs and arguments filed or made on the appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent Swayne & Hoyt, a corporation (being case No. 1359, *supra),*may be considered as made and filed in the appeals from the judgments in favor of said respondent T. Shibata,

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered upon thé authority of the said case (No. 1359), and for the same reasons stated in *802the opinion filed therein, the first judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded January 14, 1913, in favor of said respondent T. Shibata, is affirmed, and the appeal from the second judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded February 14, 1913, is dismissed.