alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-326 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INVESTMENT GUARANTIES 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JORDAN 

Signed at Amman February 7, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 JORDAN 

 Investment Guaranties 

Agreement signed at Amman February 7, 2007; 

 Entered into force March 26, 2007. 










7
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2469]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collections Being Reviewed by the 
U.S. Agency for International Development; Comments Requested

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making 
efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are 
requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed or continuing 
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Johnson, Bureau for 
Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records 
Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07-106, 
RRB, Washington, DC 20523, (202) 712-1365 or via e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#31535b5e595f425e5f7144425058551f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99fbf3f6f1f7eaf6f7d9eceaf8f0fdb7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB No: OMB 0412-0563.
    Form No.: AID 1570-14.
    Title: Report on Commodities.
    Type of Review: Renewal of information collection.
    Purpose: The purpose of this information collection is to properly 
respond to the annual competition among applicants who apply on behalf 
of their sponsored overseas institutions and independent reviewers. 
ASHA needs to assess the strength and capability of the U.S. 
organizations, the overseas institutions and the merits of their 
proposed projects. Easily accessible historical records on past 
accomplishments and performance by repeat USOs, would speed the grant 
making process and provide documented reasons for both successful and 
unsuccessful applications.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
     Respondents: 65.
    Total annual responses: 260.
    Total annual hours requested: 650 hours.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Joanne Paskar,
Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative 
Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 07-2469 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 169.227 Certificate of Inspection: Conditions of validity.

To maintain a valid Certificate of Inspection, you must complete your annual and periodic inspections within the periods specified in §§ 169.225 and 169.226 respectively and your Certificate of Inspection must be endorsed.

[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000]
# C_2013046EN.01003301.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 September 2012 — Skovbjerg v Commission

(Case F-37/11) (1)

1

2013/C 46/67

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011, p. 16.

1

---
#### CRANE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM G. ROYER ET AL., PARTNERS, DEFENDANTS; WILLIAM G. ROYER, INCORPORATED, PROSECUTOR.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Mtntukn, Black and Campbell.

For the prosecutor, *Philip M. Chamberlin.*

For the respondent, *Maxwell A. Kraemer.*

*50Pee Ctjeiam.

This writ brings np for review the proceedings under a claim of property levied upon under an execution issued out of the Trenton City District Court under a judgment obtained therein by the Crane Company against William G. Royer, Sr., on February 1st, 1928.

The finding of the jury was against the prosecutor upon its claim of property.

Seven reasons for setting aside the finding are filed and they are argued under three heads.

First, that it was error to permit the constable who made the levy and who was the sole witness of the judgment creditor to attend the jury. We find no merit in this.

Second, that the writ of execution and the levy thereunder were returned into court after the return day of the writ. We do not see how this is before us.

Third, that the finding of the jury is contrary to the evidence; that there is no evidence to support it and that the trial judge erred in refusing to direct a finding in favor of the prosecutor.

Upon this point we find in favor of the prosecutor. It is most evident that the goods claimed were the property of William G. Royer, Incorporated, which came into existence November 5th, 1927. Such goods and chattels came to it through either William G. Royer or Anna T. Royer, the proceeding under which such transfer was made being fully shown in the proofs by the records of the corporation. The proofs before us fail to show that the goods were in the personal possession of the judgment debtor at the time of the levy.

In proper cases the trial judge has power to direct. *City Bank*v. O’Mara, 88 *N. J. L.*499.

We think such a situation was presented here and he should have directed the jury to find in favor of the prosecutor. Also finding, as we do, that the finding of the jury is without proof upon which it can be supported, such finding is set aside, with costs.
#### § 309.7 Modifications.

The Maritime Administration reserves the right to exempt any vessel from the scope of this part, or to amend, modify, or terminate the provisions hereof.
#### Thomas Simpson, Jr., *Appellant, v.*Euphemia P. del Hoyo and others, *Respondents*.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.
§ 174.205 Additional damaged stability for OSVs carrying more than 16 offshore workers. ( a ) *Calculations.* Each OSV carrying more than 16 offshore workers must be shown by design calculations to comply, under each afloat condition of loading and operation, with § 174.207 of this subpart in case of the damage specified by paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Character of damage.* For paragraph (a) of this section, design calculations must show that the OSV can survive damage at any place other than either the collision bulkhead or a transverse watertight bulkhead unless— ( 1 ) The transverse watertight bulkhead is closer than the longitudinal extent of damage, specified by Table 174.207(a), to the adjacent transverse watertight bulkhead; or
( 2 ) The transverse watertight bulkhead has a step or a recess, which must be assumed damaged, if it is both more than 3 meters (10 feet) in length and located within the transverse extent of damage specified by Table 174.207(a) of this section.
Exhibit 23b



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Superior  Services,  Inc.
Registration  Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-33141,  Form S-4 No.  333-06443,  and
Form S-8 No. 333-53701) of our report dated March 24, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated  financial  statements of GeoWaste  Incorporated as of December 31,
1997 and for the  years  ended  December  31,  1997 and  1996,  which  report is
included in the Superior Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                                    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Jacksonville, Florida
March 23, 1999
§ 35.03-1 Application—TB/ALL. ( a ) Provisions of this subpart shall apply to all tank vessels.
Editorial Note on Part 356
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 68 FR 5576, Feb. 4, 2003.

§ 356.45 Advance of funds. ( a ) A Non-Citizen may advance funds to the owner or bareboat charterer of a Fishing Industry Vessel: ( 1 ) As provisional payment for products delivered for consignment sales, but not yet sold; or
( 2 ) Where the basis of the advancement is an agreement between the Non-Citizen and the vessel owner or bareboat charterer to sell all or a portion of the vessel's catch to the Non-Citizen and the agreement meets the following conditions: ( i ) The amount of the advancement does not exceed the annual value of the sales contract, measured as the value of the product to be supplied to the processor;
( ii ) The Non-Citizen is not granted any rights whatsoever to control the operation, management and harvesting activities of the Fishing Industry Vessel other than as provided for in § 356.43;
( iii ) The owner or bareboat charterer submits to the Citizenship Approval Officer within 30 days of execution a description of the arrangement and a certification and warranty that the agreement or contract with the Non-Citizen does not convey control over the vessel, the vessel owner or bareboat charterer in any manner whatsoever other than as provided for in § 356.43; and,
( iv ) No security interest in the vessel is conveyed as collateral for the advance of funds, unless a qualified Mortgage Trustee is used to hold the debt instrument for the benefit of the Non-Citizen.
( b ) An owner or bareboat charterer may enter into an unsecured letter of credit or promissory note with a U.S. branch of a Non-Citizen Lender if: ( 1 ) The Non-Citizen Lender is not affiliated with any party with whom the owner or bareboat charter has entered into a mortgage, long-term or exclusive sales or purchase agreement, or other similar contract;
( 2 ) The Non-Citizen Lender is not granted any rights whatsoever to control the owner or the operation, management and harvesting activities of the Fishing Industry Vessel; and,
( 3 ) The owner or bareboat charterer submits to the Citizenship Approval Officer within 30 days of execution a description of the arrangement and a certification and warranty that the agreement or contract with the Non-Citizen Lender does not convey control over the vessel, the vessel owner or bareboat charter in any manner whatsoever.
( c ) The Citizenship Approval Officer may request a copy of any agreement for an advance of funds or letter of credit in order to determine if it contains an impermissible conveyance of control to a Non-Citizen.
[65 FR 44877, July 19, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 5582, Feb. 4, 2003]
#### § 315.11 Vessel deactivation procedures.

When an Agent is responsible as vessel operator to decommission and deliver a vessel to the NDRF, that Agent shall observe all the procedures and requirements prescribed by MARAD contained in instructions which may be obtained from the MARAD Division of Reserve Fleet (MAR-743) at the address specified in § 315.5(b) of this part. Tel. (202) 366-5752.
§ 180.208 Survival craft—vessels operating on rivers routes. ( a ) Except as allowed by paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section, each vessel certificated to operate on a rivers route in cold water must either: ( 1 ) Be provided with life floats of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 50% of the total number of persons permitted on board; or
( 2 ) Meet either the standards for collision bulkheads in § 179.310 of this chapter or § 171.085 in subchapter S of this chapter, and the standards for subdivision in §§ 179.220 and 179.320 of this chapter, or the standards for subdivision and damaged stability in §§ 171.070 through 171.073 and 171.080 in subchapter S of this chapter, as appropriate, and not be required to carry survival craft.
( b ) A vessel certificated to operate on a rivers route in warm water is not required to carry survival craft.
( c ) A vessel certificated to operate on a rivers route within one mile of land is not required to carry survival craft.
( d ) For a vessel certificated to operate on a rivers route in shallow water where the vessel cannot sink deep enough to submerge the topmost passenger deck or where survivors can wade ashore, the cognizant OCMI may waive a requirement for life floats, if the OCMI determines that it is safe to do so, taking into consideration the vessel's scope of operation, hazards of the route, and availability of assistance.
( e ) Each vessel operating with a set schedule on a specific route that maintains a 15 minute radio communications schedule with an operations base, or participates in a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS), may be granted a reduction in the survival craft requirement of this section if the cognizant OCMI is satisfied that a sufficient level of safety exists.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 975, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58288, Sept. 29, 2014]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0399. SHANITA MATTHEWS v. MARK BUTLER, COMMISSIONER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

We dismissed as untimely Shanita Matthews’s application for discretionary

review. Matthews has filed a motion for reconsideration. Upon review of the motion

for reconsideration, we agree with Matthews that her application was timely filed.

Accordingly, we hereby GRANT Matthew’s motion for reconsideration, VACATE

our dismissal order of July 21, 2021, and REINSTATE the application. 

Upon consideration of the merits of Matthews’s application for discretionary

appeal, it is hereby DENIED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 10, 2021

08/10/2021
Opinion issued December 3, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00710-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.J., S.D.J., AND N.R.J, Children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2012-03856J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, S.J., has filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. No 

opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
#### Louisa Cushman, *Appellant, v.*William Burritt, *Responden*t.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Rumsey, J.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Presidential Documents 24175 

Proclamation 8134 of April 27, 2007 

National Charter Schools Week, 2007 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Across our country, charter schools are providing quality education for 

America’s students. During National Charter Schools Week, we recognize 

the important contributions of charter schools and underscore our commitment to ensuring that all children receive the education they need to lead 

lives of purpose and success. 

Charter schools are public schools that provide families with a valuable 

educational alternative. Because they are not bound by many regulatory 

requirements, charter schools have the flexibility to innovate in ways that 

will best meet students’ academic needs. Today, there are about 4,000 charter 

schools in 40 States and the District of Columbia helping more than one 

million students realize their full potential. 

My Administration is dedicated to providing parents with more choices 

so that their children will have the best opportunity to gain the skills 

necessary to compete and succeed in the global economy. Through the 

No Child Left Behind Act, we are setting high standards, expanding parents’ 

options, and closing the achievement gap. Charter schools are getting results 

and helping guide children across the country on the path to a better 

life. 

This week we thank educational entrepreneurs for supporting charter schools, 

and we honor all those involved in charter schools for helping their students 

reach high expectations. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 29 through May 

5, 2007, as National Charter Schools Week. I applaud our Nation’s charter 

schools and all those who make them a success, and I call on parents 

of charter school students to share their success stories and help Americans 

understand more about the important work of charter schools. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
24176 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh 

day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtyfirst. 

[FR Doc. 07–2170 

Filed 4–30–07; 9:00 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSGWBOLD.EPS
§ 35.03-20 Shipboard inspections—TB/ALL. ( a ) Each work vest shall be subject to examination by a marine inspector to determine its serviceability. If found to be satisfactory, it may be continued in service, but shall not be stamped by a marine inspector with a Coast Guard stamp. If a work vest is found not to be in a serviceable condition, then such work vest shall be removed from the vessel. If a work vest is beyond repair, it shall be destroyed or mutilated in the presence of a marine inspector so as to prevent its continued use as a work vest.
First Amendment to Rights Agreement


 Exhibit 4.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”), dated as of January 24, 2005, by and
between Cheniere Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and U.S. Stock Transfer Corp., as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent”), constitutes the first amendment to that certain Rights Agreement, dated
October 14, 2004, by and between the Company and the Rights Agent (the “Rights Agreement”). 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Rights Agreement in certain respects on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment of Rights Agreement. Section 7(b) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by substituting the dollar amount of “$700” for the amount of “$200” stated therein. 
  
 2. Defined Terms. All terms defined in the Rights Agreement that are
used herein shall have the meanings so defined in the Rights Agreement, unless specifically noted otherwise herein. 
  
 3. Complete Agreement. The term “Agreement” or “Rights Agreement” as used in the Rights Agreement shall mean the Rights
Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, or as it may, from time to time, be amended in the future by one or more other written amendment or modification agreements entered into pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement. This First
Amendment is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed to be, a novation. 
  
 4. Binding Agreement. This First Amendment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 
  
 5. Governing Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by, construed
and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to its conflicts of laws principles. 
  
 6. Effectiveness. This First Amendment is effective as of the date first written above. Except as expressly herein amended, the terms and
conditions of the Rights Agreement are hereby ratified and remain in full force and effect. 
  
 [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	 CHENIERE ENERGY, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Don A. Turkleson


	 Name:
	 	 Don A. Turkleson

	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
 Officer and Secretary

	
	 U.S. STOCK TRANSFER CORP.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Richard C. Brown


	 Name:
	 	 Richard C. Brown


	 Title:
	 	 Vice President




  

 2
#### WALTER E. CHANDLER, PLAINTIFF, v. NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA BUS LINE, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT.

Argued January 17, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the rule, Record, *Higgins & Teese*and *Martin P. Devlin.*

Contra, *Vmidewater & Manser.*

Per Curiam.

This is defendant’s rule for new trial in an automobile collision case in which a verdict for $8,500 was awarded to the plaintiff for personal injuries and damage to his car. A new trial is asked on, among others, two grounds: (1) that the verdict on the liability of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence, and (2) that the damages are excessive.

The rule should be made absolute on both grounds. Plaintiff was driving his touring car toward New York on the Lincoln Highway between Princeton and Kingston. While proceeding he came into collision with the rear left wheel of the bus of the defendant company proceeding toward Trenton, as a result of which the plaintiff was injured and his car damaged. The plaintiff stood alone in his evidence as to *602how the accident happened, his contention being that the defendant’s bus turned out. from behind a truck a short distance ahead of it and collided with the plaintiff’s car which was on its proper side of the highway. The bus driver testified that there was no truck in front of him; that the driver of plaintiff’s car was observed a long distance ahead zigzagging across the road; that the bus remained on its own side of the highway, and had almost stopped to avoid the zigzagging of plaintiff’s car when the plaintiff ran into the left rear wheel, throwing the car around and turning it over. In this he was corroborated by a number of disinterested witnesses. In addition, there was evidence that the plaintiff was in an intoxicated condition when he reached the hospital, to which he was taken, and that a bottle of liquor was found in his car.

We think also that the damages are grossly excessive. Plaintiff’s injuries were not greatly severe nor permanent in character. The value of the car was small and plaintiff’s earnings doubtful.

The rule will be made absolute.