alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 605.31 Notification to the respondent.

On receipt of any complaint under § 605.30, or on his own motion if at any time he shall have reason to believe that a violation may have occurred, the Administrator will provide written notification to the grantee concerned (hereinafter called “the respondent”) that a violation has probably occurred. The Administrator will inform the respondent of the conduct which constitutes a probable violation of the agreement.
PUBLIC LAW 107–176—MAY 17, 2002 116 STAT. 577

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 819:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–75 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): June 20, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Apr. 30, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–176

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 143 West Liberty Street, Medina,

Ohio, as the ‘‘Donald J. Pease Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 143 West Liberty Street,

Medina, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald J.

Pease Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Donald

J. Pease Federal Building’’.

Approved May 17, 2002.

May 17, 2002

[H.R. 819]
Sept. 30: U.S. Military, Partner Nations Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  September 30, 2014 Release # 20140939
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Sept. 30, 2014 -** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Monday and today using a mix of attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft to conduct 11 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. military forces used attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft today to conduct 11 airstrikes in Iraq. In Syria, two airstrikes near Dayr ar Zawr destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and an ISIL armed vehicle. Five strikes in northeast Syria near Sinjar destroyed one ISIL artillery piece, one ISIL tank, three ISIL armed vehicles, two ISIL facilities, an ISIL observation post and struck four ISIL fighting positions. Three strikes near Mazra al Duwud near the Syrian/Turkish border, destroyed one ISIL artillery piece, damaged another, and destroyed two ISIL rocket launchers. One strike northeast of Aleppo destroyed four ISIL-occupied buildings. All aircraft departed the strike areas safely. In Iraq, seven airstrikes in northwest Iraq destroyed one ISIL armored vehicle, two ISIL transport vehicles, and four ISIL armed vehicles and damaged one. In the vicinity of Mosul Dam, two airstrikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL armed vehicle. Northwest of Baghdad, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle while another strike in west Fallujah struck an ISIL checkpoint. All aircraft departed the strike areas safely. The strikes were conducted as part of the President's comprehensive strategy to degrade and destroy ISIL. The destruction and degradation of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to lead, control, project power and conduct operations.
#### Jacob Steffan, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Bradley, J.
# Seven Daesh terrorists killed in southern Syria

/ Published June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Release # 20180608-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

**SOUTHWEST ASIA -** Coalition trained and backed partner forces killed seven Daesh terrorists in southern Syria June 4. 

During counter-Daesh patrols within the 55 km southern Syria de-confliction zone near At Tanf, members of the Coalition-supported Maghawir al-Thawra intercepted a vehicle attempting to bypass a security checkpoint. The vehicle occupants, identified as Daesh, attempted to flee and fired weapons at Coalition partners.

At least one Daesh member self-detonated his suicide vest during the ensuing exchange of fire. Seven Daesh terrorists were killed and there were no Coalition or partner casualties. 

Coalition partners such as MaT conduct routine monitoring and patrols to deny Daesh safe havens, while simultaneously reducing the terrorists' ability to conduct external operations in neighboring countries. 

"This is another example of the dedication and hard work by our partners to defeat the remaining Daesh threat in southern Syria," said Maj. Gen. Felix Gedney, Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve's deputy commander for strategy and support. "To take the fight to Daesh and deny them safe haven has been our primary focus. If we are to attain stability in the region, we must carry on our committed effort to achieve a lasting defeat of Daesh here." 

CJTF-OIR is committed to defeating Daesh and setting conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability.

-30-
|   | **EXHIBIT 21** |
|--------|----------------|

 

**AMBASE CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARY LISTING**

**AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2009**

 

 

|  

 

 

**Name**     |  

**Jurisdiction**

**In  Which**

**Organized** |  

**Percentage  Voting**

**Securities  Owned By**

**Immediate Parent** |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  

AmBase Corporation           |  

Delaware                                       |  

N/A                                                                    |
|  

Carteret Bancorp, Inc.       |  

Delaware                                       |  

100%                                                                   |
|  

Maiden Lane Associates, Ltd. |  

Delaware                                       |  

100%                                                                   |
|  

SDG Financial Corp.          |  

Delaware                                       |  

100%                                                                   |

 

 

 

| *Note:* | *Interrelationships shown by indentation with 100% ownership unless otherwise indicated.* |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 665.21 Scheduling. ( a ) All requests for testing, including requests for full, partial, or repeat testing, shall be submitted to the FTA Bus Testing Program Manager for review prior to scheduling with the operator of the Bus Testing Facility. All test requests shall provide: A detailed description of the new bus model to be tested; the service life category of the bus; engineering level documentation characterizing all major changes to the bus model; and documentation that demonstrates satisfaction of each one of the testing requirements outlined in section 665.11(a).
( b ) FTA will review the request, determine if the bus model is eligible for testing, and provide an initial response within five (5) business days. FTA will prepare a written response to the requester for use in scheduling the required testing.
( c ) To schedule a bus for testing, a manufacturer shall contact the operator of the Bus Testing Facility and provide the FTA response to the test request. Contact information and procedures for scheduling testing are available on the operator's Bus Testing Web site, *http://www.altoonabustest.com .*
( d ) Upon contacting the operator, the operator shall provide the manufacturer with the following: ( 1 ) A draft contract for the testing;
( 2 ) A fee schedule; and
( 3 ) The test procedures for the tests that will be conducted on the vehicle.
( e ) The operator shall process vehicles FTA has approved for testing in the order in which the contracts are signed.
#### § 555.11 Application.

This subpart applies to alterers and manufacturers of motor vehicles built in two or more stages to which one or more standards are applicable. No manufacturer or alterer that produces or alters a total exceeding 10,000 motor vehicles annually shall be eligible for a temporary exemption under this subpart. Any exemption granted under this subpart shall be limited, per manufacturer, to 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the United States in any 12 consecutive month period. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers and intermediate manufacturers that do not intend to certify the vehicles in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5(f) or (g), and instead furnish Incomplete Vehicle Documents to final-stage manufacturers in accordance with 49 CFR 568.4 or 49 CFR 568.5, are not eligible for temporary exemptions under this subpart.

[71 FR 28196, May 15, 2006]
General officer announcement
 By None  , U.S. Central Command
  MacDILL AFB, Fla. (June 25, 2010) — Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today that the President has nominated Army Gen. David H. Petraeus for appointment to the rank of general and assignment as commander, International Security Assistance Force/commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan.  Petraeus is currently serving as commander, U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.
Hillsborough,

Dec., 1899.

#### State *v.*Ryan.

It is no defence to an indictment charging a hotel-keeper with furnishing oleomargarine to a guest without first notifying him that the substance is not butter, that the respondent acted without unlawful intent and under a mistake of fact.

Indictment, for furnishing oleomargarine in the place of butter to a guest of the defendant’s hotel, in violation of section 3, chapter 115, Laws 1895, enacting that it shall be unlawful for any person to furnish or cause to be furnished, in any hotel, etc., to any guest or patron, oleomargarine, butterine, or any similar substance, without first notifying such guest or patron that the substance so furnished is not butter. Trial by jury, and verdict for the state.

The defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that the state must prove that he knowingly and intentionally furnished oleomargarine instead of butter, and also to-the denial of his request for an instruction that, in order to warrant his conviction, the jury “ must find that the defendant knew, or had reason to know by the exercise of due diligence, that the substance so furnished on Ms hotel table was not butter.”

*James P.*Tuttle, solicitor, for the state.

*Doyle & Lucier*and *Wason & Jackson,*for the defendant.

Blodgett, C. J.

The mstructions requested by the defendant were properly denied.

It is true that “ in the earlier history of the common law only such acts were deemed criminal as had m them the vicious element of an unlawful intent, indicating a deviation from moral rectitude; but this quality has ceased to be essential, and now acts unobjectionable M a moral view, except so far as bemg prohibited by law makes them so, constitute a considerable portion of the criminal code. In such statutes the act is expressly prolfibited, without reference to the intent or purpose of the party committing it, and is usually of the class M which the person committmg it is under no obligation to act unless he knows he can do so lawfully. Under these statutes it is not a defence that the person acted honestly and m good faith, under a mistake of fact. He is bound to know the fact as well as the law, and he acts at his peril. These statutes do not make a gmlty knowledge one of the Mgredients of the offence.” *State v. Cornish,*66 N. H. 329, 330, and numerous *197authorities there cited; *State*v. *Campbell,*64 N. H. 402—405; *Commonwealth*v. *Uhrig,*138 Mass. 492; *Commonwealth*v. *Savery,*145 Mass. 212; *State*v. *Smith,*10 R. I. 258; *State*v. *Hughes,*16 R. I. 403.

The statute in question dearly comes within this class, and having been enacted nearly five years subsequent to the decision in *State*v. *Cornish,*of which the legislature must be deemed to have liad knowledge, no room for reasonable doubt remains that the legislative intent was that the statute should be construed in accordance with its language and agreeably to the construction obtaining not only in *State*v. *Cornish,*but in preceding cases.

*_Exceptions overruled.*

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Exhibit 24-13

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN
ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Ronald Rubin, do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign
the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2002 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.

|                     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                     |  | /s/RONALD RUBINRonald Rubin
|                     |  |                            
|DATE: March 18, 2003 |  |                            

---

QuickLinks
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No. COMP/M.3480 - 3i / KEOLIS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 155/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

(2)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----
#### § 807.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH ORLANDO LEGRAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-302-G, CA-97-396) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Orlando Legrand, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Orlando Legrand seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Legrand , Nos. CR-90-302-G; CA-97-396 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.09 MB)
 
 1/7 Coalition forces 7TH MARINES A&A Middle East Al Asad air base building partner capacity spmagtfcrcc Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve Advise and assist Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command deploymetn USCENTCOM Iraq 1st Battalion Deployed Security Forces MARINE CORPS MARINES
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Austin Grant Shubert, appellant, v. Western Cereal Company, appellee.

Filed July 21, 1920.

No. 21073.

Appeal: Findings of Fact. Findings of fact, based on conflicting evidence, in a cause submitted to tbe court witbout a jury, have the same effect as the findings of a jury.

*60Appeal from the district court for Richardson county: John B. Rapes, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Frank N. Front,*for appellant.

*Anderson & Murphy, contra.*

Morrissey, C. J.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant in the district court for Richardson county to recover $315 alleged to be due for services rendered. After the taking of evidence had proceeded for some time, each party moved for a directed verdict. The court thereupon discharged the jury from further consideration of the case. After-wards plaintiff, by leave of 'court, was permitted to withdraw his rest and offer additional evidence. The court, upon consideration of the whole evidence, rendered judgment for defendant.

Plaintiff furnished one Aldrige an automobile and chauffeur while Aldrige was engaged in selling capital stock of defendant company. Aldrige, in consideration thereof, agreed to pay plaintiff 5 per cent, of the par value of all stock sold by him. Nothing was ever paid plaintiff, and the sum sued for represents the amount claimed to be due under the contract. The suit is brought against defendant company, on' the theory that Aldrige was its general manager, or ostensibly so, and that the contract made by him was binding on the company.

According to the contention of defendant, the corporation never was fully organized, or, if so, Aldrige never was its general manager, either actually or ostensibly. It appears that the corporation never actually transacted any business, and whatever money was paid over to Aldrige on the subscriptions he took while being conveyed about the country by plaintiff was returned to the subscribers. Whether plaintiff had a right to believe that Aldrige had authority to bind the corporation, and whether he did so believe, were questions of fact.- On *61each of these issues the evidence is conflicting, and the findings of the trial court, having the same effect as the findings of a jury, will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

Aldrich and Dean, JJ., not sitting.
###### Editorial Note on Part 587

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 587 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 587.3 Application.

This part does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any person. It is a description of tools that are used in compliance tests to measure the performance of occupant protection systems required by the safety standards that refer to these tools. It is designed to be referenced by, and become part of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection,* and Standard No. 214, *Side Impact Protection.*

[65 FR 17199, Mar. 31, 2000]
116 STAT. 580 PUBLIC LAW 107–179—MAY 20, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2048:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–189 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Sept. 5, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): May 7, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–179

107th Congress

An Act

To require a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON STATE JUSTICE

INSTITUTE.

Section 213 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42

U.S.C. 10712) is amended by striking ‘‘On October 1, 1987’’ and

inserting ‘‘Not later than October 1, 2002’’.

Approved May 20, 2002.

May 20, 2002

[H.R. 2048]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AL VA DO R S AN T AN A G ARNI C A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70688 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 374- 900 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y19, 2010 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S al v ad o r S an t an a G arn i ca, a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f M ex i co , p et i t i o n s p ro se f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orc anc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo 

# FI LED AU G 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70688 2 q u e s tio n s o f

law , A l tam i rano v. G on zales , 427 F . 3d 586, 591 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , and we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S an tan aG arn ic a ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h is c o n v ic tio n d o e s n o t r e n d e rh im i ne l i gi bl e f

orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l be c aus e i toc c urr e d m or e than t e n y e ar s pr i or t o h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s fo recl o sedb y Flores Juarezv. Mukasey , 530 F . 3d 1020, 1022 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ [ S e c t i on] 1229b( b) ( 1) ( C ) . . . doe s notpl a c e any t em po ra l l i m i t at i on on w hen the cr i m e w as com m i tt ed. ”) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.