alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 821.9 Intervention and amicus appearance. ( a ) *Intervention.* Any person may move for leave to intervene in a proceeding, and may become a party thereto, if it is found that such person has a property, financial or other legitimate interest that will not be adequately represented by the existing parties, and that such intervention will not unduly broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Except for good cause shown, no motion for leave to intervene will be entertained if filed less than 15 days prior to the hearing. The extent to which an intervenor may participate in the proceeding is wholly within the law judge's discretion.
( b ) *Amicus curiae briefs.* A brief of amicus curiae in a matter on appeal from a law judge's initial decision or appealable order may be filed, if accompanied by written consent of all the parties, or by leave of the General Counsel if, in his or her opinion, the brief will not unduly broaden the matters at issue or prejudice any party to the proceeding. A brief may be conditionally filed with motion for leave. The motion for leave shall identify the interest of the movant and shall state the reasons why a brief of amicus curiae is desirable. Such brief and motion shall be filed within the briefing time allowed the party whose position the brief would support, unless good cause for late filing is shown, in which event the General Counsel may provide an opportunity for response in determining whether to accept the amicus brief.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHNNY RAY DRAWDY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-99

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed August 24, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. 

Johnny Ray Drawdy, pro se.

 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
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 (0.23 MB)
 
 techniques helicopters partner Indiana National Guard partners TTP propellers Jordan Armed Forces 38th Infantry Division Task Force Spartan aviation tactics maps 38th ID SMEE subject matter expert exchange procedures 38ID
 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
# Eiropas Savienības C 151/2004

| | ISSN 1725-5201 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 151 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 47. sējums2004. gada 8. jūnijs |

ISSN 1725-5201

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 151

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

47. sējums2004. gada 8. jūnijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informācija |
| | Komisija |
| 2004/C 151/1 | Eiro maiņas kurss | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

I   Informācija

Komisija

2004/C 151/1

Eiro maiņas kurss

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

I Informācija

Komisija

| 8.6.2004 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2004

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 151/1

---

Eiro maiņas kurss (1)

2004. gada 7. jūnijs

(2004/C 151/01)

1 eiro=

| | Valūta | Maiņas kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ASV dolārs | 1,2319 |
| JPY | Japānas jēna | 135,36 |
| DKK | Dānijas krona | 7,4335 |
| GBP | Lielbritānijas mārciņa | 0,67025 |
| SEK | Zviedrijas krona | 9,1333 |
| CHF | Šveices franks | 1,5242 |
| ISK | Islandes krona | 87,33 |
| NOK | Norvēģijas krona | 8,1860 |
| BGN | Bulgārijas leva | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Kipras mārciņa | 0,58300 |
| CZK | Čehijas krona | 31,270 |
| EEK | Igaunijas krona | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungārijas forints | 251,75 |
| LTL | Lietuvas lits | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvijas lats | 0,6638 |
| MTL | Maltas lira | 0,4266 |
| PLN | Polijas zlots | 4,6492 |
| ROL | Rumānijas leja | 40 803 |
| SIT | Slovēnijas tolērs | 239,1400 |
| SKK | Slovakijas krona | 39,950 |
| TRL | Turcijas lira | 1 816 967 |
| AUD | Austrālijas dolārs | 1,7521 |
| CAD | Kanādas dolārs | 1,6592 |
| HKD | Hongkongas dolārs | 9,6024 |
| NZD | Jaunzēlandes dolārs | 1,9569 |
| SGD | Singapūras dolārs | 2,0996 |
| KRW | Dienvidkorejas vons | 1 427,96 |
| ZAR | Dienvidāfrikas rands | 7,9842 |

Valūta

Maiņas kurss

USD

ASV dolārs

1,2319

JPY

Japānas jēna

135,36

DKK

Dānijas krona

7,4335

GBP

Lielbritānijas mārciņa

0,67025

SEK

Zviedrijas krona

9,1333

CHF

Šveices franks

1,5242

ISK

Islandes krona

87,33

NOK

Norvēģijas krona

8,1860

BGN

Bulgārijas leva

1,9558

CYP

Kipras mārciņa

0,58300

CZK

Čehijas krona

31,270

EEK

Igaunijas krona

15,6466

HUF

Ungārijas forints

251,75

LTL

Lietuvas lits

3,4528

LVL

Latvijas lats

0,6638

MTL

Maltas lira

0,4266

PLN

Polijas zlots

4,6492

ROL

Rumānijas leja

40 803

SIT

Slovēnijas tolērs

239,1400

SKK

Slovakijas krona

39,950

TRL

Turcijas lira

1 816 967

AUD

Austrālijas dolārs

1,7521

CAD

Kanādas dolārs

1,6592

HKD

Hongkongas dolārs

9,6024

NZD

Jaunzēlandes dolārs

1,9569

SGD

Singapūras dolārs

2,0996

KRW

Dienvidkorejas vons

1 427,96

ZAR

Dienvidāfrikas rands

7,9842

---

(1)

Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

---
§ 170.210 Requirements for notices of funding opportunities, regulations, and application instructions. ( a ) A Federal agency that makes Federal awards subject to the Transparency Act must include the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section in each notice of funding opportunity, regulation, or other issuance containing instructions for applicants under which Federal awards may be made that are subject to Transparency Act reporting requirements. A notice of funding opportunity is any paper or electronic issuance that a Federal agency uses to announce a funding opportunity, whether it is called a “program announcement,” “notice of funding availability,” “broad agency announcement,” “research announcement,” “solicitation,” or any other term.
( b ) The notice of funding opportunity, regulation, or other issuance must require each applicant, to which this part applies, to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with this part if they receive a Federal award.
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 572

Honoring the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Articles of 

Confederation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 3, 2002

Mr. PLATTS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Honoring the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Articles 

of Confederation.

Whereas the Continental Congress met in York, Pennsylvania, from September 30, 1777, to June 27, 1778, to 

debate the very same issues that face Congress today, 

such as individual freedoms, taxes, and State versus Federal rights; 

Whereas on November 15, 1777, the Continental Congress 

adopted the Articles of Confederation in the York County 

Courthouse, thereby establishing the first document that 

united the 13 original colonies as the United States of 

America; 

Whereas the Articles of Confederation established the first 

legal system until the adoption of the Constitution; 
2

•HRES 572 IH 

Whereas the Continental Congress, in York, Pennsylvania, 

proclaimed the first Thanksgiving Day as a National Day 

of Thanksgiving and Praise on December 18, 1777; 

Whereas the Continental Congress ratified the French Treaty 

of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance at 

the York County Courthouse, York, Pennsylvania, on 

May 4, 1778; 

Whereas the Continental Congress adjourned from the York 

County Courthouse on June 27, 1778, after receiving a 

letter from General Washington stating that the British 

army had vacated Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the 

Continental Congress departed York, Pennsylvania, to return to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

and 

Whereas November 15, 2002, is the 225th anniversary of the 

signing of the Articles of Confederation in York, Pennsylvania: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives, on the 

2 occasion of the 225th anniversary of the signing of the 

3 Articles of Confederation in York, Pennsylvania, congratu4 lates the City and County of York and its residents for 

5 their important contributions to the birth of our Nation, 

6 the United States of America.

Æ
§ 840.5 Inspection, examination and testing of physical evidence. ( a ) Any employee of the Safety Board, upon presenting appropriate credentials is authorized to enter any property wherein a transportation accident has occurred or wreckage from any such accident is located and do all things necessary for proper investigation, including examination or testing of any vehicle, rolling stock, track, or any part of any part of any such item when such examination or testing is determined to be required for purposes of such investigation.
( b ) Any examination or testing shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with or obstruct unnecessarily the transportation services provided by the owner or operator of such vehicle, rolling stock, or track, and shall be conducted in such a manner so as to preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, any evidence relating to the transportation accident, consistent with the needs of the investigation and with the cooperation of such owner or operator. The employee may inspect, at reasonable times, records, files, papers, processes, controls, and facilities relevant to the investigation of such accident. Each inspection shall be commenced and completed promptly and the results of such inspection, examination, or test made available to the parties.
[47 FR 49408, Nov. 1, 1982]
# After U.S. Downs Turkish Drone in Syria, Focus Remains on Defeat ISIS Mission

/ Published Oct. 6, 2023

**WASHINGTON D.C. -** An American F-16 fighter aircraft shot down a Turkish unmanned aerial vehicle that had been observed conducting airstrikes in a U.S.-restricted operating zone about a kilometer from U.S. forces in Syria today. 

During a phone call between Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler, the two leaders discussed the incident and agreed that while it is regrettable, the focus must remain on the important mission to defeat ISIS in Syria, said Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder during a media briefing today. 

"The secretary reaffirmed that the United States remains in Syria exclusively in support of the campaign to defeat ISIS," Ryder said. "The secretary also acknowledged Turkey's legitimate security concerns and underscored the importance of close coordination between the United States and Turkey to prevent any risk to U.S. forces or the global coalition’s defeat-ISIS mission." 

At around 7:30 a.m. local time, U.S. forces observed UAVs conducting airstrikes in the vicinity of Hasakah, Syria, Ryder said. Some of the strikes were inside a declared U.S.-restricted operating zone.

"At approximately 11:30 local time, a Turkish UAV reentered the ROZ on a heading toward where U.S. forces were located," Ryder said. "U.S. commanders assessed that the UAV, which was now less than a half a kilometer from U.S. forces, to be a potential threat, and U.S. F-16 fighters subsequently shot down the UAV in self-defense at approximately 11:40 local time." 

No U.S. forces were injured, Ryder said, also adding there is no indication that Turkey had intentionally been targeting U.S. forces. 

"It's a regrettable incident, but U.S. commanders on the ground did assess that there was a potential threat and so they took prudent action in this scenario," Ryder said. "But again, the secretary has talked to his counterpart. They had the opportunity to have a fruitful conversation and ... commit to one another that the U.S. and Turkey will continue to closely communicate and coordinate. And as I mentioned, Turkey does remain a very important and valuable NATO ally and partner to the United States." 

In addition to the phone call between Austin and Guler, newly sworn-in chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr., also discussed the incident with his counterpart, Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Gen. Metin Gurak. Those two leaders discussed the U.S. and Turkey's shared objective of defeating ISIS and the importance of following common deconfliction protocols.
From: Janis Richardson [mailto:janis.richardson@cox.net] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:03 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: 401/457 from Private Accounts 

This is very up setting to me that the US goverenment would even consider taking the money that 

I have set aside for my retirement so that they can benefit. This I will fit with every once of energy 

I have. Stay out of my private business. 

The US goverenment has proven itself to be totally incapable of taking care of the people that 

swore for years and I might add took money from and did nothing but throw it to the wind. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Janis M. Richardson
§ 611.203 New Starts project justification criteria. ( a ) To perform the statutorily required evaluations and assign ratings for project justification, FTA will evaluate information developed locally through the planning and NEPA processes. ( 1 ) The method used by FTA to evaluate and rate projects will be a multiple measure approach by which the merits of candidate projects will be evaluated in terms of each of the criteria specified by this section.
( 2 ) The measures for these criteria are specified in appendix A to this part and elaborated on in policy guidance. This policy guidance, which is subject to a public comment period, is issued periodically by FTA whenever significant changes to the process are proposed, but not less frequently than every two years, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(5).
( 3 ) The measures will be applied to projects defined by project sponsors that are proposed to FTA for New Starts funding.
( 4 ) The ratings for each of the criteria in § 611.203(b)(1) through (6) will be expressed in terms of descriptive indicators, as follows: “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “medium-low,” or “low.”
( b ) The project justification criteria are as follows: ( 1 ) Mobility improvements.
( 2 ) Environmental benefits.
( 3 ) Congestion relief.
( 4 ) Economic development effects.
( 5 ) Cost-effectiveness, as measured by cost per rider.
( 6 ) Existing land use.
( c ) In evaluating proposed New Starts projects under these project justification criteria: ( 1 ) As a candidate project proceeds through engineering, a greater level of commitment will be expected with respect to transit supportive plans and policies evaluated under the economic development criterion and the project sponsor's technical capacity to implement the project.
( 2 ) For any criteria under paragraph (b) of this section that use incremental measures, the point for comparison will be the no-build alternative.
( d ) FTA may amend the measures for these project justification criteria. Any such amendment will be included in policy guidance and subject to a public comment process.
( e ) From time to time FTA may publish through policy guidance standards based on characteristics of projects and/or corridors to be served. If a proposed project can meet the established standards, FTA may assign an automatic rating on one or more of the project justification criteria outlined in this section.
( f ) The individual ratings for each of the criteria described in this section will be combined into a summary project justification rating of “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “medium-low,” or “low,” through a process that gives comparable, but not necessarily equal, weight to each criterion. The process by which the project justification rating will be developed, including the assigned weights, will be described in policy guidance.
#### Herbert N. Fell et al., Composing the Firm of Fell & Fell, Respondents, *v.*Stepan de Kosenko et al., Appellants.

*Fell*v. *de*Kosenko,-143 App. Div. 936, affirmed.

(Submitted May 20, 1912;

decided June 4, 1912.)

Appeal, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, *624entered February 6,1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action on a promissory note.

*Benjamin N. Cardozo*for appellants.

*Charles P. Northrup*and *Charles H. Edwards*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Absent: Vann, J.
#### Nicholas Opp, appellee, v. Fredlin W. Smith et al., appellants.

Filed November 10, 1920.

No. 21390.

Appeal from the district court for Morrill county:

Ralph W. Hobart, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Williams j Hurd & Neighbors*and *J. E.*Philpott, for appellants. ■

*Hunt & Perry*and *Fawcett & Moclcett, contra.*

Letton, J.

This action has appeared in this court twice before. On the first appeal *(96 Neb.*224) the only issue was on the question of adverse possession. This issue was decided adversely to the defendant, and the cause remanded, “with directions to determine the question of the validity of the tax deed, set out in the pleadings, and of the tax sale upon which such deed is based) and, if the same are found to be void, to ascertain the amount which plaintiff should be required to pay in order to redeem the lands in controversy, and to permit such redemption.”

At the next trial the district court found the tax deed valid, but upon appeal this court decided that the deed was void upon its face, and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 102 Neb. 152. Since the deed was void upon its face, the short statute of limitations, in the revenue law, was not applicable, and the only matter left for adjudication, or further proceeding's necessary or proper to be had, was to determine the amount which plaintiff, should *207pay in order to redeem, and tlie value of the improvements, if any.

After remand several amendments were sought to be made to the answer, but these were either stricken, or did not change the issues. The record is not quite clear as to which amendments were stricken. At the trial defendant offered a number of exhibits. The court excluded such as had been offered at the former trial, upon the issues as to the validity of the tax deed, upon the ground that the matter had already been adjudicated. In this there was no error.

Defendants refused to proceed further with proof of the amount of taxes and interest to which they were entitled. The court, from the allegations and admissions in the pleadings, found the amount paid by the defendants for taxes with interest as alloAved by the statute and rendered a decree in their favor for this sum.

The main contention of defendants now is that this court erred in its opinion and judgment as to the validity of the tax deed upon the former appeal. This question has already been determined upon the same pleadings. The former judgment settled the law of the case, and is *res adjudicata.*The district court, as was its duty, followed the mandate of this court; its judgment is therefore.

Affirmed.

Rose, J., not sitting.
§ 655.5 Stand-down waivers for drug testing. ( a ) An employer subject to this part may petition the FTA for a waiver allowing the employer to stand down, per 49 CFR Part 40, an employee following a report of a laboratory confirmed positive drug test or refusal, pending the outcome of the verification process.
( b ) Each petition for a waiver must be in writing and include facts and justification to support the waiver. Each petition must satisfy the requirements for obtaining a waiver, as provided in 49 CFR 40.21.
( c ) Each petition for a waiver must be submitted to the Office of Safety and Security, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590.
( d ) The Administrator may grant a waiver subject to 49 CFR 40.21(d).
[66 FR 42002, Aug. 9, 2001, as amended at 88 FR 27653, May 2, 2023]