alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
My Child is Showing Signs of COVID-19 at School: What Do I Do? 

Quick Guide for Parents and Guardians

CS 319604-C 11/10/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

1. Pick Up Your Child 

2. Keep your child at home and monitor their symptoms

3. If your child tests positive for or is suspected of 

having COVID-19 

• If possible, pick up your child alone.

• If possible, wait in the car for your child.

• Everyone in the car should wear a mask except for children under 2 years old.

• Open the car windows for ventilation.

• If possible, wait 24 hours before cleaning and disinfecting your car, as that allows more time for the amount 

of virus in the air of your car to die off. 

• If unable to pick up your child, work with your school to identify the best way to safely transport your child.

• Arrange to pick up any of your child’s medical supplies (if applicable).

• Call your child’s healthcare provider to discuss whether your child needs to be evaluated and to determine 

options for getting tested for COVID-19.

• If possible, have the sick child (and anyone else who has symptoms) keep away from others and use 

a separate bathroom for 10 days. When not able to keep away from others, a mask should be worn by all 

members of the household.

• After being in contact with someone with COVID-19, it can take up to 14 days to know if you are sick. 

All members of the household should stay home and avoid contact with others outside of your home. 

An exception would be going to your doctor if advised.

• Encourage everyone in the household to wash their hands often and avoid sharing personal household 

items with others (e.g., dishes, cups, towels, bedding).

• Use an effective household disinfectant to clean “high-touch” surfaces and everyday items such as door 

handles, countertops, and faucets.

• It has been at least 10 days since symptoms started and

• Overall symptoms have improved and

• Your child has had no fever for at least 24 hours (without fever reducing medication).

• If your child tests positive for COVID-19, notify the school.

• Your child can return to in-person school only after:

If your child is sick or shows signs of illness, do not send them to school.
SALARY TABLE 2011-GS 

RATES FROZEN AT 2010 LEVELS 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2011 

Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step 

Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step 

Grade B/0 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 

1 B $ 8.53 $ 8.82 $ 9.10 $ 9.38 $ 9.67 $ 9.83 $ 10.11 $ 10.39 $ 10.41 $ 10.67 

O 12.80 13.23 13.65 14.07 14.51 14.75 15.17 15.59 15.62 16.01 

2 B 9.59 9.82 10.14 10.41 10.52 10.83 11.14 11.45 11.76 12.07 

O 14.39 14.73 15.21 15.62 15.78 16.25 16.71 17.18 17.64 18.11 

3 B 10.46 10.81 11.16 11.51 11.86 12.21 12.56 12.91 13.26 13.60 

O 15.69 16.22 16.74 17.27 17.79 18.32 18.84 19.37 19.89 20.40 

4 B 11.75 12.14 12.53 12.92 13.31 13.71 14.10 14.49 14.88 15.27 

O 17.63 18.21 18.80 19.38 19.97 20.57 21.15 21.74 22.32 22.91 

5 B 13.14 13.58 14.02 14.46 14.90 15.33 15.77 16.21 16.65 17.09 

O 19.71 20.37 21.03 21.69 22.35 23.00 23.66 24.32 24.98 25.64 

6 B 14.65 15.14 15.63 16.12 16.60 17.09 17.58 18.07 18.56 19.05 

O 21.98 22.71 23.45 24.18 24.90 25.64 26.37 27.11 27.84 28.58 

7 B 16.28 16.82 17.37 17.91 18.45 19.00 19.54 20.08 20.62 21.17 

O 24.42 25.23 26.06 26.87 27.68 28.50 29.31 30.12 30.93 31.76 

8 B 18.03 18.63 19.23 19.83 20.43 21.04 21.64 22.24 22.84 23.44 

O 27.05 27.95 28.85 29.75 30.65 31.56 32.46 32.90 32.90 32.90 

9 B 19.92 20.58 21.24 21.91 22.57 23.23 23.90 24.56 25.22 25.89 

O 29.88 30.87 31.86 32.87 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

10 B 21.93 22.66 23.39 24.13 24.86 25.59 26.32 27.05 27.78 28.51 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

11 B 24.10 24.90 25.70 26.50 27.31 28.11 28.91 29.72 30.52 31.32 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

12 B 28.88 29.84 30.81 31.77 32.73 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54 

13 B 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.07 41.21 42.36 43.50 44.65 

O 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.07 41.21 42.36 43.50 44.65 

14 B 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76 

O 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76 

15 B 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06 

O 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06
### §424b. Application of laws to donated lands

All laws affecting the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park shall be extended and apply to any addition or additions which may be added to said park under the authority of this section and section 424a of this title.

(May 4, 1934, ch. 218, §2, 48 Stat. 666.)
#### The New Thought Church, Appellant, *v.*Mary E. Chapin, Respondent.

First Department,

December 31, 1913.

Corporation — religious corporation—right to enjoin use of corporate name —words in which no exclusive right can be claimed.

A religious corporation which has adopted the name “The New Thought Church” cannot claim an exclusive right to the use of any of such words, as they are neither peculiar, distinctive nor descriptive, but are all generic in character and of common use, and is not entitled *pendente lite*to enjoin another from conducting services under the name of “ New Thought Church Services.”

Appeal by the plaintiff, The New Thought Church, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special *724■ Term, and entered in the office of the clerk of. the county of New York on the 4th day of August, 1913, denying a motion for an injunction *pendente lite.*

*Edgar H. Woodward,*for the appellant.

*George F. Parker,*for the respondent.

Scott, J.:

The plaintiff, appellant, which claims to be a duly incorporated religious corporation under the name of “The New Thought Church,” seeks to enjoin the defendant from conducting services under the name of “New Thought Church Services. ”

This is clearly not a case for a temporary injunction. In the first place no damage is shown to result to plaintiff from the acts complained of, nor is it shown that any actual confusion has been produced by the similarity of names.

In the second place, without determining whether or not the plaintiff has ever been legally incorporated, we are of opinion that the name it has chosen is not one to which it can claim the exclusive right. It is conceded that it cannot successfully claim a monopoly-of the words “New Thought” or of the word “ Church,” but it claims the right to monopolize the combination of those words. This claim seems to us to be untenable. The words are all generic in character and of common use and are neither peculiar, distinctive nor descriptive.

The plaintiff claims that it teaches a form of religion based upon what it terms “New Thought.” If it believes, as we must assume that it does, that this is a true religion and of benefit to those who receive its teachings, it surely cannot complain that others teach the same form of religion. It would not be contended for a moment that any body of people, whether incorporated or not, could sustain a claim to the monopoly of the use of the name “Christian Church” or “ Jewish Church ” against persons who taught religion after the Christian or Jewish creeds. The plaintiff apparently has founded a new system of religion based on a new creed. The name it has chosen indicates, *first,*the system of religion which it teaches, and, *second,*that it teaches that system through the *725medium of organizations known as churches. It surely is not in a position to successfully claim a monopoly of teaching this form of religious faith by means of organizations known by ■ the generic names of churches.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham, P. J., Clarice, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
### §566a. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–288, §3(b), May 5, 1972, 86 Stat. 134

Section, act Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 735, §1, 63 Stat. 909, provided for annual authorization of appropriations for carrying out sections 564, 565, and 566 of this title, with maximum limits for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1950 through June 30, 1954.
NO. 07-02-0117-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 21, 2002

______________________________

DAVID JOE CORTEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 13,679-A; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

David Joe Cortez (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated assault.

Pursuant to a plea of guilty, but without benefit of an agreed recommendation from the

State as to punishment, the trial court found him guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen

years in theTexas Department of Corrections Institutional Division. Appellant now appeals

his conviction. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

Anders1

 brief, wherein she certifies that, after diligently searching the record, she has

concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel

has attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there

was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se. By letter dated July 11,

2002, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by August

7, 2002, if he wished to do so. To date, appellant has failed to file a response or a motion

for extension of time to file same.

 In her Anders brief, appellant’s counsel explained why she concluded that no

arguable basis for appeal existed. She considered such things as the 1) sufficiency of the

indictment to state an offense and invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction, 2) pre-trial motions

regarding appellant’s juvenile record to be used at punishment which are permitted by the

Texas Family Code, §58.007(g), 3) voluntariness of appellant’s plea and the statutory

admonitions given by the trial court, 4) existence of evidence supporting the finding of

guilt, and 5) fact that punishment was assessed within the range allowed by law.

Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of

appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise,

pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review not

only confirmed the accuracy of appellate counsel’s representations but also failed to reveal

any error. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed. 
3

 Brian Quinn 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
SERVED: February 16, 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS · OEPI\RTM~~l PJN. 

In The Matter Of: 

Peter Hantz Company 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON DC TRAHSP ' 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ta\1 FEB l 1 P J 3 \ 

nnr.KE1 OP~RA1\0NS. Docket No. F AA-2{'J"10-4268 

Case No. 2012S0700041 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

On July 11, 2016, the parties filed a proposed joint litigation schedule. 

On July 27, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Adopting Litigation Schedule, 

which required, inter alia, that responses to prehearing motions be filed within 21 days of the 

date of service of the motion. 

On January 31, 2017, the Complainant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgement. 

On February 15, 2017, the Respondent filed an unopposed request to extend the deadline for. 

filing a response to Complainant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to March 15, 2017, in 

order to allow further settlement discussions. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.213(b), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's unopposed request is granted. 

2. The Respondent's response to the Complainant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

shall be filed by March 15, 2017. 

Attachment: Service List 

DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Respondent's Counsel 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

2375 E. Camelback Rd. 

Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TEL: 602-631-4400 

FAX: 602-631-4404 

Ryan Landers, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4268 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail, For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 10.9A

                               THIRD AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                        GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT CORP.
                     VARIABLE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                                FOR EXECUTIVES



  Pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. Variable
Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (the "Plan"), said Plan is amended
as follows:

  1.  Section 4.3 of the Plan relating to the amount of Matching Contributions
made by Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation is amended to revise subsection III
in its entirety and to add a new subsection (IV), each to read as follows
effective for the Plan Year beginning January 1, 1999:

      (III) 100% of deferrals up to $15,000 in deferrals (maximum $15,000
   match).  This enhanced match benefit is only for executive employees listed
   on Appendix II to the Plan.

       (IV) 100% of deferrals up to $12,000 in deferrals (maximum $12,000
   match).  This enhanced match benefit is only for executive employees listed
   on Appendix III to the Plan.

  2.  The plan is ammended to add a new Appendix III to read as follows:

      Appendix III

      Executive Employees entitled to Appendix III enhanced benefits under
  Plan Sections 4.3(IV): James Walsh.


  3.  The effective date of this Third Amendement to the Plan is January 1,
  1999.


          GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT CORP.

          By:          /s/ D W QUALLS

          Its:         CFO - Secretary

          Date:        8-16-99
EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

       In  connection   with  the  quarterly   report  of  FreeStar   Technology
Corporation  ("Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30,
2004 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  ("Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify
pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section
1350) that to their knowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of  operations  of the
       Registrant.


Dated: November 12, 2004                   By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Paul Egan, President


Dated: November 12, 2004                    By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Ciaran Egan, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SINOCUBATE, INC.




/s/ Gordon S.F. Lin
Date: November 15, 2011Gordon S.F. LinChief Financial Officer
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

POST‐9/11 GI BILL: FACTORS TO CONSIDER

DisabilitiesdeterminedbyVAtoberelatedtoyourmilitaryservicecanleadtomonthlynon‐taxablecompensation,enrollmentinthe  

VAhealthcaresystem,a10‐pointhiringpreferenceforfederalemploymentandotherimportantbenefits.AskyourVA  

representativeorVeteransServiceOrganizationrepresentativeaboutDisabilityCompensation,Pension,HealthCare,Caregiver  

Program,CareerServices,EducationalAssistance,HomeLoanGuaranty,Insuranceand/orDependentsandSurvivors’Benefits.

FACTORS FOR VETERANS AND SERVICEMEMBERS TO CONSIDER

WHEN CHOOSING WHICH GI BILL BENEFIT TO USE

Many Veterans and servicemembers are eligible for multiple education benefit programs, including: 

 Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) 

 Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD, Chapter 30) 

 Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR, Chapter 1606) 

 Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP, Chapter 1607) 

 Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP). 

Before selecting the VA education benefit best suited for a specific individual, these questions 

should be considered: 

 Which benefit pays the individual more? 

 Is s/he receiving other aid and will that entitlement change? 

 What Post-9/11 GI Bill tier is the person eligible for? 

 How much, if any, of the training will be online/distance learning? 

 Where will the training take place? 

 Is the time limit to utilize benefits important? 

 Is the individual a member of the Armed Forces or a Veteran? 

 Is s/he eligible for Transfer of Entitlement? Does s/he want to transfer entitlement? 
Contact us: www.va.gov 1-800-827-1000 

Education Service – September 2012 

 Does the individual have remaining entitlement under other VA Education Programs?
### §410r. Lands acquired as part of park; rules and regulations

All lands and submerged lands title to which is accepted by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of section 410q of this title shall, upon the acceptance of title thereto, become parts of the Everglades National Park and shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable thereto.

(Pub. L. 86–269, §2, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 554.)
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00541

- CR

William Buckner Hubble

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 235th District Court

o f Cook e County (07

- 256 )

December 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgmen t. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Sue Walker

___________________ Justice Sue Walker
§ 1.3 Lawfully present aliens for purposes of applying for Social Security benefits. ( a ) *Definition of the term an “alien who is lawfully present in the United States.”* For the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(2) only, an “alien who is lawfully present in the United States” means: ( 1 ) A qualified alien as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1641(b);
( 2 ) An alien who has been inspected and admitted to the United States and who has not violated the terms of the status under which he or she was admitted or to which he or she has changed after admission;
( 3 ) An alien who has been paroled into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act for less than 1 year, except: ( i ) Aliens paroled for deferred inspection or pending removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act; and
( ii ) Aliens paroled into the United States for prosecution pursuant to 8 CFR 212.5(b)(3);
( 4 ) An alien who belongs to one of the following classes of aliens permitted to remain in the United States because DHS has decided for humanitarian or other public policy reasons not to initiate removal proceedings or enforce departure: ( i ) Aliens currently in temporary resident status pursuant to section 210 or 245A of the Act;
( ii ) Aliens currently under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) pursuant to section 244 of the Act;
( iii ) Cuban-Haitian entrants, as defined in section 202(b) of Pub. L. 99-603, as amended;
( iv ) Family Unity beneficiaries pursuant to section 301 of Pub. L. 101-649, as amended;
( v ) Aliens currently under Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) pursuant to a decision made by the President;
( vi ) Aliens currently in deferred action status;
( vii ) Aliens who are the spouse or child of a United States citizen whose visa petition has been approved and who have a pending application for adjustment of status;
( 5 ) Applicants for asylum under section 208(a) of the Act and applicants for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or under the Convention Against Torture who have been granted employment authorization, and such applicants under the age of 14 who have had an application pending for at least 180 days.
( b ) *Non-issuance of a Notice to Appear and non-enforcement of deportation, exclusion, or removal orders.* An alien may not be deemed to be lawfully present solely on the basis of DHS's decision not to, or failure to: ( 1 ) Issue a Notice to Appear; or
( 2 ) Enforce an outstanding order of deportation, exclusion or removal.
**Hercules Incorporated**
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-63423 and 333-29225) and Form S-8(Registration Nos. 33-37279, 33-21668, 33-21667, 33-47664, 33-51178, 33-66136,33-62314, 33-65352, 333-38795, 333-38797 and 333-68863) of HerculesIncorporated of our report dated March 11, 2004, except as tothe restatement described in Note 26 which is as ofNovember 15, 2004, relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule, which appears inHercules Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A forthe year ended December 31, 2003.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP