alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1244
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1244 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1244.12 Employment authorization. ( a ) Upon approval of an application for Temporary Protected Status, the INS shall grant an employment authorization document valid during the initial period of the foreign state's designation (and any extensions of such period).
( b ) If the alien's Temporary Protected Status is withdrawn under § 1244.14, employment authorization expires upon notice of withdrawal or on the date stated on the employment authorization document, whichever occurs later.
( c ) If Temporary Protected Status is denied by the INS, employment authorization shall terminate upon notice of denial or at the expiration of the employment authorization document, whichever occurs later.
( d ) If the application is renewed or appealed in deportation or exclusion proceedings, or appealed to the Administrative Appeals Unit pursuant to § 1244.18(b), employment authorization will be extended during the pendency of the renewal and/or appeal.
[56 FR 619, Jan. 7, 1991, as amended at 56 FR 23498, May 22, 1991; 60 FR 21975, May 4, 1995. Redesignated at 62 FR 10367, 10382, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 63596, Nov. 16, 1998; 64 FR 4782, Feb. 1, 1999]
#### § 540.13 Notification of rejections.

When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection. The Warden shall also notify an inmate of the rejection of any letter addressed to that inmate, along with the reasons for the rejection and shall notify the inmate of the right to appeal the rejection. The Warden shall refer an appeal to an official other than the one who originally disapproved the correspondence. The Warden shall return rejected correspondence to the sender unless the correspondence includes plans for or discussion of commission of a crime or evidence of a crime, in which case there is no need to return the correspondence or give notice of the rejection, and the correspondence should be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Also, contraband need not be returned to the sender.
(Case No. 00126

#### In Re Application of Edna Perisho.

*Opinion filed March 15, 1979.*

Zollie O. Arbogast, Jr., Attorney for Claimant..

*1037William J. Scott, Attorney General; Vincent J. Biskupic, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This claim arising out of the death of a law enforcement officer allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s widow, pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 48, Sec. 281, et seq., 1975.

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer; and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the full Court on November 14, 1978, the Court finds that:

1. The Claimant, Edna Perisho, is the widow of the decedent, as stated in the application for benefits; and, in the absence of a designated beneficiary, Section 3 (a) of the Act provides that any award hereunder shall be paid to the surviving widow;

2. The decedent, Joseph Perisho, age 51, was a “Youth Supervisor (Grade) III,” and an employee of the State of Illinois Department of Corrections, on March 2,1976, at the Illinois Youth Center, Geneva, Illinois;

3. On said date, in uniform and during regularly assigned duty hours, Perisho was within the Youth *1038Center, in the active performance of his duties, and responded to a call for assistance to restrain a female “student,” the “student” being an inmate and person subject to confinement within the Youth Center. The subject resisted, fighting, shoving, and kicking Perisho; and, immediately after handcuffing her, while trying to fasten the cuffs to the subject’s bed, Perisho collapsed with a heart attack. He died at the scene, without regaining consciousness, within ten minutes of the attack. The coroner’s certificate of death recites, “recent trombosis circumflex branch of left coronary artery, due to or as a consequence of, severe coronary atherosclerosis;”

4. Perisho was a “law enforcement officer;” his death resulted from the direct willful act of the confined subject as described; and he was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act;

5. The proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act, and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be awarded to Edna Perisho, as widow of the deceased law enforcement officer, Joseph Perisho.
EXHIBIT 23.1







            INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
Herley  Industries,  Inc.  on Form  S-8  [File  numbers  333-121554,  333-71476,
333-95327,  333-46777 and 333-17369] of our report dated October 27, 2006,  with
respect to our  audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  related
consolidated financial statement schedule of Herley Industries,  Inc. as of July
30, 2006 and July 31, 2005 and for the fifty-two (52) weeks ended July 30, 2006,
July 31,  2005 and August 1, 2004 and our report  dated  October  27,  2006 with
respect to our audit of management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial  reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial  reporting  of Herley  Industries,  Inc.  as of July 30,  2006,  which
reports are  included in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Herley  Industries,
Inc. for the fifty-two (52) weeks ended June 30, 2006.

/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP

Marcum & Kliegman LLP
Melville, New York
October 27, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7136]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Host Response to Francisella.
    Date: May 11, 2011.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Lynn Rust, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer,Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-3938, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f79b85c5c5cf81b7999e9fd9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9d5cb8b8b81cff9d7d0d197ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7136 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SUBCHAPTER D—IMPRISONMENT

#### SUBCHAPTER D—IMPRISONMENT 1

Sec.
3581.
Sentence of imprisonment.
3582.
Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment.
3583.
Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment.
3584.
Multiple sentences of imprisonment.
3585.
Calculation of a term of imprisonment.
3586.
Implementation of a sentence of imprisonment.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330010(3), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2143, transferred analysis of this subchapter to follow heading for this subchapter.

1  So in original. Probably should not appear.
§ 34.25 Determination of financial hardship. ( a ) ( 1 ) If we conclude that garnishment at the amount or rate proposed in a notice would cause you financial hardship, we reduce the amount of the proposed garnishment to an amount that we determine will allow you to meet proven basic living expenses.
( 2 ) If a garnishment order is already in effect, we notify your employer of any change in the amount the employer must withhold or the rate of withholding under the order.
( b ) If we determine that financial hardship would result from garnishment based on a finding by a hearing official or under a repayment agreement we reached with you, this determination is effective for a period not longer than six months after the date of the finding or agreement.
( c ) ( 1 ) After the effective period referred to in paragraph (b) of this section, we may require you to submit current information regarding your family income and living expenses.
( 2 ) If we conclude from a review of that evidence that we should increase the rate of withholding or payment, we— ( i ) Notify you; and
( ii ) Provide you with an opportunity to contest the determination and obtain a hearing on the objection under the procedures in § 34.24.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3720D)
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2

-

A

Amarillo, Texas 79101

- 2449

www.7thcoa.cou rts.state.tx.us PEGGY CULP

CLERK

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105

- 9540

(806) 342

- 2650

November 21, 2013

Katherine L. Levy

Assistant District Attorney

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 5

- A

Amarillo, TX 79101

- 24 49 John Bennett

Attorney at Law

P. O. Box 19144

Amarillo, TX 79114

RE: Case No. 07

- 12

- 00235

- CR ; 07

- 12

- 00236

- CR

Trial Court Case No. 63,052

- A ; 63,053

- A

S tyle : Ty Tuckness v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned cause. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on

file with this Court, if any , will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case

or at an earlier date if ordered by the Court.

Very truly yours, 

# Peggy Culp

PEGGY CULP , CLERK

xc: Honorable Dan L. Schaap

Caroline Woodburn
#### John B. DeVoney, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas Gaynor, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 16,643.

Appeals and *erbobs—when writ of error dismissed.*A writ of error to review a judgment rendered by the Municipal Court will be dismissed if the stenographic report has been stricken, and the errors assigned cannot be considered in the absence of a stenographic report.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. W. H. Dietrich, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the Oc*73tober term, 1910.

Writ of error dismissed.

Opinion filed November 18, 1910.

William H. Tatge, for plaintiff in error; Gavin & Mayer, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

A motion of defendant in error to strike the stenographic report of the proceedings from the record has heretofore been sustained. None of the assigned errors can be considered in the absence of a bill of exceptions or such stenographic report.

On motion of defendant in error, the writ of error will therefore be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4869 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4869

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to remove all adverse credit 
history related to a loan from the credit history of a borrower who has 
                        rehabilitated the loan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to remove all adverse credit 
history related to a loan from the credit history of a borrower who has 
                        rehabilitated the loan.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Loan Default Reduction 
Program Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFAULT REDUCTION PROGRAM.

    Section 428F(a)(1)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1078-6(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``to remove the record 
of the default from the borrower's credit history'' and inserting ``to 
remove any adverse item of information relating to such loan from the 
borrower's credit history''.
                                 <all>
```
### §1509. Relationship to other district court actions

(a) Stay of District Court Proceedings.—Subject to section 1507(b), a district court of the United States shall issue a stay of proceedings or such other relief as the court determines appropriate with respect to any claim brought before the court that is already the subject of a pending or active proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board.

(b) Alternative Dispute Resolution Process.—A proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board under this chapter shall qualify as an alternative dispute resolution process under section 651 of title 28 for purposes of referral of eligible cases by district courts of the United States upon the consent of the parties.

(Added Pub. L. 116–260, div. Q, title II, §212(b), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2198.)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92833 / August 31, 2021

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading 

in the securities of Jade Global Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Media Analytics Corporation) (JADG)

commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 1, 2021 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on 

September 15, 2021.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of the foregoing company due

to a lack of current and accurate information about the company because it has not filed certain 

periodic reports with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by this company.

Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at 

the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities 

of the subject company unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the 

provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it 

should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of this company that has been 

subject to the trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is 

certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding

the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC 

at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule,

the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. 

If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of 

Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 74081 / January 16, 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-16246

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

STEVEN DURRELLE : ORDER APPOINTING

WILLIAMS, : TAX ADMINISTRATOR

:

Respondent. :

____________________________________:

By order dated January 17, 2013, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”), Rel. No. 34-68683, authorizing the 

Secretary to issue orders during calendar years 2013-2015 appointing, upon request by 

the Commission staff, Damasco and Associates LLP (“Damasco”), a certified public 

accounting firm located in Half Moon Bay, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On January 13, 2015, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the Omnibus 

Order, the appointment of Damasco as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the 

above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Damasco, pursuant to and in accordance with the Omnibus 

Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 99


            REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Member of
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
Houston, Texas

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2004
and 2003, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2004, and have issued our report thereon dated March 22, 2005 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
concerning the distribution of its ownership interest in certain subsidiaries
on August 31, 2002 and the resulting accounting treatment as discontinued
operations as described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements);
such report has previously been filed as part of the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (Form 10-K). Our audits also
included the financial statement schedule of the Company listed in the index at
Item 15(a)(2) of the Form 10-K and of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2004. This financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston, Texas
March 22, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Blake DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7071.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Steven Blake Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Blake Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Davis,*Nos. CR-97-40-A; CA-00-560-7 (W.D.Va. May 31, 2001). We further deny Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# Energy 6507 U.S.C.G. Certified Double Hull Oil Barge Length: 362.0 Beam: 60.0 Draft: Unmanned: 23.7 Manned: 22.0 Certification: USCG Subchapter "D" & "O", Oceans, Grade "A" and Lower Products Classification: American Bureau of Shipping +A1, Unmanned Oceans, Manned Special Service O.N.: 1196549 ABS ID: 171532

Main Cargo Pumps: EPS 12FPO Deep Well Deadweight: 10,300 

### DIMENSIONS AND REGULATORY INFORMATION Ft Ft Ft Ft



### MAIN AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY CAPACITIES AND DELIVERY RATES LT



### SPECIAL FEATURES OPA '90 Compliant, Double-Hull Steel Construction, Vapor Recovery, Fore/Aft Yokohama Fenders w/Winches and Slides, Quarters w/Accomodations for Four (4) Persons, Centralized Remote Gauging w/High Level Alarms, VHF Radio, Email Capabilities 3 4,285 BPH Each @ 100 PSI Rail Rated Performance: x Home Port: New Orleans LA ,
(Unmanned Oceans Loadline), 9,390 LT (Manned Special Service Loadline) Cargo Tanks, Single System Configuration:Twelve (12) Tank Segregation: Three System Split; All Tanks Cross-Connected and Double Blocked; Multiple Splits Possible Tons per Inch Immersion: 47 LT/In Cargo Tank Capacity, Max: 65,230 Bbls. Cargo Tank Capacity, Max @ 1' Ullage 61,900 Vessel Fuel: One (1) Integral Tank - 10,000 USG


### HOSE MANIFOLDS Cargo Manifold Connections: Three (3) at Port/Stbd Midship BCM 142 Ft SCM 220 Ft Connection Flange Size: 10-Inch ANSI Flange
Discharge Rate: 12,855 BPH Total @ 100 PSI Rail Pump Prime Movers: Vertical, Explosion-Proof Electric Motors 3 x Horsepower: 350 HP Each Electrical Generators: CAT C18 IMO-Compliant 3 x Rating: 340 KW Each Brunvoll FU-45-LTC-1375 1 540 Constant Tension Hose Cranes: Midship Centerline Hydraulic (60 ft Boom) Hook Load Rating: 3,725 lbs Bbls.

Bow Thruster: x Rating: HP 4 x Mooring Winches:

103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 300 Covington, Louisiana 70433 Phone: (985) 727-2000 Fax: (985) 727-3606 

### HORNBECK OFFSHORE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 

## Service with Energy Rev. Preliminary Date: 12/7/2006