alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §511. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright

(a) In General.—Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

(b) Remedies.—In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any public or private entity other than a State, instrumentality of a State, or officer or employee of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Such remedies include impounding and disposition of infringing articles under section 503, actual damages and profits and statutory damages under section 504, costs and attorney's fees under section 505, and the remedies provided in section 510.

(Added Pub. L. 101–553, §2(a)(2), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2749; amended Pub. L. 106–44, §1(g)(6), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13210(4)(C), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1909.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Constitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of subsection (a) of this section, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted "122" for "121".

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–44 substituted "121" for "119".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective with respect to violations that occur on or after Nov. 15, 1990, see section 3 of Pub. L. 101–553, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 501 of this title.
§ 76.740 Protection of and access to student records; student rights in research, experimental programs, and testing. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70340 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) Most records on present or past students are subject to the requirements of section 438 of GEPA and its implementing regulations under 34 CFR part 99. (Section 438 is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.)
( b ) Under most programs administered by the Secretary, research, experimentation, and testing are subject to the requirements of section 439 of GEPA and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR part 98.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1232g, 1232h, 3474, and 6511(a))
[45 FR 22517, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 57 FR 30342, July 8, 1992]
§ 668.74 Employability of graduates. Misrepresentation regarding the employability of an eligible institution's graduates includes, but is not limited to, false, erroneous, or misleading statements concerning— ( a ) The institution's relationship with any organization, employment agency, or other agency providing authorized training leading directly to employment;
( b ) The institution's intentions to maintain a placement service for graduates or to otherwise assist its graduates to obtain employment, including any requirements to receive such assistance;
( c ) The institution's knowledge about the current or likely future conditions, compensation, or employment opportunities in the industry or occupation for which the students are being prepared;
( d ) Whether employment is being offered by the institution exclusively for graduates of the institution, or that a talent hunt or contest is being conducted, including, but not limited to, through the use of phrases such as “Men/women wanted to train for . . . , ” “Help Wanted,” “Employment,” or “Business Opportunities”;
( e ) Government job market statistics in relation to the potential placement of its graduates;
( f ) Actual licensure passage rates, if they are materially lower than those included in the institution's marketing materials, website, or other communications made to the student or prospective student; or
( g ) ( 1 ) Actual employment rates, if they are materially lower than those included in the institution's marketing materials, website, or other communications made to the student or prospective student, including but not limited to: ( i ) Rates that are calculated in a manner that is inconsistent with the standards or methodology set forth by the institution's accreditor or a State agency that regulates the institution, or in its institutional policy.
( ii ) Rates that the institution discloses to students are inflated by means such as: ( A ) Counting individuals as employed who are not bona fide employees, such as individuals placed on a 1-day job fair, an internship, externship, or in employment subsidized by the institution;
( B ) Counting individuals as employed who were employed in the field prior to graduation; or
( C ) Excluding students from an employment rate calculation due to assessments of employability or difficulty with placement.
( 2 ) Upon request, the institution must furnish to the Secretary documentation and other information used to calculate the institution's employment rate calculations.
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ensurge,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed April 11, 2008 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, to the best of our knowledge fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the annual report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Ensurge, Inc.









Date:
      April 16, 2008
            /s/
      Jeff A. HanksJeff
      A. HanksPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive and Financial Officer)




























---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER

I, Steven L. Suss, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 15, 2009                                  
|                                                     
|/s/    Steven L. Suss                                
|Steven L. Suss, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
R e gu l atory Evalu a tion
Docket No
. FAA- Di rectorate I den ti fier: -AD 

### [lyou make changes to tlw values 

### in the table 

### bdoll '
. you IIIIlS/ ensure the totals update accordingly. 

### [l th e y do nul, click ( or Tuh) into and then out of the c ha11ged cell
. Estima ted C os ts : Action Costs per Pro d uct (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection , prop e ller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Tota l Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) ( i nc l ude co st (la b or+ 

## u.s . for U.S. Fl eet Do not include oncondit ion cos t s h ere access, tes ti n

g, (@$ 85/h pa rts) R eg is te re d and c l ose-up) o ur) Pr od uc t s 

### Access 1. 3 \ l i' ,!1 10.511 

## 196 ' .(•5X 1J 

### App ly Sealant, Left 

## 0.1 Side 1\ ' 

# "

**~** 

# .. 0 

## 196 ·•. . l'll:' llll 

### App ly Seal ant, 

## 0.1 

# " x .:;u \

**~ ~n**  

## 196 '-:I {J(•o.uO 

### Right Side Close 1.3 " l i(l.:'ll ":- J 10.511 

## 196

**s~** 1

**.~,~)\.lj{}** ') 0 {}l) \ 0 \)fl

**~'** (; .(J(l \ 0 (10 \ () 0 1 J 

## s lUll} -; 0 !lll >; 

### n.nn \ 

### o.no ' ().\Ill \) !li I '· () 1)11 \ O.tH• ') iJ _\}II ' 11''1• 0 "'' l! 

### nn ' il 01) 0 Ot• '· 0 

### OJ! • O
.IJti 

## o.o., 

# " (J (jtl 

## " II }I! (l !)II 

# ' f' {lfl 

# ., 0 \11' ) (). ()ll 

### o no ... fl.IH•

... O.CH• 

### ' !1 , 01) 

# " 11 

### no 

### .., 0 ()(J \ t) IJO 

### ., (1 ,0\) ') (I 00 \ 0 f)(J 

### ' 0.()0 \ OJ tO \ tltJI .• ql)() 

# " I) (i() 0.(10 f' .Oll tl (j 1) ldJ p (11) The known numbe r of products in com_Qiiance: Total Costs of com_Qiiance for U.S. fleet: $46,648 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ O n-Co nd it i on Costs :



## ~ Action Work-hours L abor cost Parts Cost Cost p er Prod u ct (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) test in g, and close- replacement) up) \ (l ()i) 'S Cl.fH) ·; II 00 

# " I tl(l • (I ()(I .., dfll) !', 0.00 c;, (),11(1

### Special con siderations for Economic Analysi s (Use thisfield to explain anyt hing in th e Estima t e d Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to exp lain warranty costs): 

### Exec uti ve Ord e r 12866: Could the AD be considered a "s ignificant r egulatory act ion "?



# ~ YES* 

## D NO 

## IZI *Explanati on: 

### DOT R eg ul a to ry Polici es a nd Procedures: Is the AD s ignificant?



# ~ Y ES* 

## D NO 

## IZI *Ex planati on: 

### Regul atory Flexibility Act : Wi ll t he AD have a sign ifi cant econom ic impac t on a substa nti al number of small enti t i

es? Explai n for ei ther a Yes or No answer .• YES 

## D NO 

## IZI Exp lanati on: 

### Intrasta te Av iation in Al as ka : This AD could affect intr astate aviati o n in A l aska. I s it appropriate to inc lude specific r equire ments fo r aircra ft operated in Alaska wh e re aviat ion mi g ht be t h e only m ode o f transportation?



# · YES* 

## D NO 

## IZI *Explanation:
§ 463.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to the Governor's Reserve Allotment? ( a ) The Secretaries of Labor and Education will reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by five percent of the maximum available amount for the immediately succeeding program year if: ( 1 ) The State fails to submit the State annual performance reports as required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined in § 463.185;
( 2 ) The State fails to meet State adjusted levels of performance for the same primary performance indicator(s) under either § 463.190(d)(1) for the second consecutive year as defined in § 463.190; or
( 3 ) The State's score on the same indicator for the same program falls below 50 percent under § 463.190(d)(2) for the second consecutive year as defined in § 463.190.
( b ) If the State fails under paragraphs (a)(1) and either (a)(2) or (3) of this section in the same program year, the Secretaries of Labor and Education will reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by 10 percent of the maximum available amount for the immediately succeeding program year.
( c ) If a State's Governor's Reserve Allotment is reduced: ( 1 ) The reduced amount will not be returned to the State in the event that the State later improves performance or submits its annual performance report; and
( 2 ) The Governor's Reserve will continue to be set at the reduced level in each subsequent year until the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education, depending on which program is impacted, determines that the State met the State adjusted levels of performance for the applicable primary performance indicators and has submitted all of the required performance reports.
( d ) A State may request review of a sanction the Secretary of Labor imposes in accordance with the provisions of 20 CFR 683.800.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

U.S. Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Postponement of public hearing.

# NOTICE:

                        The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the availability of the                         *Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountaineer Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Project*                         (DOE/EIS-0445D) for public review and comment in a                         **Federal Register**                         notice on Friday, March 11, 2011. The notice also provided the location and time for a public hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, scheduled for Wednesday, March 30, 2011. The purpose of this notice is to inform interested parties that DOE has decided to postpone the public hearing; DOE will issue another notice announcing the new date and time for this meeting.                    

Issued in Washington, DC on March 23, 2011.

Mark J. Matarrese,

Director, Office of Environment, Security, Safety & Health, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 2011-7332 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. PD-1264-19 D’WARREN LAMAR SIMMONS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEX AS

ON STATE’S AND APPELLANT’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE WACO COURT OF APPEALS MCLENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam . YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in w hich SLAUGHTER, J., joined. O P I N I O N Appellant was convicted of assault f am ily violence with a prior conviction f or assault f am ily violence and sentenced to 75 y ears in prison. In the bill of costs, the trial court assessed Appellant a $25 tim e pay m ent f ee. See T E X . L O C A L G O V ’ T C O D E §D’W ARREN LAMAR SIMMONS - 2

133.103. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck a portion of t hat f e e as being unconstitutional. Simmons v. State , No. 10-18-00269-CR (Tex. App. – W aco Nov. 27, 2019). The State has f

iled a petition f

o r discretionary

review arguing that the tim e pay m ent f ee was prem a turely

assessed. W e recently

handed down our opinion in Dulin v. State , Nos. PD-0856-19 & PD-0857-19, 2021 Tex. Crim . App. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim

. App. Mar. 31, 2021), in which we held that the tim e pay m ent f ee was assessed prem aturely

because the pendency

of appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. Accordingly , we grant ground one of the State’s petition f

or discretionary review, vacate the judgm ent of

the Court of

Appeals, and rem and this case to the Court of Appeals f or proceedings consistent with this opinion. The State’s other ground is ref used. Appellant’s petition is also ref used.

DATE DELIVERED: May 12, 2021 DO NOT PUBLISH
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Project No.Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI
13734-000FFP Missouri 17, LLC
3754-000Solia 3 Hydroelectric, LLC
13765-000Three Rivers Hydro LLC
13783-000
 On March 24, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows: Project No.1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI
13734-0002. Three Rivers Hydro LLC
13783-0003. Solia 3 Hydroelectric, LLC
13765-0004. FFP Missouri 17, LLC
13754-000
 Dated: March 25, 2011. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2011-7854 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700212

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

KURT F. SAAVEDRA

Airman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Heather Partridge, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron 

EIGHT THREE, Virginia Beach, VA.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Jacqueline M. Leonard, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 16 November 2017

_________________________

Before MARKS, WOODARD, and KOVAC, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
September 13, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CONRADO CALDERAS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00549-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of appeal. 

Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
(No. 74-CC-452

#### Commonwealth Edison Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 25, 1974.*

George O. Shaffner and Joseph O. Sibley, Jr., Attorneys for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
# Official Journal C 235/23 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 235 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4823 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 235

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4823 September 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 235/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 235/2 | Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 2 |
| 2005/C 235/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 3 |
| 2005/C 235/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3894 — Unicredito/HVB) (1) | 6 |
| 2005/C 235/5 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 7 |
| 2005/C 235/6 | Acknowledgment of receipt of complaint No 2005/4483 — plans for the M-30 motorway around Madrid (Spain) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 235/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 235/2

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2

2005/C 235/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

3

2005/C 235/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3894 — Unicredito/HVB) (1)

6

2005/C 235/5

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

7

2005/C 235/6

Acknowledgment of receipt of complaint No 2005/4483 — plans for the M-30 motorway around Madrid (Spain)

13

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 235/7 | Call for proposals — DG EAC 46/05 — Promotion of active European citizenship — Support for non-governmental organisations and associations and federations of European interest | 14 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 235/7

Call for proposals — DG EAC 46/05 — Promotion of active European citizenship — Support for non-governmental organisations and associations and federations of European interest

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN