alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 694.5 What requirements must be met by a Partnership or State that chooses to provide services to private school students under the program's early intervention component? ( a ) *Secular, neutral, and nonideological services or benefits.* Educational services or other benefits, including materials and equipment, provided under GEAR UP by a Partnership or State that chooses to provide those services or benefits to students attending private schools, must be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
( b ) *Control of funds.* In the case of a Partnership or State that chooses to provide services under GEAR UP to students attending private schools, the fiscal agent (in the case of a Partnership) or a State agency (in the case of a State) must— ( 1 ) Control the funds used to provide services under GEAR UP to those students;
( 2 ) Hold title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with GEAR UP funds for GEAR UP program uses and purposes related to those students; and
( 3 ) Administer those GEAR UP funds and property.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28)
#### § 387.4 What definitions apply to this program?

The definitions in 34 CFR part 385 apply to this program.

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 772))
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, F. William Capp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

November 8,
2007

|/s/F. WILLIAM CAPPF. William Capp Chief Executive Officer | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
### §831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue

The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America.

(May 18, 1933, ch. 32, §25, 48 Stat. 70; July 12, 1952, ch. 700, 66 Stat. 591; Pub. L. 90–536, §1, Sept. 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 885.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–536 repealed six paragraphs following initial paragraph which provided as follows: appointment of three commissioners, oath as to absence of interest, and per diem for services and subsistence, and transportation expenses; duties of commissioners as to valuation of lands, conduct of hearings, taking of evidence, administration of oaths, subpoena of witnesses, submission of report as to value of land, and notice of award to parties; hearing de novo of exceptions to award by three Federal district judges and judicial award; disposition upon record after appeal from decision of judges; passage of title and possession to property and enforcement by writ of dispossession; and legal representatives for minors, insane or incompetents, and estates of deceased, or guardians ad litem for wards.

1952—Act July 12, 1952, increased the commissioners' per diem from $15 to $30, their sustenance from $5 to $10 a day, and allowed them 7 cents mileage.

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

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Pub. L. 90–536, §2, Sept. 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 885, provided that: "The amendment made by this Act [amending this section] shall be effective only with respect to condemnation proceedings initiated after thirty days following the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 28, 1968]."
(No. 6723

#### Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Personnel, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 8, 1973.*

Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Clancy Systems International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended Septebmer
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof  (the "Report"), I, Stanley J. Wolfson, Chief Executive Officer
of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 Company.

/s/   Stanley J. Wolfson
_______________________
Chief Executive Officer
January 13, 2009



<PAGE>
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




First Amendment to

The Progressive Corporation

Executive Separation Allowance Plan

(2006 Amendment and Restatement)




              WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Separation Allowance Plan (“Plan”) is currently
maintained pursuant to the 2006 Amendment and Restatement; and




              WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan further;




              NOW, THEREFORE, effective August 1, 2007, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below:





	 	1.	 	Section 2.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “ninety (90) days” and
inserting in lieu thereof the phrase “forty-five (45) days”.
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “ninety (90) days” and
inserting in lieu thereof the phrase “forty-five (45) days”.
	 
	 	3.	 	Section 14 of the Separation Agreement and General Release attached to the Plan as
Exhibit A is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “NINETY (90) DAYS” and inserting in lieu
thereof the phrase “FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS”.
	 
	 	4.	 	The following is hereby added as new Section 2.4 of the Plan:






“2.4 Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, an Eligible Employee
shall not be entitled to receive a separation allowance, and any Separation
Agreement and General Release that such Eligible Employee previously may have
executed shall be considered null and void, if, at any time prior to payment of a
separation allowance to such Eligible Employee, the Company determines that the
Eligible Employee has at any time prior to such payment committed a violation of
Progressive’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that would have led Progressive to
terminate the Eligible Employee’s employment in accordance with Progressive’s then
current disciplinary practices with respect to the type of violation in question had
the Eligible Employee still been actively employed.”




	 	5.	 	Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan
shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.





              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative as of the 20th day of August, 2007.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	The Progressive Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President
(No. 78-CC-0871

#### Michael Paul Nitz, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed June 12, 1978.*

*293Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
§ 669.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use? The Secretary evaluates an application on the basis of the criteria in this section. ( a ) *Plan of operation.* (See 34 CFR 655.31(a))
( b ) *Quality of key personnel.* (See 34 CFR 655.31(b))
( c ) *Budget and cost-effectiveness.* (See 34 CFR 655.31(c))
( d ) *Evaluation plan.* (See 34 CFR 655.31 (d))
( e ) *Adequacy of resources.* (See 34 CFR 655.31(e))
( f ) *Need and potential impact.* The Secretary reviews each application to determine— ( 1 ) The extent to which the proposed materials or activities are needed in the foreign languages on which the project focuses;
( 2 ) The extent to which the proposed materials may be used throughout the United States; and
( 3 ) The extent to which the proposed work or activity may contribute significantly to strengthening, expanding, or improving programs of foreign language study in the United States.
( g ) *Likelihood of achieving results.* The Secretary reviews each application to determine— ( 1 ) The quality of the outlined methods and procedures for preparing the materials; and
( 2 ) The extent to which plans for carrying out activities are practicable and can be expected to produce the anticipated results.
( h ) *Description of final form of results.* The Secretary reviews each application to determine the degree of specificity and the appropriateness of the description of the expected results from the project.
( i ) *Priorities.* If, under the provisions of § 669.22, the application notice specifies priorities for this program, the Secretary determines the degrees to which the priorities are served.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-0608) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)
[55 FR 2773, Jan. 26, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 32577, June 10, 1993; 70 FR 13377, Mar. 21, 2005]
### §6909a. United States conservation, management, and enforcement objectives

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in the course of negotiations, shall seek—

(1) to minimize any disadvantage to United States fishermen in relation to other members of the Commission;

(2) to maximize the opportunities for fishing vessels of the United States to harvest fish stocks on the high seas in the Convention area, recognizing that such harvests may be restricted if the Commission, based on the best available scientific information provided by the Scientific Committee, determines it is necessary to achieve the conservation objective set forth in Article 2 of the Convention;

(3) to prevent any requirement for the transfer to other nations or foreign entities of the fishing capacity, fishing capacity rights, or fishing vessels of the United States or its territories, unless any such requirement is voluntary and market-based; and

(4) to ensure that conservation and management measures take into consideration traditional fishing patterns of fishing vessels of the United States and the operating requirements of the fisheries covered by the Western and Central Pacific Convention.

(Pub. L. 109–479, title V, §511, as added Pub. L. 114–327, title III, §301(a)(2), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1994.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 511 of Pub. L. 109–479 was renumbered section 512 and is classified to section 6910 of this title.
#### Emory B. Remington, Appellant, v. Shults Bread Company, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury, under the circumstances of the proof. *(Hickman*v. *Schimper & Co.,*125 App. Div. 216.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
#### §75.623 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70333, Aug. 29, 2024.
§ 663.6 What regulations apply to this program? The following regulations apply to this program: ( a ) The regulations in this part 663; and
( b ) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, and 86).
( c ) (1) 2 CFR part 180 (OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)), as adopted at 2 CFR part 3485; and ( 2 ) 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), as adopted at 2 CFR part 3474.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6))
[63 FR 46363, Aug. 31, 1998, as amended at 79 FR 76104, Dec. 19, 2014]
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 512 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

115 South Swenson Street in Stamford, Texas, as the ‘‘Charles W. 

Stenholm Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2019 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mr. WRIGHT, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. THORNBERRY, 

Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. FLORES, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. BABIN, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

HURD of Texas, Mr. OLSON, Mr. BRADY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. GOODEN, Mr. VELA, Mr. VEASEY, Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. DOGGETT, 

Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. GREEN of Texas, and Mr. ALLRED) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 115 South Swenson Street in Stamford, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Charles W. Stenholm Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 512 IH

1 SECTION 1. CHARLES W. STENHOLM POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 115 South Swenson Street in 

5 Stamford, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Charles W. Stenholm Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Charles W. Stenholm 

11 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1

Knoppow, Brianna

From: Chumble, Prasad

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:41 PM

To: Knoppow, Brianna

Subject: FW: State Forestry MOUs on water quality/BMPs

Attachments: Alabama_Forestry Commission_MOUs.pdf; Arkansas_ForestryCommission-ADEQMOU-2001.pdf; Florida_Water Quality Mgmt Plan.pdf; Kentucky_Statutes and Admin. 

Regs.pdf; Mississippi_FC-MDEQ_MOU_DRAFT.pdf; Non-Point Source_BMP's New 

Mexico State Forestry Division_Summary.pdf; North Carolina_MOU NCFS DLR 

01-27-2012.pdf; Oregon_DOF_DEQ_MOU.pdf; South Carolina_DHEC MOU.pdf; 

Tennessee_WaterQualityMOA.pdf; Utah_2016 MOU Nonpoint Source Final .pdf; 

Virginia_Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act MOU with DCR.pdf; 

Virginia_MOU_MarineResourcesCommission.pdf

Categories: Word Docs or PDFs

From: Tim Foley [mailto   

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:07 AM

To: Chumble, Prasad

Cc: Gary Schiff

Subject: State Forestry MOUs on water quality/BMPs

Prasad, 

On behalf of NASF, please find attached a variety of documents relative to State Forestry MOUs/MOAs with 

state regulatory agencies on forest roads/BMP enforcement. It is my understanding these were requested at the 

recent meeting on the topic of stormwater runoff from forest roads. I worked last week to gather these from as 

many states as possible, and if I receive any additional MOUs this week I will send along. 

Attached are MOUs that are in place between forestry agencies or commissions and environmental agencies in 

the following states: Alabama (also includes an MOU between the Alabama Forestry Commission and the US 

Army Corps of Engineers/Mobile District), Arkansas, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,Tennessee and 

Utah. Mississippi and Virginia are working towards signing similar MOUs. Mississippi’s draft MOU is 

attached. 

In Virginia, in addition to the MOU between the state forestry and state environmental agency currently being 

developed, there is also on file an MOU between the forestry agency and the Marine Resources Commission 

regarding silvicultural BMPs and water crossings, as well as an MOU between the forestry agency and the 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation related to silvicultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Act Area. Both of these documents are attached. 

In some states, there is no formal MOU, but roles and relationships are laid out in a state-wide document that all 

agencies operate under. An example of this is in Florida, where the State Water Quality Management Plan, 

which is attached, designates the Florida Forest Service (formerly the Florida Division of Forestry) as the “lead 

agency” for dealing with forestry related non-point source pollution, and states that the “Division of Forestry 

will assume the lead role in overall program management and coordination.”
§ 75.903 Effective date of termination. Termination is effective on the latest of: ( a ) The date of delivery to the grantee of the notice of termination;
( b ) The termination date given in the notice of termination; or
( c ) The date of a final decision of the Secretary under part 81 of this title.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 86298, Dec. 30, 1980; 79 FR 76093, Dec. 19, 2014]
EXHIBIT 10(ii)


 


AMENDED SECTION 13(a) OF THE


2003 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ STOCK INCENTIVE
PLAN


 


13.                               Formulas for
Basic Annual Awards of Stock Options and of Restricted Stock.


 


(a)                                  Stock
Options:


 


Prior Year Average Remuneration x 45% = Target Net Present Value


 


Target Net Present Value / (BSV% x Dow Share Price)  FAS 123
Option Value = Number of Options Granted


 


(Note: Number of Options granted will be rounded up to the next
increment of 50)


 


Definition of Terms:


 


Prior Year Average Remuneration
is the average of the aggregate total of retainer and meeting fees paid to the
non-employee Directors during the calendar year prior to the Option grant being
calculated, excluding from the average any non-employee Director’s compensation
that does not represent a full year of Board service.


 


45% represents the
net present value percentage of the Prior Year Average Remuneration that this
Basic Annual Award is targeted to deliver.


 


BSV% represents the Black Scholes valuation of a ten year Option to
purchase shares of Common Stock of The Dow Chemical Company at market price
upon commencement of the Option term. The Black Scholes value is updated on a
periodic basis.


 


Dow Share Price
represents the average of high and low prices on the NYSE for common shares of
The Dow Chemical Company on the Date of Grant of the Options.


 


45
§ 463.23 Who is eligible to apply for a grant or contract for adult education and literacy activities? An organization that has demonstrated effectiveness in providing adult education and literacy activities is eligible to apply for a grant or contract. These organizations may include, but are not limited to: ( a ) A local educational agency;
( b ) A community-based organization or faith-based organization;
( c ) A volunteer literacy organization;
( d ) An institution of higher education;
( e ) A public or private nonprofit agency;
( f ) A library;
( g ) A public housing authority;
( h ) A nonprofit institution that is not described in any of paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section and has the ability to provide adult education and literacy activities to eligible individuals;
( i ) A consortium or coalition of the agencies, organizations, institutions, libraries, or authorities described in any of paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section; and
( j ) A partnership between an employer and an entity described in any of paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 3272(5))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          58,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               263,059
<PP&E>                                          30,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,198,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,968
<OTHER-SE>                                   (975,758)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,482
<SALES>                                         48,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,069
<CGS>                                           50,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               687,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (684,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,740
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (686,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (686,236)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>