alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 104.35 Evaluation and placement. ( a ) *Preplacement evaluation.* A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall conduct an evaluation in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section of any person who, because of handicap, needs or is belived to need special education or related services before taking any action with respect to the initial placement of the person in regular or special education and any subsequent significant change in placement.
( b ) *Evaluation procedures.* A recipient to which this subpart applies shall establish standards and procedures for the evaluation and placement of persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special education or related services which ensure that: ( 1 ) Tests and other evaluation materials have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer;
( 2 ) Tests and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient; and
( 3 ) Tests are selected and administered so as best to ensure that, when a test is administered to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the student's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
( c ) *Placement procedures.* In interpreting evaluation data and in making placement decisions, a recipient shall ( 1 ) draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior,
( 2 ) establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all such sources is documented and carefully considered,
( 3 ) ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, and
( 4 ) ensure that the placement decision is made in conformity with § 104.34.
( d ) *Reevaluation.* A recipient to which this section applies shall establish procedures, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, for periodic reevaluation of students who have been provided special education and related services. A reevaluation procedure consistent with the Education for the Handicapped Act is one means of meeting this requirement.
[45 FR 30936, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68055, Nov. 13, 2000]
§ 685.408 Discharge. ( a ) The Secretary discharges the obligation of the borrower in accordance with the procedures described in subpart D of this part.
( b ) Members of a group that received a written notice of an approved borrower defense claim in accordance with § 685.406(f)(1) may request to opt out of the discharge for the group.
§ 248.2 Ineligible classes. ( a ) Except as described in paragraph (b) of this section, the following categories of aliens are not eligible to change their nonimmigrant status under section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1258: ( 1 ) Any alien in immediate and continuous transit through the United States without a visa;
( 2 ) Any alien classified as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) (C), (D), (K), or (S) of the Act;
( 3 ) Any alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Act, or who acquired such status after admission in order to receive graduate medical education or training, whether or not the alien was subject to, received a waiver of, or fulfilled the two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the Act. This restriction shall not apply when the alien is a foreign medical graduate who was granted a waiver under section 212(e)(iii) of the Act pursuant to a request made by a State Department of Public Health (or its equivalent) under Pub. L. 103-416, and the alien complies with the terms and conditions imposed on the waiver under section 214(k) of the Act and the implementing regulations at § 212.7(c)(9) of this chapter. A foreign medical graduate who was granted a waiver under Pub. L. 103-416 and who does not fulfill the requisite 3-year employment contract or otherwise comply with the terms and conditions imposed on the waiver is ineligible to apply for change of status to any other nonimmigrant classification; and
( 4 ) Any alien classified as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Act (other than an alien described in paragraph (c) of this section) who is subject to the foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the Act and who has not received a waiver of the residence requirement, except when the alien applies to change to a classification under section 101(a)(15)(A) or (G) of the Act.
( 5 ) Any alien admitted as a visitor under the visa waiver provisions of § 212.1(e) of this chapter.
( 6 ) Any alien admitted as a Visa Waiver Pilot Program visitor under the provisions of section 217 of the Act and part 217 of this chapter.
( b ) The prohibition against a change of nonimmigrant status for the categories of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section is inapplicable to aliens applying for a change of nonimmigrant status to that of a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U).
[47 FR 44238, Oct. 7, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 41017, Sept. 13, 1983; 52 FR 48084, Dec. 18, 1987; 53 FR 24903, June 30, 1988; 60 FR 26683, May 18, 1995; 60 FR 44271, Aug. 25, 1995; 72 FR 53041, Sept. 17, 2007]
#### § 300.104 Residential placement

If placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability, the program, including non-medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1), 1412(a)(10)(B))
# Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Tucson, Arizona

As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence perpetrated on Saturday, January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, January 14, 2011.  I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2011-710

Billing code 3195-W1-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Michael S. Hedge, Chief Executive Officer, and Randall J. Frapart, principal financial officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 1, 2006 (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 Datrek Miller International, Inc.

Dated: May 22, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael S. Hedge                      
|Michael S. Hedge                          
|Chief Executive Officer                   
|                                          
|/s/ Randall J. Frapart                    
|Randall J. Frapart Chief Financial
Officer
§ 222.191 What is the maximum award amount? ( a ) Subject to any applicable contribution requirements as described in §§ 222.192 and 222.193, the procedures in 34 CFR 75.231 through 75.236, and the provisions in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may fund up to 100 percent of the allowable costs in an approved grantee's proposed project.
( b ) An award amount may not exceed the difference between— ( 1 ) The cost of the proposed project; and
( 2 ) The amount the grantee has available or will have available for this purpose from other sources, including local, State, and other Federal funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7707(b))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,417
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       275,092
<OTHER-SE>                                   (497,509)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,785)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 668.138 Liability. ( a ) A student is liable for any LEAP, FSEOG, Federal Pell Grant, ACG, National SMART Grant, or TEACH Grant payment and for any Federal Stafford, Direct Subsidized, Direct Unsubsidized or Federal Perkins loan made to him or her if the student was ineligible for the Title IV, HEA assistance.
( b ) A Federal PLUS or Direct PLUS Loan borrower is liable for any Federal PLUS or Direct PLUS Loan made to him or her on behalf of an ineligible student.
( c ) The Secretary does not take any action against an institution with respect to an error in the institution's determination that a student is an eligible noncitizen if, in making that determination, the institution followed the provisions in this subpart and relied on— ( 1 ) An output document for that student indicating that the INS has confirmed that the student's immigration status meets the eligibility requirements for title IV, HEA assistance;
( 2 ) An INS determination of the student's immigration status and the authenticity of the student's immigration documents provided in response to the institution's request for secondary confirmation; or
( 3 ) Immigration-status documents submitted by the student and the institution did not have reason to believe that the documents did not support the student's claim to be an eligible noncitizen.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if an institution makes an error in its determination that a student is an eligible noncitizen, the institution is liable for any title IV, HEA disbursements made to this student during the award year or period of enrollment for which the student applied for title IV, HEA assistance.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1091, 1094)
[58 FR 3184, Jan. 7, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 40626, July 29, 1998; 65 FR 38729, June 22, 2000; 71 FR 38003, July 3, 2006; 73 FR 35493, June 23, 2008]
Exhibit 32.2
     DAC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DAC Technologies Group InternationalInc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert C. Goodwin, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.                    /s/ Robert C. Goodwin   Robert C. Goodwin   CFO, Principal Accounting Officerand Principal Financial Officer   
Date: May 16, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5094 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5094

  To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to credit applicable 
   medical facilities accounts at the West Los Angeles Campus of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs in Los Angeles, California with revenues 
        received pursuant to the use of easements at the Campus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2019

  Mr. Ted Lieu of California introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to credit applicable 
   medical facilities accounts at the West Los Angeles Campus of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs in Los Angeles, California with revenues 
        received pursuant to the use of easements at the Campus.

    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 ``Ensuring Access to West Los Angeles 
Veterans Affairs Easement Funds Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REVENUES RECEIVED FROM THE USE OF EASEMENTS.

    Section 2(e) of the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 (Public 
Law 114-226; 38 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Revenues.--Any funds received by the Secretary 
        pursuant to the use of an easement or right-of-way authorized 
        under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the applicable 
        Department medical facilities account (as determined by the 
        Secretary) and shall be available, without fiscal year 
        limitation and without further appropriation, exclusively for 
        the renovation and maintenance of the land and facilities at 
        the Campus.''.
                                 <all>
```
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean TDS

1 514 498 505 328

2 505 487 496 323

3 501 487 493 321

4 498 484 489 318

5 499 482 490 319

6 496 478 488 318

7 485 477 482 314

8 476 466 473 308

9 472 465 468 305

10 472 460 465 303

11 468 456 462 302

12 463 455 459 300

13 461 452 457 298

14 461 451 456 298

15 461 447 454 297

16 453 443 449 293

17 448 436 443 290

18 442 435 438 287

19 447 436 441 289

20 459 434 450 294

21 463 442 454 297

22 455 442 448 293

23 446 425 435 285

24 440 424 434 284

25 439 426 432 283

26 437 427 431 282

27 455 428 442 289

28 453 443 449 293

29 454 445 451 295

30 457 427 439 287

31 438 426 432 283

Total 14205

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Delta Mendota Canal At Check 21 

Period: August 2022 Run Date: 11/22/2022
#### § 75.531 Limit on total cost of a project.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70329, Aug. 29, 2024.

A grantee shall insure that the total cost to the Federal Government is not more than the amount stated in the notification of grant award.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
EX-10.17.3






Exhibit 10.17.3




Incorporated by reference to the exhibit of the same number contained in the Company’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on June 10, 2004.
### §651. Disbursing officer falsely certifying full payment

Whoever, being an officer charged with the disbursement of the public moneys, accepts, receives, or transmits to the Government Accountability Office to be allowed in his favor any receipt or voucher from a creditor of the United States without having paid the full amount specified therein to such creditor in such funds as the officer received for disbursement, or in such funds as he may be authorized by law to take in exchange, shall be fined under this title or in double the amount so withheld, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; but if the amount withheld does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (2)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147, 2148; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §181 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §95, 35 Stat. 1106; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24).

The penalty provided by section 652 of this title, a similar section, was incorporated in this section.

(For explanation of the smaller penalty for an offense involving $100 or less, see reviser's notes under sections 641 and 645 of this title.)

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "$1,000" for "$100".

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(2)(G), substituted "shall be fined under this title or in double the amount so withheld, whichever is greater, or imprisoned" for "shall be fined in double the amount so withheld or imprisoned".

Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000" after "he shall be".
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN STEVEN SIMON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF PHOENIX; et al.,

 Defendants,

 And

BORQUEZ, City of Phoenix Police

Officer, Badge # 8790; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15308

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00701-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 5 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
John Steven Simon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal as a sanction, In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996), and

we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Simon’s action

as a sanction after Simon failed to respond timely or properly to defendants’

discovery request, despite being warned that failure to do so could result in

dismissal of his action. See id. at 433 (setting forth factors for a district court to

consider in determining whether to dismiss as a sanction, and noting that dismissal

is authorized “where the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the

[plaintiff]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Contrary to Simon’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by quashing Simon’s notices of depositions or denying Simon’s motions

to compel, because Simon failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the district court’s scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31; Laub v.

U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting the district

court’s broad discretion in discovery matters and discussing “substantial prejudice”

requirement for reversal).

2 13-15308
We reject as without merit Simon’s contentions that the district court was

biased against him and erroneously ignored a written deposition, and that

defendants did not answer the complaint. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-15308
§ 607.12 What must be included in individual development grant applications? In addition to the information needed by the Secretary to determine whether the institution should be awarded a grant under the funding criteria contained in subpart C, an application for a development grant must include— ( a ) The institution's comprehensive development plan;
( b ) A description of the relationship of each activity for which grant funds are requested to the relevant goals and objectives of its plan;
( c ) A description of any activities that were funded under previous development grants awarded under the Strengthening Institutions Program that expired within five years of when the development grant will begin and the institution's justification for not completing the activities under the previous grant, if applicable; and
( d ) If the applicant is applying to carry out more than one activity— ( 1 ) A description of those activities that would be a sound investment of Federal funds if funded separately;
( 2 ) A description of those activities that would be a sound investment of Federal funds only if funded with the other activities; and
( 3 ) A ranking of the activities in preferred funding order.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-0114) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1057 *et seq.*)
[52 FR 30529, Aug. 14, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 41924, Aug. 15, 1994; 60 FR 15447, Mar. 23, 1995; 64 FR 70155, Dec. 15, 1999. Redesignated at 85 FR 59981, Sept. 23, 2020]