alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 677.185 When are sanctions applied for a State's failure to submit an annual performance report? ( a ) Sanctions will be applied when a State fails to submit the State annual performance report required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA. A State fails to report if the State either: ( 1 ) Does not submit a State annual performance report by the date for timely submission set in performance reporting guidance; or
( 2 ) Submits a State annual performance report by the date for timely submission, but the report is incomplete.
( b ) Sanctions will not be applied if the reporting failure is due to exceptional circumstances outside of the State's control. Exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Natural disasters;
( 2 ) Unexpected personnel transitions; and
( 3 ) Unexpected technology related issues.
( c ) In the event that a State may not be able to submit a complete and accurate performance report by the deadline for timely reporting: ( 1 ) The State must notify the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of Education as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days prior to the established deadline for submission, of a potential impact on the State's ability to submit its State annual performance report in order to not be considered failing to report.
( 2 ) In circumstances where unexpected events occur less than 30 days before the established deadline for submission of the State annual performance reports, the Secretaries of Labor and Education will review requests for extending the reporting deadline in accordance with the Departments of Labor and Education's procedures that will be established in guidance.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4618 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 99
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4618

                          [Report No. 114-463]

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, as the ``Sidney Oslin 
      Smith, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2016

    Mr. Collins of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 23, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, as the ``Sidney Oslin 
      Smith, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

 

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

SECTION 1. SIDNEY OSLIN SMITH, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sidney Oslin Smith, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Sidney Oslin Smith, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.
                                                  House Calendar No. 99

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4618

                          [Report No. 114-463]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, as the ``Sidney Oslin 
      Smith, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 23, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2805

___________

Daniel J. Dykema, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* Tax Court.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2012

 Filed: January 31, 2012 

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Dykema appeals a decision of the tax court1

 which dismissed his petition

challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

upheld the assessments set forth in the notice of deficiency, and imposed sanctions

against him for asserting frivolous arguments. The Commissioner urges affirmance

and has moved for sanctions on appeal.

After careful review, we conclude that dismissal of Dykema’s petition was

appropriate for the reasons explained by the tax court. We also agree with the tax

1

The Honorable Mark V. Holmes, United States Tax Court Judge.
court that Dykema’s arguments below were frivolous, and we find no abuse of

discretion in the court’s imposition of sanctions.

As to the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions on appeal, we may award “just

damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See

Fed. R. App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912. In the present appeal, Dykema has raised the

same tax-protestor arguments he asserted below, all of which have been repeatedly

rejected by the courts as frivolous. Cf. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256

(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in government’s action to recover back taxes from tax

protestor defendants, noting that appellate court had previously held wages are within

Code’s definition of income, and rejecting defendants’ argument that they were not

citizens of United States but rather were citizens of “Republic of Minnesota” who

were not subject to income tax); see also United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405, 412

(5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that court previously had rejected as “patently

frivolous” and “absurd” argument that income derived from sources within United

States is non-taxable). In these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are

appropriate. See Gerads, 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting government’s request that

court impose sanctions against appellants for bringing frivolous appeal based on

discredited, tax-protestor arguments).

Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we

grant the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $5,000.

_____________________

-2-
Table 29
                                     U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                            Central Valley Operations Office

                                     Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley - Streamflow Data
                                                      2007
Mean monthly flow in cfs

                                 Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov     Dec
Sacramento River
Shasta computed inflow           5138  11346   8311   5710   4685   3655   3665   3255   3212   4028   3564    5296
At Keswick                       5108   4860   4807   7827   9836  12328  14973  11615   8454   6378   5660    4677
At Bend Bridge                   6346   8659   6662   8359  10297  12406  15231  11510   8249   6832   6141    5839
At Vina Bridge                   8833  13456   9783  10711  11958  13892  16918  13388   9894   8568   7674    7607
At Ord Ferry                     9068  13487  10009   9443   9382  10332  12438  10420   9421   8502   8116    8471
At Colusa                        7566  12523   9228   7657   6950   8133  11423   8841   7647   5911   5450    6197
Below Wilkins Slough             8147  12349   9619   7515   5797   6990   9518   7979   7787   6222   5388    6806
At Verona                       12753  22882  18308  12169   8618  10734  30897  18641  14590  10053   9346   11254
Sacramento at "I" Street        14669  24764  20437  13868   9752  13022  33977  20840  16035  11262  10589   12367

Miscellaneous Stations
Folsom computed inflow           1837   4104   3754   2855   2666   1256   1409   1320   1116    876    607    1068
American R at Nimbus Dam         1793   1755   1825   1787   1509   2919   3568   2673   1658   1291   1265    1210
Kings River at Pine Flat          297    410    522    511   1900   4243   4524   1734    303    172    105     103

San Joaquin River
At Friant Dam                     148     95    162    234    288    306    311    306    311    193    169     127
Near Vernalis                    3503   3282   3318   2896   3682   2316   1447   1311   1311   1925   2088    1853

Putah Creek
Berryessa computed inflow          28   1043    237    101     47     18     18    -66     23     56    -45      74
Putah Creek - Lake Solano          25     17     35     46     43     43     43     34     25     20     25      38

Stanislaus River
New Melones computed inflow       854   1178   1185    949    869    554    596    603    494    496    483     509
At Tulloch Dam                   1101    808   1544   1998   2835   2200   2111   1823   1364    675    338     287
At Orange Blossom                1045    813    874    816   1335    710    443    367    277    484    335     722


*  Data supplied by Central Valley Operations Office
    Daily mean is derived from 7 am daily reading.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 27, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00187

- CR

Martin Antonio Cuellar , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
#### § 10010.42 Public involvement.

The Commission will adhere to CEQ requirements regarding the use of public notices, public meetings, public review of NEPA documents, and other techniques to ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide input into the proceedings and to ensure that the Commission will give due consideration to this input.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 175

 191

 195

 191

 167

 153

 159

 147

 135

 133

 138

 150

 171

 168

 167

 158

 140

 133

 132

 133

 146

 134

 138

 132

 128

 135

 131

 135

 229

 244

 109

 117

 113

 103

 108

 103

 103

 105

 107

 110

 98

 96

 92

 100

 95

 98

 104

 99

 97

 103

 90

 92

 91

 101

 92

 93

 85

 90

 83

 144

 133

 138

 138

 132

 129

 125

 125

 125

 121

 120

 122

 124

 128

 134

 131

 126

 123

 116

 118

 120

 118

 115

 116

 117

 113

 117

 114

 108

 141

 179

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 3, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Exhibit 31




                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWALT, Inc.,
Alternative Loan Trust 2005-24;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the master
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.


Date: March 27, 2006


                                    /s/ Steve Bailey
                                    ------------------------------
                                    Steve Bailey
                                    Senior Managing Director
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAutomated Testing Experience of the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) ControllerSystem controllers must be fail-safe, low cost, flexible to software changes, able to output health and status words, and permit rapid retest qualification. The system controller designed and tested for the aerospike engine program was an attempt to meet these requirements. This paper describes (1) the aerospike controller design, (2) the automated simulation testing techniques, and (3) the real time monitoring data visualization structure. Controller cost was minimized by design of a single-string system that used an off-the-shelf 486 central processing unit (CPU). A linked-list architecture, with states (nodes) defined in a user-friendly state table, accomplished software changes to the controller. Proven to be fail-safe, this system reported the abort cause and automatically reverted to a safe condition for any first failure. A real time simulation and test system automated the software checkout and retest requirements. A program requirement to decode all abort causes in real time during all ground and flight tests assured the safety of flight decisions and the proper execution of mission rules. The design also included health and status words, and provided a real time analysis interpretation for all health and status data.Document ID19990090017Acquisition SourceArmstrong Flight Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsLarson, Richard R.*(NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1999Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-1999-206588H-2380NAS 1.15:206588Meeting InformationMeeting: Test and Evaluation in the Information AgeLocation: Atlanta, GACountry: United StatesStart Date: September 21, 1999End Date: September 24, 1999Sponsors:Information Technology for European AdvancementFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 242-33-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990090017.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
(No. 74-CC-10

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

*Opinion filed August 23, 1973.*

D. K. Me Intosh, Attorney for Claimant.

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

Per Curiam.
§ 61.2 Administration of the Act and this chapter. ( a ) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1706, Secretary of Labor's Order 6-84, (49 FR 32473), and Employment Standards Order 78-1, (43 FR 51469), the responsibility for administration of the Act has been delegated to the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
( b ) In administering the provisions of the Act, the Director may enter into agreements or cooperative working arrangements with other agencies of the United States or of any State (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) or political subdivisions thereof, and with other public agencies and private persons, agencies, or institutions within and outside the United States. The Director may also contract with insurance carriers for the use of their service facilities to process claims filed under the Act
Exhibit 24.2

POWER OF ATTORNEY

As a director of NewPage Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and of
NewPage Corporation, a Delaware corporation (collectively, the Company), I hereby constitute and appoint Jason W. Bixby, Douglas K. Cooper, and Mark A. Suwyn, and each of them, with full power to act without the others, as
my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, for me and in my name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (Form 10-K), including all amendments and supplements to the Form 10-K, and to file the Form 10-K with all its exhibits and schedules and with all other documents in connection with the Form 10-K,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto my attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do each and every act and thing necessary or desirable to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that my attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of
Attorney.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Power of Attorney this 17th day of March, 2008.



/s/ Charles E. LongSignature


PrintName:

Charles E. Long
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR FORM 10-QSB FOR NINE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,639,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                   919,625
<INVENTORY>                                    267,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,681,270
<PP&E>                                       4,869,586
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,868,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,341,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,626,673
<BONDS>                                      4,630,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       240,375
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,564,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,341,794
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,003,582
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,031,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               778,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               482,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             427,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                287,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                   161,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            448,664
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   448,664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### Helene Weinstein, Respondent, v. Domur Realty Corporation, Appellant.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Detail

# Public Disclosure of Tests for Salmonella: The Effects on Food Safety Performance in Chicken Slaughter Establishments

Economic Research Report No. (ERR-231) 35 pp, May 2017

by Michael  Ollinger, James  Wilkus, Megan  Hrdlicka, and John  Bovay

ERS analyzed the impact of a USDA regulatory initiative that identified commercial chicken slaughter establishments with poor or mediocre ratings on Salmonella tests – specifically, how this has affected the outcome of subsequent tests.

**Keywords:** Food safety, FSIS regulations, salmonella, chicken processing

**In this publication...**

-  Entire Report 
-  Download Zip file for ERR-231 
-  Report summary 

-  Child Nutrition Programs 
-  Diet Quality & Nutrition 
-  Education, Information & Labeling 
-  Food Safety 
-  Labeling & Information Policy 
-  Market Incentives & Government Regulation 

-  Phytosanitary Regulation 

**Last updated:** Friday, May 26, 2017

**For more information contact:**Michael  Ollinger, James  Wilkus, Megan  Hrdlicka, and John  Bovay
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-161599,333-142422,333-131219 and 333-204876 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 28,2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Silicon Motion Technology Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion) and the effectiveness of Silicon Motion Technology Corporation and subsidiaries’internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Silicon Motion Technology Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2016. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche 

Deloitte & Touche 

Taipei, Taiwan 

The Republic of China 

April 28, 2017