alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAIRNET: A real-time comunications network for aircraftA real-time local area network was developed for use on aircraft and space vehicles. It uses token ring technology to provide high throughput, low latency, and high reliability. The system was implemented on PCs and PC/ATs operating on PCbus, and on Intel 8086/186/286/386s operating on Multibus. A standard IEEE 802.2 logical link control interface was provided to (optional) upper layer software; this permits the controls designer to utilize standard communications protocols (e.g., ISO, TCP/IP) if time permits, or to utilize a very fast link level protocol directly if speed is critical. Both unacknowledged datagram and reliable virtual circuit services are supported. A station operating an 8 MHz Intel 286 as a host can generate a sustained load of 1.8 megabits per second per station, and a 100-byte message can be delivered from the transmitter's user memory to the receiver's user memory, including all operating system and network overhead, in under 4 milliseconds.Document ID19900015198Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWeaver, Alfred C.*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Cain, Brendan G.*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Colvin, M. Alexander*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Simoncic, Robert*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186140UVA/528238/CS90/101NASA-CR-186140Accession Number90N24514Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-630Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015198.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
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

MA RC SCH RA DE R, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 02 68 -C R

Appea l from the 346th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006ODO5602)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Marc Schrade r attempts to appea l his conviction for sexual assault of a c hild. Finding that App e lla

nt h a s n o r ig ht t o a

pp e a l, w e dis mis s th e a

pp e a l. Rule 25.2(a) (2) g overns the de fenda nt’s rig ht to appeal in a c riminal case : A def endant in a c riminal case has the right of appe al under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 and these rules. The trial court sha ll enter a cer tification of the de fenda

nt’s rig ht of appe al ea ch time it enters a judgme nt of g uilt or other appe alable or der. In a plea barg ain ca se -- that is, a ca se in which a defe ndant’s plea

was guilty

or nolo contende re a

nd the punishment did not ex cee d the punishment rec ommended by the prosec utor and a g ree d to by the def endant -

- a d e f e n d a n tm a y a p p e a l o n l y: (A) those matters that we re r aised by written motion and filed and ruled on be fore trial, or (B ) a ft e r g e tti ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s pe rm iss ion to a pp e a l. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)( 2). Appellant filed a

timely notice of a

ppeal, whic h included the tria l court’s c ertification of his right to appe al as re quired by Rules 25.2(a)( 2) and 25.2( d). The c ertification, signed by the-2-

trial court, indicates that Appellant ha s no rig ht to appeal. B y letter dated September

24, 2008, the cler k of this Court notified Appellant that the ce rtification indicate d that he had no r ight of appea l in this case and re quested a response . Appellant’s attorney has re sponded to the Court’s notice, and ha s ag ree d that Appellant voluntarily waived his right to appeal whe n he ente red the ple a ba rg a in. Ac c or din g ly , w e dis mis s th e a pp e a l.

November

6, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Do Not Publish)
### **Subchapter B—Qualification Requirements for Distilled Spirits Plants**

Sec.
5171.
Establishment.
5172.
Application.
5173.
Bonds.
[5174.
Repealed.]
5175.
Export bonds.
5176.
New or renewed bonds.
5177.
Other provisions relating to bonds.
5178.
Premises of distilled spirits plants.
5179.
Registration of stills.
5180.
Signs.
5181.
Distilled spirits for fuel use.
5182.
Cross references.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter B, Distilleries, consisted of part I, Establishment, part II, Operation, and part III, General Provisions Relating to Distilleries and Distilled Spirits, and consisted of sections 5171 to 5180, 5191 to 5197, and 5211 to 5217, respectively, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1313.

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(242), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1195, substituted "Premises of distilled spirits plants" for "Distilled spirits plants" in item 5178.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–223, title II, §232(e)(2)(F), Apr. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 280, added item 5181 and redesignated former item 5181 as 5182.

**1979**—Pub. L. 96–39, title VIII, §807(b)(4), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 290, substituted "Bonds" for "Qualification bonds" in item 5173, struck out item 5174 "Withdrawal bonds", and substituted "Distilled spirits plants" for "Premises of distilled spirits plants" in item 5178.
SRSC’s Proposed Revisions to Article 3(c)(1)&(2) 

(Redline/Strikeout of R.O. Draft 7/11-2002) 

(c) Before April 1 and before the first day of each month thereafter when a 

revision is needed, the Contractor shall submit a written schedule to the Contracting 

Officer indicating the Contract Total to be diverted by the Contractor during each month 

under this Settlement Contract. The United States shall furnish water to the Contractor in 

accordance with the monthly operating schedule or any revisions thereof. However, the 

United States recognizes the need of the Contractor to change from time to time its 

monthly diversions of water from the quantities shown in Exhibit A; the Contractor may 

make such changes, provided: 

(1) that for the quantity of Base Supply diverted in October in excess of the 

monthly quantity shown on Exhibit A for October, the Contractor shall be charged a 

rescheduling fee equal to 10% of sum of the storage operations and maintenance rate and 

the storage capital rate components of the Project ratesetting policy. 

(2) such changes that the Contractor is aware of in advance shall be subject to 

the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. 

(3) that in no event shall the total quantity scheduled for diversion by the 

Contractor from the Sacramento River: 

(i) During the period April through October exceed the aggregate of the 

Contract Total for that period shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof; 

(ii) During the period July through September exceed the aggregate of the Contract Total 

for that period shown in Exhibit A or any revision thereof. 

Deleted: based upon the appropriate 

Deleted: S

Deleted: Provided, 

Deleted: those months 

Deleted: those months 

Deleted: 

Deleted: ¶

¶
Schedule B-3B

Page 1 of 1

IRR 2014 Sch B-3B F.Z18.xlsm

11/27/2015 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF IRRIGATION VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO BE APPLIED IN FY 2015 ACCOUNTING

(REFLECTED IN 2016 DEFICIT/CONSTRUCTION RATES)

B C D E F G H

Voluntary Voluntary Payments

Date Payments Deficit to Construction Refunds/

Facility/Contractor Received Applied to in FY 2015 Sch A-6B to Sch A-2B Total Transfers/ Other

Ref (E+F)

Delta Mendota Canal

Patterson ID 9/26/2015 2014 7,719.63 7,719.63 $ 7,719.63 $ -

Friant-Kern Canal Class 1 $ -

So San Joaquin MUD 9/30/2015 2014 128,187.91 128,187.91 $ 128,187.91

Sacramento River- Willows

Natoma Central MWC 6/18/2015 2008-2013 $ 259,113.20 $ 259,113.20 $ 259,113.20

Natoma Central MWC 9/30/2015 2008-2014 $ 787,241.00 $ 787,241.00 $ 787,241.00

Meridian Farms WC 9/22/2015 2003-2010 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00

Tisdale Irr & Drain Co 5/15/2015 2002-2012 $ 12,470.00 $ 12,470.00 $ 12,470.00

Tisdale Irr & Drain Co 5/15/2015 2013 $ 1,775.74 $ 1,775.74 $ 1,775.74

Young, R/et al 6/26/2015 1986-2004 $ 357.54 $ 357.54 $ 357.54

Total Sacramento River - Willows $ 1,130,957.48 $ 1,130,957.48 $ 1,130,957.48 $ -

Tehama Colusa Canal

Dunnigan WD N/A 1/ 2015 $ 15,056.61 $ - $ - $ -

Total $ 1,281,921.63 $ 1,266,865.02 $ - $ 1,266,865.02 $ -

Footnotes:

1/ Applied FY 2014 water overpayments to FY 2015 O&M expense at contractor's request

2/ FY 2014 water, Restoration and Friant Surcharge overpayments applied.

3/ FY 2013 water overpayment applied

The following payments were received in FY 2016 and will be included in FY 2016 accounting/2018 water rates.

Date Received Applied to Voluntary Payments

Santa Clara Valley WD 10/08/2015 2014 $ 439,253.93

Saucelito ID 10/30/2015 2014 $ 226,296.75

Orland-Artois WD 11/02/2015 2014 $ 233,450.45

Kirkwood WD 11/03/2015 2014 $ 1,112.22

Byron-Bethany ID 11/09/2015 2014 $ 51,824.69

Byron-Bethany ID N/A 2014 $ 2,226.63 FY 2014 M&I surplus applied

A
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40035 Summary Calendar

PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
CAPITAL LAND SERVICES, INCORPORATED, also known as CLS Group; JASON WALKER; MATT TIPTON , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 279

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Phillip David Haskett appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his complaint. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for extensions of time to compl ete discovery and respond to the summary judgment motion. See Am. Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus
v. Biles , 714 F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013); Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 30, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40035 Document: 00513777768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2016No. 16

- 40035

2 Connecticut , 465 F.3d 156, 161 (5th Cir. 2006). By failing to raise his cla ims of error in the district court, h e waived review of his arguments that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without further notice and
considered inadmissible evidence

. See Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Const.
Co. , 620 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2010); Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co. , 974 F.2d 646, 650 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40035 Document: 00513777768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2016
### §1127. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–309, §6, June 2, 1972, 86 Stat. 200, which allowed for the use of certain judgment funds of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma for any purpose that is authorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11228

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL SANCHEZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-39-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Raul Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal 

reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court 

sentenced Sanchez-Perez within the guidelines range to 50 months of 

imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. For the first 

time on appeal, Sanchez-Perez argues that the district court erred in imposing 

a term of supervised release in a case involving a deportable alien without 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11228 Document: 00512658048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 13-11228

providing fact-specific reasons for its decision to deviate from U.S.S.G. § 

5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that supervised release not be imposed in such 

circumstances. We review this argument for plain error. See United States v. 

Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012).

The district court retains the discretion to impose supervised release in 

“uncommon cases [involving a deportable alien] where added deterrence and 

protection are needed.” Id. at 329. In sentencing Sanchez-Perez, the district 

court specifically stated that supervised release was imposed as an additional 

potential sanction should Sanchez-Perez attempt to return illegally. 

Consequently, Sanchez-Perez has shown no plain error on the part of the 

district court in imposing a term of supervised release. See id. at 329-30; see

also United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349-51 (5th Cir. 2013).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-11228 Document: 00512658048 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
#### § 3861.5-1 Appointment.

Pursuant to section 2334 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 39), the Director or his delegate will appoint only a sufficient number of surveyors for the survey of mining claims to meet the demand for that class of work. Each appointee shall qualify as prescribed by the Director or his delegate. Applications for appointment as a mineral surveyor may be made at any office of the Bureau of Land Management listed in § 1821.2-1 of these regulations. A roster of appointed mineral surveyors will be available at these offices. Each appointee may execute mineral surveys in any State where mineral surveys are authorized.

[38 FR 30001, Oct. 31, 1973]
#### Cross, Austin & Ireland Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Archibald Hadden and A. Hadden Company, Appellants, Impleaded with Bayside Lumber Company and George Thompson, Respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
§ 3432.1 Application. ( a ) A lessee may apply for a modification of a lease to include coal lands or coal deposits contiguous to those embraced in a lease. In no event shall the acreage in the application, when combined with the total area added by all modifications made after August 4, 1976, exceed 160 acres or the number of acres in the original lease, whichever is less.
( b ) The lessee shall file the application for modification in the Bureau of Land Management State Office having jurisdiction over the lands involved (43 CFR subpart 1821), describing the additional lands desired, the lessee's needs or reasons for such modification, and the reasons why the modification would be to the advantage of the United States.
[44 FR 42628, July 19, 1979, as amended at 44 FR 56340, Oct. 1, 1979]
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

(PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LETTERHEAD)

Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Provident
Energy Trusts Annual Report on Form
40-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of our audit report dated March 10, 2003, on the
consolidated balance sheets of Provident Energy Trust as at December 31, 2002 and 2001 and
the consolidated statements of operations and accumulated income (loss) and cash flows for
the year ended December 31, 2002 and for the period March 6, 2001 to December 31, 2001.

(PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP)

Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta
March 10, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International
Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
#### Gress Manufacturing Company v. Covington Company.

November 19, 1910.

Complaint. Before Judge Mitchell. Tift superior court. November 25, 1909.

*Fulwood & Murray*'and *Wilson, Bennett & Lambdin,*for plaintiff in error. *Denmark & Griffin,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. The numerous exceptions to the charge of the court as set forth in the various grounds of the motion for a new trial fall within one of three classes, to wit: that the charge complained of was not authorized *by*the evidence, that it contained an expression of opinion upon the facts of the case, or that it was not adjusted to the evidence. But, after a careful examination of the evidence and of those portions of the charge complained of, the exceptions do not appear to' be well taken; although several minor inaccuracies in the statement of the law are apparent in some portions of the charge complained of.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of forebody geometry on subsonic boundary-layer stabilityAs part of an effort to develop computational techniques for design of natural laminar flow fuselages, a computational study was made of the effect of forebody geometry on laminar boundary layer stability on axisymmetric body shapes. The effects of nose radius on the stability of the incompressible laminar boundary layer was computationally investigated using linear stability theory for body length Reynolds numbers representative of small and medium-sized airplanes. The steepness of the pressure gradient and the value of the minimum pressure (both functions of fineness ratio) govern the stability of laminar flow possible on an axisymmetric body at a given Reynolds number. It was found that to keep the laminar boundary layer stable for extended lengths, it is important to have a small nose radius. However, nose shapes with extremely small nose radii produce large pressure peaks at off-design angles of attack and can produce vortices which would adversely affect transition.Document ID19900016623Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDodbele, Simha S.*(Vigyan Research Associates, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1990Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4314NAS 1.26:4314Meeting InformationMeeting: International Conference on Numerical Methods in Laminar and Turbulent FlowLocation: Montreal, QuebecCountry: CanadaStart Date: July 6, 1987End Date: July 10, 1987Accession Number90N25939Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-41-02CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-17919Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016623.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
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND****CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OF THE****SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED**     This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63(Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall notbe relied on by any person for any other purpose.     The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of Internet Commerce Corporation (the “Company”), hereby each certify that, to theundersigned’s knowledge:     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended October 31, 2005(the “Report”), which accompanies this Certification, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.     Datedthis 13th day of December, 2005./s/Thomas J.Stallings
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInfluence of an asymmetric ring on the modeling of an orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shellStructural models are examined for the influence of a ring with an asymmetrical cross section on the linear elastic response of an orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shell subjected to internal pressure. The first structural model employs classical theory for the shell and stiffeners. The second model employs transverse shear deformation theories for the shell and stringer and classical theory for the ring. Closed-end pressure vessel effects are included. Interacting line load intensities are computed in the stiffener-to-skin joints for an example problem having the dimensions of the fuselage of a large transport aircraft. Classical structural theory is found to exaggerate the asymmetric response compared to the transverse shear deformation theory.Document ID19940029756Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRastogi, Naveen*(Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg, VA, United States)*Johnson, Eric R.*(Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1994Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:195953NASA-CR-195953Accession Number94N34262Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-537Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940029756.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
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3
- NM - 7 5 - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### §935. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–116, §4(c), Oct. 27, 1993, 107 Stat. 1121

Section, Pub. L. 86–322, §5, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 593, related to revocation of tribal constitution, termination of Federal services, application of Federal and State laws, and effect on citizenship status.