alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1830.7002-4 Determining imputed cost of money.       (a) Determine the imputed cost of money for an asset under construction, fabrication, or development by applying a cost of money rate (see 1830.7002–2) to the representative investment (see 1830.7002–3).          (1) When a representative investment is determined for a cost accounting period in accordance with 1830.7002–3(b)(1) or 1830.7002–3(c)(1), the cost of money rate shall be the time-weighted average rate.          (2) When a monthly representative investment is used in accordance with 1830.7002–3(b)(2) or 1830.7002–3(c)(2), the cost of money rate shall be that in effect each month. Under this method, the FCCOM is determined monthly, and the total for the cost accounting period is the sum of the monthly calculations.          (b) The imputed cost of money will be capitalized only once in any cost accounting period, either at the end of the accounting period or the end of the construction, fabrication, or development period, whichever comes first.          (c) When the construction, fabrication, or development of an asset takes more than one accounting period, the cost of money capitalized for the first accounting period will be included in determining the representative investment for any future cost accounting periods.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1830.70—Facilities Capital Employed for Facilities in Use and For Facilities Under Construction
#### § 204.56 Administrative charges.

To the extent permitted by law, all administrative charges incurred in connection with the referral of the debts for tax refund offset will be assessed on the debt and thus increase the amount of the offset.

[66 FR 54132, Oct. 26, 2001]
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.4d-11 Exemption for security-based swaps offered and sold in reliance on Rule 239 under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.239).

Any security-based swap offered and sold in reliance on Rule 239 under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.239), whether or not issued under an indenture, is exempt from the Act.

[77 FR 20549, Apr. 5, 2012]
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Nos. 95-2799, 95-3653. Carol WYKE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Shawn David Wyke, a minor deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Max Linton, indi vidually and as Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, and James Bu tler, individually and as Vice-Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, Defendants-Appellants. Carol WYKE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Shawn David Wyke, a minor deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Max Linton, indi vidually and as Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, and James Butler, individually and as Vice-Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, Defendants-Appellees. March 26, 1998 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 91-1457-CivT-24C); Elizabeth A. Jenkins and William T. Moore, Jr., Judges. Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and FAY and KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In our earlier opini on in this matter, Wyke v. Polk County Sch. Bd., 129 F.3d 560 (11th Cir.1997), we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: Does Florida's comparative fault statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.81 (West 1997 Supp.), require the allocation of "fault" between both negligent and intentional tortfeasors? Following our certification the Supreme Court of Florida decided the cases of Merrill Crossings Assoc. v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S739 (Dec. 4, 1997), and Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, 702 So.2d 232 (Fla.1997). It appearing that the opinions rendered in thesecases provided a clear answer to the question certified, we withdraw the certification with the consent of the Supreme Court of Florida. The trial court in this matte r refused to include the name of Shawn David Wyke on the verdict form. That court ruled that the jury c ould not apportion liability to Shawn since he had not committed a negligent act but rather an intentional one (suicide). This ruling was in accord with what is now the clear law of Florida under Florida Statute § 768.81. Having resolved all the issues presented in th ese matters, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4075 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

tax for qualified elementary and secondary education tuition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Mr. TURNER of New York (for himself, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. KING of New York, 

and Mr. PALAZZO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against tax for qualified elementary and secondary 

education tuition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax and Education 

5 Assistance for Children (TEACH) Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SEC7 ONDARY EDUCATION TUITION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4075 IH

1 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 

2 amended by inserting after section 25D the following new 

3 section: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 25E. QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDU5 CATION TUITION. 

6 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—There shall be al7 lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 

8 for a taxable year an amount equal to the qualified ele9 mentary and secondary education tuition paid or incurred 

10 by the taxpayer during the taxable year. 

11 ‘‘(b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as 

12 a credit under subsection (a) with respect to the taxpayer 

13 for any taxable year shall not exceed— 

14 ‘‘(1) $5,000 in the case of a joint return, 

15 ‘‘(2) $5,000 in the case of an individual who is 

16 not married, and 

17 ‘‘(3) $2,500 in the case of a married individual 

18 filing a separate return. 

19 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

20 EDUCATION TUITION.— 

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified elemen22 tary and secondary education tuition’ means ex23 penses for tuition which are incurred in connection 

24 with the enrollment or attendance of any dependent 

25 of the taxpayer with respect to whom the taxpayer 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4075 IH

1 is allowed a deduction under section 151 as an ele2 mentary or secondary school student at a private or 

3 religious school. 

4 ‘‘(2) SCHOOL.—The term ‘school’ means any 

5 school which provides elementary education or sec6 ondary education (kindergarten through grade 12), 

7 as determined under State law.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

10 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relat11 ing to section 25D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 25E. Qualified elementary and secondary education tuition.’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2012. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 23.704 Requirements for non-segregated margin. ( a ) Each swap dealer or major swap participant shall report to each counterparty that does not choose to require segregation of Initial Margin pursuant to § 23.701(a), on a quarterly basis, no later than the fifteenth business day after the end of the quarter, that the back office procedures of the swap dealer or major swap participant relating to margin and collateral requirements are in compliance with the agreement of the counterparties.
( b ) The obligation specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply no earlier than the 90th calendar day after the date on which the first swap is transacted between the counterparty and the swap dealer or major swap participant.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff

R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

- Appellant

v.

ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants

PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A., Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________
2023

- 1892

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:20

- cv

- 00393

- LMB

WEF

, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________ O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: Case: 23-1892 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024RAI S TRATEGIC H OLDINGS , I NC

. V

. A LTRIA C LIENT S ERVICES LLC 2

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 5, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 5, 2024 Case: 23-1892 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
#### § 23.700 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*Initial Margin* means money, securities, or property posted by a party to a swap as performance bond to cover potential future exposures arising from changes in the market value of the position.

*Segregate* means to keep two or more items in separate accounts, and to avoid combining them in the same transfer between two accounts.

*Variation Margin* means a payment made by or collateral posted by a party to a swap to cover the current exposure arising from changes in the market value of the position since the trade was executed or the previous time the position was marked to market.
### subpart 4—national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases
### SUBCHAPTER I—WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71077-71078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26973]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (04-144)]


Notice of Establishment of a NASA Advisory Committee, Pursuant to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 1 et seq.

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    Explanation of Need: The Administrator of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration has determined that the establishment of a 
NASA Robotic and Human Lunar Exploration Strategic Roadmap Committee is 
necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance 
of duties imposed upon NASA by law. This determination follows 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration.
    Name of Committee: NASA Robotic and Human Lunar Exploration 
Strategic Roadmap Committee.
    Purpose and Objective: The Committee will advise the NASA 
Administrator on undertaking robotic

[[Page 71078]]

and human exploration of the Moon to further science and to enable 
sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations. 
The Committee will draw on the expertise of its members and other 
sources to provide its advice and recommendations to the Agency. The 
Committee will hold meetings and make site visits as necessary to 
accomplish their responsibilities. The Committee will function solely 
as an advisory board and will comply fully with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Lack of Duplication of Resources: The Committee's functions cannot 
be performed by the agency, another existing committee, or other means 
such as a public meeting.
    Fairly Balanced Membership: The Committee will consist of a balance 
of experts from within the government, private industry, and academia. 
In addition, there may be additional experts selected for Subcommittees 
or Task Forces. Members of the Committee, Subcommittee or Task Forces 
will be chosen from among industry, academia, and government with 
recognized knowledge and expertise in specific areas across the NASA 
portfolio. Total membership will reflect a fairly balanced view.
    Duration: Ad hoc.
    Responsible NASA Official: Dr. Marc Allen, Advanced Planning and 
Integration Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 
E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, telephone (202) 358-2373.

P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-26973 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTESS Data Release Notes: Sector 12, DR17This release note discusses the science data products produced by the Science Processing Operations Center at Ames Research Center from Sector 12 observations made with the TESS spacecraft and cameras as a means to document instrument performance and data characteristics.Document ID20190027598Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsFausnaugh, Michael M.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Burke, Christopher J.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Caldwell, Douglas A.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Jenkins, Jon M.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Smith, Jeffrey C.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Twicken, Joseph D.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Vanderspek, Roland*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Doty, John P.*(Noqsi Aerospace Ltd. Billerica, MA, United States)*Ting, Eric B.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Villesenor, Joel S.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredJuly 23, 2019Publication DateJuly 16, 2019Subject CategoryAstrophysicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220297ARC-E-DAA-TN71061Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNX17AK23AWBS: 985788.04.02.03CONTRACT_GRANT: NNG14FC03CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordstransit surveyTESS MissionexoplanetsAvailable DownloadsNameType20190027598.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
5304.7103-1-90 Criteria for  Establishing       Exchangeable repair contracts with provisions for modifications require specific CLIN structures when there are multiple output national stock numbers permitted. Whenever a family of part numbers may be input under a specific repair and modification CLIN and the output parts may have different NSNs, then each output NSN should have a separate subCLIN. This will permit assigning a completion date to specific reparable for delivery schedule tracking purposes.     **Parent topic:** Subpart 5304.71 - [RESERVED]
§ 242.403 Required margin. ( a ) *Applicability.* Each security futures intermediary shall determine the required margin for the security futures and related positions held on behalf of a customer in a securities account or futures account as set forth in this section.
( b ) *Required margin* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* The required margin for each long or short position in a security future shall be fifteen (15) percent of the current market value of such security future.
( 2 ) *Offsetting positions.* Notwithstanding the margin levels specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a self-regulatory authority may set the required initial or maintenance margin level for an offsetting position involving security futures and related positions at a level lower than the level that would be required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section if such positions were margined separately, pursuant to rules that meet the criteria set forth in section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78g(c)(2)(B)) and are effective in accordance with section 19(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)) and, as applicable, Section 5c(c) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c)).
( c ) *Procedures for certain margin level adjustments.* An exchange registered under section 6(g) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(g)), or a national securities association registered under section 15A(k) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78 o -3(k)), may raise or lower the required margin level for a security future to a level not lower than that specified in this section, in accordance with section 19(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)).
[67 FR 53176, Aug. 14, 2002, as amended at 85 FR 75146, Nov. 24, 2020]
Subpart 3414.4—Opening of Bids and Award

of Contract

Parent topic: PART 3414—SEALED BIDDING

3414.407 Mistakes in bids.

3414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

Authority is delegated to the HCA to make determinations under FAR 14.407–3(a) through (d).
December 14, 2016 

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I am responding to Section 403, 

“Securing Radiological Material,” of Public Law 113-235, Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015 (Appropriations Act). The Appropriations Act requires the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate that evaluates the effectiveness of the 

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 37, “Physical Protection of 

Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material,” and determines whether such 

requirements are adequate to protect high-risk radiological material. The enclosed report 

provides the results of this evaluation. 

Please feel free to contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional 

Affairs, at (301) 415-1776, if you have questions or need more information. 

 Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

Effectiveness of Part 37 of 

Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 

cc: Senator Barbara Mikulski 
Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Barbara Mikulski 

The Honorable Harold Rogers

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Nita Lowey
* Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settle d principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20798

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUMALDO SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-272-14)

November 15, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rumaldo Solis appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to revoke the order of

detention entered by the magistrate judge based on a finding that Solis posed a serious flight

risk. Persuaded that the record amply supports the findings of the courts a quo , we affirm.

Solis stands indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilos of

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Solis, an employee for 14 years of the

United States Immigration Service, assigned for the past eight years as an inspector at the1 United States v. Rueben

, 974 F.2d 580 (5th Cir . 1992), c ert

. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 1336

(1993) (involving a district court’s revocation of detention order); United States v. Hare

, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (involving a denial of a motion to revoke under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3145(b)).

2 United States v. Fortna , 769 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985).

3 United States v. Trosper , 809 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1987); Reuben

.

2 Hidalgo Port of Entry, is accused, inter alia of using his position to aid and warn individuals

involved in a major drug-trafficking conspi racy allegedly responsible for importing huge

amounts of marihuana and cocaine from Mexico. The government provided evidence of

substantial unexplained wealth, in certific ates of deposit, cash, and real estate, exceeding

$200,000, and of business and family contacts in Mexico, includ ing persons allegedly

associated with a Mexican drug-trafficker who is on the FBI’s top-ten-most-wanted list.

The findings by the magistrate judge ordering detention and the magistrate judge

conducting a hearing on a motion to reopen, and the implicit findings by the district court in

denying the motion to revoke detention, indicate that Solis presents a serious risk of flight

and that no condition or combination of conditions reasonably would assure his appearance

for trial.

We review the appealed ruling, absent an error of law, under an abuse of discretion

standard. 1 We perceive no error of law in the detention order, 2 nor do we find any factual

finding subject to reversal or abuse of discretion in the application of controlling principles

of law. 3

AFFIRMED.