alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.75 Reconsidering claims against the United States. This section provides the policy and procedures to reconsider any maritime claim made against the United States. ( a ) The settlement authority may reconsider any claim previously disapproved in whole or in part when either: ( 1 ) The claimant submits new evidence in support of the claim.
( 2 ) There were errors or irregularities in the submission or settlement of the claim.
( b ) There is no right of appeal to higher authority under this subpart.
( c ) There is no time limit for submitting a request for reconsideration, but it is within the discretion of the settlement authority to decline to reconsider a claim based on the amount of time passed since the claim was originally denied.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83695, Nov. 22, 2016]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 02, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1155

Lower Tribunal No. 11-15636

________________

R.T., the father,

Appellant,

vs.

Florida Department of Children & Families, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber,

Judge.

Sanford Rockowitz, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Florida Department of Children & Families;

Laura E. Lawson, for appellee The Guardian ad Litem Program (Sanford).

Before SHEPHERD, ROTHENBERG and LOGUE, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his

daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgment
for termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of

R.T.’s parental rights was based on abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(1)(b),

Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive

means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in

desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.

The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have

different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for

approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The

mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated,

and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also

have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the

child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for,

support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the

child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with

whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family

that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to

the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings

are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of

Children & Family Servs., 905 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

2
#### HOLTERMAN v. HOLTERMAN

No. 401P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 109

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1996.
Exhibit 32a

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

In connection with the Annual Report of International Bancshares Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Nixon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | By:   | /s/DENNIS E. NIXONDennis E. Nixon President
| |  | ----- | -------------------------------------------
| |  | Date: | March 12, 2004                             

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether on and before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.2

                      SALES CONTRACT OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
                      -------------------------------------
                                                                      NO.: 02596
                                                               SIGNED AT: Tai'an
                                                        DATE: _December 10, 2002

This contract is made and entered into by and between  Shandong Shengda Chemical
Machinery Co., Ltd (hereinafter  referred to as the Seller) and Shandong Shengda
Chemical  Co., Ltd  (hereinafter  referred to as the Buyer);  whereby the Seller
agree  to sell  and the  Buyer  agree  to buy the  commodity  mentioned  in this
contract subject to the terms and conditions stipulated below:

Article 1: Object, Quantity, Price and Date of Delivery

NAME OF COMMODITY: Oil Tank

UNIT: PIECE

QUANTITY: One

UNIT PRICE: RMB 585,940.80 yuan

TOTAL AMOUNT:  RMB  585,940.80  (five  hundred and  eighty-five  thousand,  nine
hundred and forty point eight) yuan

DATE OF DELIVERY: February 10, 2003

Article 2: QUALITY STANDARD

The seller will manufacture the object according to the
drawing sheet provided by the Buyer.

Article 3: TERMS AND TIME LIMIT OF QUALITY  ASSURANCE  OF THE SELLER:  1 Year of
Quality Warranty

Article 4: TITLE TO THE
GOODS SHALL BE PASSED UPON DELIVERY; HOWEVER, IF THE BUYER FAILS TO PERFORM THE
OBLIGATION OF PAYING THE FULL AMOUNT OF PURCHASE PRICE, TITLE TO THE GOODS SHALL
REMAIN WITH THE SELLER.

Article 5: MEANS AND PLACE OF DELIVERY: The site where the buyer uses the goods.


<PAGE>

Article  6:  STANDARD,  METHOD,  and PLACE  AND TIME  LIMIT OF  INSPECTION:  The
inspection  will be done  pursuant  to Article 2 at the place of  delivery.  Any
dispute shall be raised within three days.

Article 7: METHOD, TIME
AND PLACE OF PAYMENT: 50% shall be paid after this contract becomes effective.
20% shall be paid after the delivery; 20% shall be paid after the inspection and
acceptance; and the remaining amount of money shall be paid off within one year.

Article 8:  TERMS FOR THE  TERMINATION  OF THIS  CONTRACT:  After the  remaining
amount of money has been paid off.

Article 9: BREACH LIABILITY: Be subject to the stipulations in the Contract Law.

Article 10: METHOD OF SETTLING THE DISPUTE OVER THE CONTRACT:

IN THE PERFORMING OF THIS CONTRACT, IF ANY DISPUTE ARISES, THE TWO PARTIES SHALL
SETTLE IT THROUGH FRIENDLY DISCUSSIONS;  THE DISPUTE CAN ALSO BE MEDIATED BY THE
LOCAL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERICAL ADMINISTRATION;  IF NO SETTLEMENT COMES FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS OR  MEDIATATIONS,  THE DISPUTE SHALL BE SETTLED BY LAWSUITS  THROUGH
THE PEOPLE'S COURT.

Article 11: THIS CONTRACT SHALL BECOME  EFFECTIVE  after having been  officially
signed by the two parities.


THE SELLER:                                   THE BUYER:
Shandong Shengda Chemical
Machinery Co., Ltd                            Shandong Shengda Chemical Co., Ltd


/s/ Gong Xingyu                                /s/ Wang Wei
-------------------------                     ----------------------------------
AUTHORISED SIGNATURE                          AUTHORISED SIGNATURE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2014

h0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

146746

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146746

COA: 311435

Shiawassee CC: 02

- 007574

- FC

RICKY ALLEN PARKS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 23, 2013, the application for leave to appeal the January 3,

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People

v Shaver (Docket No. 146521). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been

denied in Shaver , ___ Mich ____ (2014), the application is again considered, and it is

DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement

to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
February 14, 2011

U.S. Department of Education

**ACCELERATING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY**

For our education system to deliver the results our students deserve, we must take advantage of new tools and strategies that can help all students learn.  New technologies can enhance and complement instruction, and can give students access to resources and learning opportunities they would otherwise have never had the opportunity to enjoy. But technology should not just be an isolated program – it must be a tool that is integrated into everything we do in education, dramatically enhancing the impact and feasibility of reforms across the education sector. 

The President’s 2012 budget request and *Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)* will promote proven and promising approaches to using technology in schools, classrooms, and homes to support all students in learning to their full potential.

· **$835 million for the Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education programs,**which will support States and districts in identifying how best to meet the academic needs of their students and teachers across the subject areas, including through the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative uses of technology for teaching and learning.  We will also target funds for the creation of high-quality digital education content.

· **$2.5 billion for Effective Teachers and Leaders formula grants**, which will support more professional development opportunities for teachers, including in using technology effectively in the classroom.

· **Larger set-asides from the $14.8 billion College- and Career-Ready Students program** (formerly Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies) for building State and district capacity to support instruction, which may include through the use of technology.

· **In the $300 million Investing in Innovation fund,** the Department will give priority to applicants proposing promising or evidence-based uses of education technology. 

· **$90 million for a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education**, which will foster breakthrough developments in educational technology and learning systems, support systems for educators, and tools that result in improvements in student outcomes.

· **$372 million for the Expanding Educational Options programs,** which will support districts in implementing specific approaches to expanding educational options for students, including through online learning programs and innovative, autonomous school models, including those that embrace the power of technology to transform learning.

· **Improving assessment technology.**Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Administration invested $350 million in developing the next generation of assessments that will fairly and accurately assess student learning, including by making greater use of computer-based testing.  We will continue this investment in high-quality assessments that measure critical thinking skills and that take advantage of technology through the $420 million Assessing Achievement program.
From: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US To: "Schmidt Cortney" <CKSchmidt@vcsmc.com>, Date: 07/23/2012 01:57 PM Subject: Emissions Data

Last Thursday, you mentioned discrepancies between the data I am proposing to make publicly available and the data you have. I trust there are no discrepancies in the daily figures, since these are very straightforward calculations. I trust that any discrepancies are in the 30-day average data, which can be calculated in different ways. I spent time this morning first to calculate 30-day averages that roll over the calendar year (e.g. that go from December 16 to January 14) and second to calculate averages on the basis of 30 consecutive operating days rather than 30 consecutive calendar days. For ease of computation, I did these calculations with a spreadsheet that only includes operating days. The data base includes a few days showing clinker production but no NOx emissions. I don't know why this occurred, but I have treated those days as non-operating days and eliminated them from the data base.

Here is the data base with these recalculations. In this spreadsheet, you can access the production data and mass emissions data by giving a nonzero width to the applicable columns, but my proposal of course is to "print" the data base as is (with these columns not showing) in pdf format so that there would be no public access to these data.

I expect to need to post this information by early next week, so I appreciate your prompt reply.

[Emissions information provided in this email has been posted separately to regulations.gov]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Reubena Camaro, Respondent, v. Edgar Starbuck et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant worked in employer’s household as a domestic. A walk led from the front door of the house to a public sidewalk on the street. The front line of the employer’s property was not along the public sidewalk, but four feet and four inches nearer to the house than the public sidewalk. The proof is that the employer kept the whole length of the walk from the house to the public sidewalk and the adjacent public walk itself free of ice and snow. He also provided for sweeping this part of both walks. On January 6, 1959 claimant having finished her work fell on ice as she was leaving the premises to go to her car parked in the street in front of the house. The actual fall, the Workmen’s Compensation Board has found “was just outside the employer’s property line”. After the *928fall, part of her body was on the walk leading from the house and part on the public sidewalk. The board could find on this record that the fall occurred on the walk leading to the public sidewalk. Although the legal title to the exact spot where she fell was not held by her employer, he had exercised sufficient dominion over it as a route of access to his property and it was so located in respect of reasonable access to the place of work as to justify finding that the fall was related to and an incident of the employment. Upon such a finding as the board made, the injury came within the scope of employment. See *Matter of Gaik*v. *National Aniline Division*(5 A D 2d 1039); *Matter of Ca/rrasquilla*V. *Penn Akron Co.*(10 A D 2d 135); *Matter of Manville*v. *New York State Dept, of Labor*(294 N. Y. 1). Cases such as *Matter of Pomakoy*v. *American Locomotive Go.*(277 App. Div. 823) and *Matter of Funarie*v. *Mohawk Glub*(257 App. Div. 887) were based on factual findings against claimant; and *Matter of Milberg*v. *Behr-Mannimg Gorp.*(274 App. Div. 862) is not in point. The decision in *Matter of White*v. *Consolidated Aircraft Gorp.*(266 N. Y. 554) turned upon a somewhat different principle. There no control or adoption by the employer of the place of injury for the function of the work was shown. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4559-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 85655)    

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4559-DR), dated August 28, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 7, 2020.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 28, 2020.

Acadia, Grant, Natchitoches, Vermilion, and Winn Parishes for Public Assistance [Category A] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.)

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2020-28729 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29032]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--International Priority Airmail, 
International Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 
Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class 
Package International Service Agreement: Postal ServiceTM

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add an International Priority Airmail, 
International Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 
Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class 
Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated 
Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail 
Classification Schedule.

DATES: Date of notice: January 4, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-
7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 28, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add International Priority Airmail, International 
Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service Contract 2 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-54 and CP2021-56.

Joshua J. Hofer,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-29032 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 1052.2 of Part 1052

#### Editorial Note:

At 79 FR 15554, Mar. 20, 2014, subpart 1052.2 was added, however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### 1052.201-70 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) appointment and authority.

As prescribed in 1001.670-6, insert the following clause:

# Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Appointment and Authority (APR 2015)

(a) The COR is ________ [insert name, address and telephone number].

(b) Performance of work under this contract is subject to the technical direction of the COR identified above, or a representative designated in writing. The term “technical direction” includes, without limitation, direction to the contractor that directs or redirects the labor effort, shifts the work between work areas or locations, and/or fills in details and otherwise serves to ensure that tasks outlined in the work statement are accomplished satisfactorily.

(c) Technical direction must be within the scope of the contract specification(s)/work statement. The COR does not have authority to issue technical direction that:

(1) Constitutes a change of assignment or additional work outside the contract specification(s)/work statement;

(2) Constitutes a change as defined in the clause entitled “Changes”;

(3) In any manner causes an increase or decrease in the contract price, or the time required for contract performance;

(4) Changes any of the terms, conditions, or specification(s)/work statement of the contract;

(5) Interferes with the contractor's right to perform under the terms and conditions of the contract; or

(6) Directs, supervises or otherwise controls the actions of the Contractor's employees.

(d) Technical direction may be oral or in writing. The COR must confirm oral direction in writing within five workdays, with a copy to the Contracting Officer.

(e) The Contractor shall proceed promptly with performance resulting from the technical direction issued by the COR. If, in the opinion of the Contractor, any direction of the COR or the designated representative falls within the limitations of (c) above, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer no later than the beginning of the next Government work day.

(f) Failure of the Contractor and the Contracting Officer to agree that technical direction is within the scope of the contract shall be subject to the terms of the clause entitled “Disputes.”

(End of clause)

[76 FR 42057, July 18, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 11596, Mar. 4, 2015; 81 FR 2760, Jan. 19, 2016]