alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Sikorsky Memorial Airport, in Bridgeport, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(d), notice is 
being given that the FAA is considering a request from Sikorsky 
Memorial Airport, in Bridgeport, CT to waive the surplus property 
requirements for approximately 11 acres of airport property located at 
Sikorsky Memorial Airport, in Bridgeport, CT. The subject parcels have 
been used for non-aeronautical purposes for over 25 years under 
temporary, partial release of surplus property requirements. It has 
been determined through study and master planning that the subject 
parcels will not be needed for aeronautical purposes, rather the 
proceeds of the sale will be used as the sponsors share of needed 
safety area improvement projects. Full and permanent relief of the 
surplus property requirements on this specific parcel will allow the 
airport to make the necessary aviation-safety improvements on the 
airfield.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Barry J. Hammer at the 
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone 781-238-7625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by 
appointment by contacting Mr. John Ricci, Telephone 203-576-8166 or by 
contacting Mr. Barry J. Hammer, Federal Aviation Administration, 16 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-
7625.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 20, 2013.
Bryon Rakoff,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-07660 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0232; FRL-9924-79-ORD]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--
Health Criteria; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period 
for the second external review draft of a document titled, ``Second 
External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of 
Nitrogen--Health Criteria'' (EPA/600/R-14/006). The original Federal 
Register document announcing the public comment period was published on 
January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5110). With this extension, the comment period 
ends on April 30, 2015. This assessment document was developed by the 
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office 
of Research and Development (ORD) as part of the review of the primary 
(health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
nitrogen dioxide.

DATES: The public comment period began on January 30, 2015, and ends 
April 30, 2015. Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science 
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria'' is available 
primarily via the internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent 
Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea or the 
public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0232. A limited number of CD-ROM copies are available. Contact Ms. 
Marieka Boyd by phone: 919-541-0031; fax: 919-541-5078; or email: 
boyd.marieka@epa.gov to request a CD-ROM, and please provide your name, 
your mailing address, and the document title, ``Second External Review 
Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health 
Criteria'' to facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Dr. 
Molini Patel, NCEA; telephone: 919-541-1492; fax: 919-541-1818; or 
email: patel.molini@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments may be submitted electronically via 
http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by fax, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Federal Register document that 
published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5110).
    For information on submitting comments to the docket, please 
contact the ORD Docket at EPA's Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 
202-566-1752; fax: 202-566-9744; or email: Docket_ORD@epa.gov.

    Dated: March 12, 2015.
Mary A. Ross,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2015-06340 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Appeal No. 76-130.

#### Hilton Rosen *et al. v.*Jaime Restrepo, Jr. *et al.*

*Oster, Espo, Fay & Groff, George M. Prescott,*for plaintiffs.

*John Quattrocchi III,*Town Solicitor, for defendants.

The defendant’s motion to file a responsive brief is granted.
No. 111.

#### Union Pacific Coal Company *v.*Mark A. Skinner, Collector of Internal Revenue.

Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Submitted December 19, 1919.

Decided March *57122, 1920.

*Mr. Henry W. Clark*for petitioner.

*The Solicitor General*and *Mr. A. F. Myers*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed with costs upon the authority of *Lynch*v. *Hornby,*247 U. S. 339.
#### Sol Rubin, appellant, v. Samuel Midlinsky et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 29,473.

Bill to have complainant decreed the real and equitable owner of certain real estate and to have legal title conveyed to him. Bill dismissed for want of equity. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 27, 1925.

Granville W. Browning and Clark & Clark, for appellant.

Epstein & Feiwell, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1410 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1410

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II 
of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and 
                    windfall elimination provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 2024

Mr. Graves of Louisiana (for himself and Ms. Spanberger) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II 
of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and 
                    windfall elimination provisions.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 
82) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by Representative Graves of Louisiana and 
Representative Spanberger or their respective designees; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of H.R. 82.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Mervin B. Glassman, an Attorney, Respondent. Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al., Petitioners.

First Department,

July 9, 1963.

*Henry Weiner*of counsel *(Daniel J. McMahon*with him on the brief), for petitioners.

*Moses L. Kove*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department in June, 1956. Prior to his admission and continuing thereafter he was employed by one Myron Sparber, an attorney, who has since been disbarred *(Matter of Sparber,*16 A D 2d 380). While respondent was so employed, Sparber’s professional activities had come under the scrutiny of the Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline. As a result several of Sparber’s clients had been subpoenaed to testify before the committee relative to the claims made in their behalf in personal injury actions. Sparber induced respondent to meet with these clients and to persuade them to testify falsely before the committee. Respondent was subsequently indicted and ultimately pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of attempted subornation of perjury.

Since the respondent freely admitted the charges against him, there remains only the question of the measure of the discipline to be applied. In this regard we may exercise our discretion as the conviction of a misdemeanor does not mandate disbarment.

More important than punishment, *“*[t]he ultimate purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public in its reliance upon the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession * * * It is not a punishment for breaches committed, but an effort to see to it that the public will not again be exposed *147to like or similar infractions. To accomplish this end, an appraisal of the character of the offender is the true guide, but the nature, seriousness and surrounding circumstances of his offense are most significant factors as indicia of what may be expected in the future.” *(Matter of Nearing,*16 A D 2d 516, 518.)

The respondent has much in his favor in this proceeding. Both the Co-ordinating Committee and the Referee have found him to be completely frank and co-operative, fully aware of his wrongdoing and genuinely contrite. In addition, it is clear that the respondent was youthful and inexperienced and completely under the domination of his employer when the acts were committed. What he did was done through a mistaken and misguided sense of loyalty and obligation to his employer and not from any thought or hope of personal gain or advantage. It should be noted that both the committee and the Referee cleared bim of any complicity in the activities of his employer which led to the latter’s conviction and disbarment.

However, the crime he has committed is most serious and involves acts which strike at the basic concepts of justice which respondent has sworn to uphold. In such a ease despite the extenuating circumstances the respondent must be disciplined.

The respondent should be suspended for a period of three years.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of three years.
§ 22.825 Closeout audits. ( a ) *Purpose.* This section establishes DoD policy for obtaining audits at closeout of individual grants and cooperative agreements.
( b ) *Policy.* Grants officers shall use their judgment on a case-by-case basis, in deciding whether to obtain an audit prior to closing out a grant or cooperative agreement (i.e., there is no specific DoD requirement to obtain an audit prior to doing so). Factors to be considered include: ( 1 ) The amount of the award.
( 2 ) DoD's past experience with the recipient, including the presence or lack of findings of material deficiencies in recent: ( i ) Audits of individual awards; or
( ii ) Systems-wide financial audits and audits of the compliance of the recipient's systems with Federal requirements, under OMB guidance in subpart F of 2 CFR part 200, where that guidance is applicable. (See § 22.715(a)(1)).
[63 FR 12164, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 51244, Aug. 19, 2020]
**Social Media Use in the Financial Aid Community**

Please complete the following survey on Social Media use in the financial aid community. Your responses are extremely valuable as the Department continues to investigate opportunities to connect with our con stituents through new technologies. We appreciate your input.

**1) What social media tools do**  **you actively use at your institution to perform any of your d**  **ay to day duties**  **? Please check all that apply.** ___ Twitter ___ Facebook ___ You Tube ___ Wikis ___ Blogs ___ Texting ___ Mob ile a pplications for cell phones ___ Other (please specify) ___ Do not use or do not have access

**2) Which of these**  **social media tools does your institution use to specifically**  **engage and interact with students**  **? Please check all that app**  **ly.** ___ Twitter ___ Facebook ___ You Tube ___ Wikis ___ Blogs ___ Texting ___ Mobile a pplications for cell phones ___ Other (please specify) ___ Do not use or do not have access**3) Do you**  **use any of the following social media tools on a regular basis in yo ur**  **personal life ? Please** 

**check all that apply.** ___ Twitter ___ Facebook ___ You Tube ___ Wikis ___ Blogs ___ Texting ___ Mobile a pplications for cell phones ___ Other (please specify) ___ Do not use or do not have access

**4) Please indicate your age range:** 

_ __ 18
– 34 ___ 35
– 50 ___ 51
– 65 ___ Over 65

What are some of the unique ways you are using social media both internally and externally?

What recommendations would you give Federal Student Aid in utilizing these tools to improve the customer experience for you , parents and students?
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Behahlter, Appellant.

Victor V. Augustine, Jr., Esq., replaced as counsel by Robert E. White, Esq., of Auburn; time for argument of appeal enlarged to include March 1961 Term.
§ 537.15 Statutory authority for maritime claims and claims involving civil works of a maritime nature. ( a ) *The Army Maritime Claims Settlement Act.* The sections pertinent to maritime affirmative claims are set out at 10 U.S.C. 4803-4804.
( b ) *The Rivers and Harbors Act.* The section of the Act pertinent to affirmative claims involving civil works of a maritime nature is set out at 33 U.S.C. 408.
**EXHIBIT 13.4**

 

**CONSENT OF EXPERT**

 

We hereby consent to the use of our name contained in the technical report on the Property in the Durango Mining District of Mexico dated July 19, 2013 entitled “Technical Report on the Avino Property” and the reference as an expert contained in the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and incorporated by reference to the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File No.: 333-195120) and Form F-3 (SEC File Nos.: 333-193471 and 333-195144).

 

 

|                | **TETRA TECH WEI INC.** |                    |
|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                |                    |                    |   |
| Dated: May 11, 2015 | By:                     | */s/ Hassan Ghaffari*   |   |
|                |                    | Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng. |   |
§ 635.5 Name checks. ( a ) Information contained in military police records will be released under the provisions of 32 CFR part 505, The Army Privacy Program, to authorized personnel for valid background check purposes. Examples include child care/youth program providers, sexual assault response coordinator, unit victim advocate, access control, unique or special duty assignments, security clearance procedures and suitability and credentialing purposes. Any information released must be restricted to that necessary and relevant to the requester's official purpose. Provost Marshals/Directors of Emergency Services (PM/DES) will establish written procedures to ensure that release is accomplished in accordance with 32 CFR part 505.
( b ) Checks will be accomplished by a review of the Army's Law Enforcement Reporting and Tracking System (ALERTS). Information will be disseminated according to subpart B of this part.
( c ) In response to a request for local files or name checks, PM/DES will release only founded offenses with final disposition. Offenses determined to be unfounded will not be released. These limitations do not apply to requests submitted by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes, and counterintelligence investigative agencies for counterintelligence purposes.
( d ) A successful query of ALERTS would return the following information: ( 1 ) Military Police Report Number;
( 2 ) Report Date;
( 3 ) Social Security Number;
( 4 ) Last Name;
( 5 ) First Name;
( 6 ) Protected Identity (Y/N);
( 7 ) A link to view the military police report; and
( 8 ) Whether the individual is a subject, victim, or a person related to the report disposition.
( e ) Name checks will include the information derived from ALERTS and the United States Army Crime Records Center (USACRC). All of the policies and procedures for such checks will conform to the provisions of this part. Any exceptions to this policy must be coordinated with Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA), Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG) before any name checks are conducted. The following are examples of appropriate uses of the name check feature of ALERTS: ( 1 ) Individuals named as the subjects of serious incident reports.
( 2 ) Individuals named as subjects of investigations who must be reported to the USACRC.
( 3 ) Individuals seeking employment as child care/youth program providers.
( 4 ) Local checks of the ALERTS as part of placing an individual in the ALERTS.
( 5 ) Name checks for individuals seeking employment in law enforcement positions.
[80 FR 28549, May 19, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 17386, Mar. 29, 2016]
Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb \\DC - 004721/000002 - 3472739 v1 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com Patrick R. Rizzi, Counsel +1 202 637 5659 (direct phone) patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

August 9, 2012 VIA EMAIL and REGULATIONS.GOV Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Kevin Adams EAS and Domestic Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: EAS at Akutan, Alaska (Docket DOT-OST-2000-7068) Dear Messrs. DeVany and Adams: Peninsula Airways, Inc. (“PenAir”), the current provider of essential air service at Akutan, Alaska, requests that the designated airport for this service be changed from Akutan Seaplane Base (KQA) to the new airport for Akutan on Akun Island (ICAO: PAUT; FAA: 7AK). Such a change will facilitate this service and make use of these new facilities for the benefit of passengers. The State of Alaska has made the same request to change the designated Akutan airport. See Letter of S. Hatter, State of Alaska DOT, to D. DeVany, U.S. DOT, dated August 6, 2012. Respectfully submitted,

Patrick R. Rizzi Counsel for PenAir cc: rich.sewell@alaska.gov

rebecca.cronkhite@alaska.gov Linda.bustamante@alaska.gov Joy.C.Doby@usps.gov akutanadmin@gci.net jbereskin@gci.net
#### Fort Dearborn Furniture Company, appellee, v. Gallipolis Furniture Manufacturing Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,376.

Action on promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Stebbins, Garey, L ’Amoreaux & Hurtubise, for appellant.

Isaac B. Lipson and Joseph A. Golde, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Principal Officers

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act (DEOA) (Public Law 96-88), 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to 

you for employees in your Principal Office the authority described in 34 C.F.R. Part 

8 regarding demands issued to Departmental employees for testifying or records in 

legal proceedings. This authority only applies to legal proceedings in which the 

United States is not a party.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

existing authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATION

The authority should be exercised in consultation with the Office of the General 

Counsel.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may be redelegated to Senior officials in your office who report 

directly to you. No other redelegation is permitted.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

authority.

_______/s/___________

 Richard W. Riley
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ R. Wexler, 9/2/92

Certified Date: 9/4/92

Control No. EA/EE/3 – Under Secretary

Certified by: /s/ Wilma J. Hodo______________

 Departmental Delegations Control Officer

Addressees:

Principal Officers and List and PO Control No.

EA/EB/132 – Deputy Secretary

EA/EC/150 – Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

EA/EE/3 – Under Secretary

EA/EF/58 – Inspector General

EA/EG/54 – General Counsel

EA/EH/61 – Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

EA/EJ/22 - Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs

EA/EK/75 - Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

EA/EL/43 – Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget/CFO

EA/EM/180 – Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration

EA/EP/183 - Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

EA/ES/42 - Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education

EA/ET/34 - Director, OBEMLA

EA/EV/40 - Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education

EA/EI/2 – Chief Information Officer

EA/EN/2 – Chief Operating Officer, FSA

EA/EQ/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools

EA/ER/1 – Director, Institute of Education Sciences

EA/EU/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
#### § 751.11 Investigation of claim.

Upon receipt of a claim, the claim shall be stamped with the date and receiving office, forwarded to the cognizant PCU and be referred to a claims examiner. The examiner shall consider all information and evidence submitted with the claim and shall conduct such further investigation as may be necessary and appropriate.

[72 FR 53424, Sept. 19, 2007]