alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOVERVIEW

*Note:  These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables, please visit the Department's State Tables page*.Volume I- Education for the Disadvantaged  PDF (1.4MB) 
- Impact Aid   PDF (1.2MB)
- School Improvement Programs  PDF (2.0MB)
- Safe Schools and Citizenship Education  PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Education  PDF (1.2MB)  ****)
- Innovation and Improvement  PDF (1.9MB)
- English Language Acquisition  PDF (622KB)
- Special Education  PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services  PDF (1.9MB)
Volume II- American Printing House for the Blind  PDF (73KB)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf  PDF (172KB)
- Gallaudet University  PDF (228KB)
- Career, Technical, and Adult Education  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Overview  PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance  PDF (1.8MB)
- TEACH Grants  PDF (1.0MB)
- Student Loans Overview  PDF (1.2MB)
- Higher Education  PDF (2.7MB)
- Howard University  PDF (222KB)
- College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account  PDF (162KB)
- Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account  PDF (301KB)
- Institute of Education Sciences  PDF (675KB)
- Salaries and Expenses Overview  PDF (553KB)
- Program Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights  PDF (474KB)
- Office of Inspector General  PDF (343KB)
   Printable view  Last Modified: 02/09/2016
How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
President's Education Budget RequestBudget TablesBudget NewsED Budget Process and Calendar
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
exv10w7



 








Exhibit 10.7








Memorandum of Agreement



This memo shall serve as a memorandum of agreement between Agassiz Energy, LLC
and Donald Sargeant. It agreed that Mr. Sargeant shall serve as Project
Coordinator for Agassiz Energy as the Company conducts a feasibility study,
business plan; equity drive, and plant construction.



During November and December in 2004 and January 2005 he shall be compensated for
his services at $4500 per month. Beginning in February 2005, he shall receive $50
per hour plus expenses. Mr. Sargeant shall have the opportunity to purchase
20,000 units before the end of March, 2006.




	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Larry Altringer

	 	/s/ Donald Sargeant	 	 
	 

Agassiz Energy

	 	 

Donald Sargeant
	 	 
	Treasurer

	 	Consultant	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	March 27, 2006

	 	March 27, 2006	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Date

	 	Date	 	 





510
County Road 71, Crookston, MN 56716 • 218.281.8442 •
281.281.8052 Fax • www.agassizenergy.com
#### 1228.106 Administration.
#### 1.501 Solicitation of agency and public views.
§ 1908.33 Designation of authority to hear appeals. ( a ) *Appeals:* Appeals of initial denial decisions under the Mandatory Declassification Request provisions of Executive Order 13526 shall be reviewed by the Agency Release Panel, which shall issue the final Agency decision.
( b ) *Membership:* The Agency Release Panel (ARP) is chaired by the Chief, Information Review and Release Group and composed of the Information Review Officers from the various Directorates and the Director, Central Intelligence Agency area, as well as the representatives of the various release programs and offices. The Information and Privacy Coordinator also serves as Executive Secretary of the ARP.
( c ) *Decisions:* The ARP shall meet on a regular schedule and may take action when a simple majority of the total membership is present. Issues shall be decided by a majority of the members present. Any member of the ARP disagreeing with the results of a vote may appeal the decision in writing to the Director, Information Management Services (D/IMS). The appeal shall set forth clearly and concisely the reasons D/IMS should reverse the ARP's decision. Upon receiving the written appeal, D/IMS shall have ten business days to affirm or reverse, in writing the APR's decision and shall so notify the appellant. In the event of a disagreement with any declassification and release decision by D/IMS, Directorate heads may appeal to the Associate Deputy Director of CIA (ADD) for resolution. The final Agency decision shall reflect the vote of the ARP, unless changed by the D/IMS or the ADD.
[76 FR 59034, Sept. 23, 2011]
1 When we g ra nt ed th e a ppl ic at io n, we direct ed the parties to bri ef whether t he decree wa s final. FINAL C OPY 294 Ga. 435 S13F1749. SAPP v. SAPP.
B LACK WE LL , Justice. We grante d the ap plicat

ion of Mar

y Brown Sapp for a di scretionary appeal from a divorce decree

that required Sapp and her forme r husband to sell their marital home. But upon f

urther review, it appea

rs that the decree

was not final. 1 Although it direc ted thesale of

the marital home, the decree a lso provided that, if Sapp a nd her former husba

nddid not

agree on a listing price

— and there is no dispute that they never agreed — the court would set a price at a later date. When a divorce is gran ted by a dec ree that reserves an is sue to be determined later , the decree is interlo cutory, not fi nal. See Miller v. Miller , 288 Ga . 274, 282 (4) (705 SE2 d 839) (2010); s ee al so Miller v. Miller , 282 Ga . 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469) (2007). Because the decree was interlocu tory, Sapp was required to bring her appeal purs uant to OCGA § 5- 6-34 (b) , which requires , among other things, a certif

icate of imme diate r e view. Beca use Sapp failed to com

ply with OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), we dismiss her appeal. See Stevens v. State , 292 Ga . 2182

(734 SE2d 743) (20 12) ; Gelfa nd v. Ge lfand , 281 Ga . 40, 41 (6 35 SE2d 770) (2006). Appeal dismis sed. Al l the Just

ices c oncur.

Decid ed Janua

ry 21, 201 4. Domestic relations. Glyn n Superio r Court. Before J udge Kelley. Holle Weiss-F riedman , for appellant. Ferrier & Ferrier , Crystal R. Ferrier , for appellee.
§ 228.16 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection. Commercial or political soliciting, vending of all kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising, collecting private debts or soliciting alms on protected property is prohibited. This does not apply to: ( a ) National or local drives for welfare, health, or other purposes as authorized by the “Manual on Fund Raising Within the Federal Service,” issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Executive Order 12353, 47 FR 12785, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 139, or by other federal laws or regulations; and
( b ) Authorized employee notices posted on Agency bulletin boards.
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.15 Scope of this subpart.

It explains how to settle and pay claims under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act for incident to service loss and damage of personal property. These claims are paid according to this subpart even when another subpart may also apply.

[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]
Appendix M

Supporting Information for: Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) Rule Florida Reasonable Progress Control Technology (RPCT) Rule
### §2008c. Rural Business-Cooperative Service programs technical assistance and training

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make grants to public bodies, private nonprofit corporations, economic development authorities, institutions of higher education, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and rural cooperatives for the purpose of providing or obtaining technical assistance and training to support funding applications for programs carried out by the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

#### (b) Purposes

A grant under subsection (a) may be used—

(1) to assist communities in identifying and planning for business and economic development needs;

(2) to identify public and private resources to finance business and small and emerging business needs;

(3) to prepare reports and surveys necessary to request financial assistance for businesses in rural communities; and

(4) to prepare applications for financial assistance.

#### (c) Selection priority

In selecting recipients of grants under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to grants serving persistent poverty counties and high poverty communities, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (d) Funding

#### (1) In general

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, to remain available until expended.

#### (2) Availability

Any amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year that are not appropriated for that fiscal year may be appropriated for the immediately succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §368, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6419, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4764.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2008c, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §368, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2317, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4009, related to allocation and transfer of loan guarantee authority, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §756, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1131.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY M. LAWRENCE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMIE KRAHNE; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16119 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00762-JCM-VCF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to prior state court proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16119 

F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions 

for default judgment because Lawrence never properly served the summons and 

complaint on defendants. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant 

unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Lawrence’s action for 

insufficient service of process because Lawrence does not raise this issue in his 

opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (“This 

court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and 

distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

We do not consider the merits of Lawrence’s claims because the district 

court did not address them.

AFFIRMED.
### §432. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 432 was editorially reclassified as section 5941 of this title.
#### Harry Jacobs, Respondent, v. Rose Low, Appellant.

Order, entered on November 30, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion to examine one Julian Jacobs as a witness before trial, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
#### § 536.56 Negotiations—purpose and extent.

It is DA policy to settle meritorious claims promptly and fairly through direct negotiation at the lowest possible level. The Army's negotiator should not admit liability as such is not necessary. However, the settlement should reflect diminished value where contributory negligence or other value-diminishing factors exist. The negotiator should be thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the case, including the claimant's background, the key witnesses, the anticipated testimony and the appearance of the scene. There is no substitute for the claims negotiator's personal study of, and participation in, the case before settlement negotiations begin. If settlement is not possible due to the divergence in the offers, refine the issues as much as possible in order to expedite any subsequent suit. Mediation should be used if the divergence is due to an issue of law affecting either liability or damages. For further discussion see DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-64.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIN SHEN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73046 

Agency No. A200-269-614 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Bin Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73046 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the 

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible, 

Shen failed to demonstrate the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of 

persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant must 

show “substantial evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced 

abortion); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did 

not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial 

evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Shen did not establish a fear of 

future persecution in China based on the past family planning incidents. See Gu, 

454 F.3d at 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not “present compelling, objective 

evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution.”). Thus, his asylum 

claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### §5934. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7211, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1242, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7211, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2003

Section, Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1681, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3782; Pub. L. 102–237, title IV, §407(17), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1865, related to research on honeybee diseases.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 repealed this section. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alfred Keith Day, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated December 13, 1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 17, 1957 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree (Penal Law, § 1293-a), and imposing sentence as a second felony offender. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
Motion Granted and Order filed Ju ly 2 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00858

- CV

____________ PHI LLIPS DEVELOPMENT & REALTY, LLC, Appellant

V.
LJA ENGINEERING, INC ., F/K/A LJA ENGINEE RING & SURVEYING, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 67390



### ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 7, 2014 . On June 9, 2015
, PDRH, L.L.C. filed a motion to withdraw its notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.1. The motion is GRANTED.
Appellant PDRH, L.L.C. is ordered DISMISSED from the appeal.PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown and Wise.
#### Felix Flores, Respondent, v. E. W. Bliss Company, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff, in support of his theory of negligence in the design, manufacture and repair of the power press, offered expert opinion. There is substantial contradictory expert opinion adduced by defendant. We are, however, unable to determine from the evidence or from the defendant’s exhibit of the clutch latch assembly whether the bases offered by the experts in support of their respective opinions are valid, or how the experts reach their contradictory views. The precise question is whether it was possible for the hook of the rolling key to fail to engage the latch while the latch assembly was laterally displaced in its housing because of the backing off — for some reason — of the castellated nut that was supposed to fix its position. The evidence fails to establish a sufficient basis for a resolution of that issue. It may be that the defendant can demonstrate mechanically that it is impossible for the rolling key to fail to engage the latch when the nut is backed off a given number of threads. This record does not warrant our so finding. On the other hand, the plaintiff has not shown this possibility since his expert has not sufficiently developed the basis for his opinion because of his references to “possibilities” and “other factors”. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
### §4512. Administrative provisions

(a) Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to dairy product promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.

(b) The provisions of this subchapter applicable to orders shall be applicable to amendments to orders.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §121, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1143.)
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.813 The recommendation of the NDRB president. ( a ) *General.* The president of the NDRB may forward cases for consideration by the Secretarial Review Authority (SRA). There is no requirement that the president submit a recommendation when a case is forwarded to the SRA. If the president makes a recommendation with respect to the character of or reason for discharge, however, the recommendation shall be prepared under the guidance in § 724.813b.
( b ) *Format for recommendation.* If a recommendation is provided, it shall contain the president's view whether there should be a change in the character of or reason for discharge (or both). If the president recommends such a change, the particular change to be made shall be specified. The recommendation shall set forth the president's position on decisional issues and issues submitted by the applicant under the following guidance: ( 1 ) *Adoption of the NDRB's decisional document.* The recommendation may state that the president has adopted the decisional document prepared by the majority. The president shall ensure that the decisional document meets the requirements of this enclosure.
( 2 ) *Adoption of the specific statements from the majority.* If the President adopts the views of the majority only in part, the recommendation shall cite the specific matter adopted from the majority. If the president modifies a statement submitted by the majority, the recommendation shall set forth the modification.
( 3 ) *Response to issues not included in matter adopted from the majority.* The recommendation shall set forth the following if not adopted in whole or in part from the majority: ( i ) The issues on which the president's recommendation is based. Each such decisional issue shall be addressed by the president.
( ii ) The president's response to items submitted as issues by the applicant.
( iii ) Reasons for rejecting the conclusion of the majority with respect to the decisional document which, if resolved in the applicant's favor, would have resulted in greater relief for the applicant than that afforded by the president's recommendation. Such issues shall be addressed under the principles in § 724.806.