alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §205. General duty as to services; revocation of registration

All stockyard services furnished pursuant to reasonable request made to a stockyard owner or market agency at such stockyard shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory and stockyard services which are furnished shall not be refused on any basis that is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory: Provided, That in any State where the weighing of livestock at a stockyard is conducted by a duly authorized department or agency of the State, the Secretary, upon application of such department or agency, may register it as a market agency for the weighing of livestock received in such stockyard, and upon such registration such department or agency and the members thereof shall be amenable to all the requirements of this chapter, and upon failure of such department or agency or the members thereof to comply with the orders of the Secretary under this chapter he is authorized to revoke the registration of such department or agency and to enforce such revocation as provided in section 216 of this title.

(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title III, §304, 42 Stat. 164; May 5, 1926, ch. 240, 44 Stat. 397; Pub. L. 90–446, §1(c), July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 474.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–446 inserted provision requiring that stockyard services which are furnished not be refused on any basis that is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory.

1926—Act May 5, 1926, inserted proviso.
#### Philip S. Capano, Appellant, v Stanley Watsky et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 8, 1978, striking the action from the court’s Trial Calendar and precluding plaintiff from filing a note of issue or making any motion to restore the action to the Trial Calendar until payment of $500 costs and filing a full medical affidavit, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to restore the action to the Trial Calendar on condition that plaintiff pay costs of $150, to delete the requirement of filing a medical affidavit, and otherwise affirmed. After a jury had been drawn and settlement efforts had failed, plaintiff sought an adjournment claiming *701an attack of illness. Unable to obtain a medical affidavit overnight, he supplied a letter from a doctor and the court, after examining plaintiff under oath, struck the case from the calendar and imposed the restoration conditions over the protest of plaintiff that he was ready to proceed if an adjournment were not to be granted. Under the circumstances, to require the filing in the future of a medical affidavit of a condition claimed to have been transitory and to impose $500 in costs appear needlessly punitive. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Lane, Lynch and Sandler, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11

ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Common ShareFor the Three Month Periods Ended
January 28, 2005 and January 30, 2004(Unaudited)(In thousands, except
per share amounts)

|                                                  | Three Months Ended | 
|------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | 
|
|Net Sales                                         |                    | 
|Gross Margin                                      |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Income From Continuing Operations                 |                    | 
|Income From Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax   |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Net Earnings                                      |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Basic                                             |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding     |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Earnings Per Share  Basic                        |                    | 
|Continuing operations                             |                    | 
|Discontinued operations                           |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Earnings per share  basic                        |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Diluted                                           |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding     |                    | 
|Net Shares Assumed to be Issued for Stock Options |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Weighted Average Number of Shares                 |                    | 
|and Equivalent Shares Outstanding  Diluted       |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Earnings Per Share  Diluted                      |                    | 
|Continuing operations                             |                    | 
|Discontinued operations                           |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 
|Earnings per share  diluted                      |                    | 
|                                                  |                    | 



---
1237.7000 Policy. When training services are provided under contract, DOT policy requires that all prospective contractors: ( a ) Certify that the data provided concerning company qualifications, background statements, and resumes, for example, is current, accurate, and complete; and
( b ) Agree to not solicit or advertise private, non-Government training while conducting a training course.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

TO : Teresa Cahalan

 Institute of Education Sciences

FROM : Sue Betka, Acting Director

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Request Closure/Certification 

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

In accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the Department’s Handbook 

for the Post Audit Process and my responsibilities as Action Official for the Financial 

Office under the Department’s ACS Directive OCFO-01, I hereby delegate to you the 

authority to serve as the Action Official in issuing the Request for 

Closure/Certification Memorandum. This delegation of authority covers internal 

audits defined in this context as ED-OIG and GAO issued audits as well as alternative 

products issued by ED0-OIG, and tracked by the Department’s automated tracking 

system.

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

authority cited herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

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

Control Officer.

____________/s/_______________

 Sue Betka 

Dated Certified: January 29, 2015

Delegations Control Officer: Bruce L. Monblatt

Delegation Control Number: ER/ERB/115
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO: The General Counsel

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, 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in 

function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, as the Secretary’s principal 

adviser on all legal matters affecting Departmental programs and activities, the authority 

to review and approve any agency settlement involving the resolution of any litigation,

including, but not limited to, administrative or Federal court litigation, in which the 

Department is obligated or agrees to make a monetary payment, commitment, or 

distribution arising from allegations seeking damages, fees, costs, or other relief.

In carrying out the delegated authority, you are authorized to perform all necessary 

administrative functions including issuance of procedures and instructions to Principal 

Offices on the review process.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may be redelegated.

IV. Certification and Effective Date

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

Control Officer.

______________/s/_______________

Margaret Spellings

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 4/11/2008

Certified Date: 4/17/2008

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EA/EG/109
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of DSC Communications Corporation of our report dated January 26, 1998 included
in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of DSC Communications Corporation.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of DSC Communications
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-39917 and 333-39903) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-83398,
2-95833, 33-17459, 33-22745, 33-38544, 33-65212, 33-65214, 33-64784, 33-49718,
33-61423, 33-61425, 333-41963, 333-41929, 333-41951, 333-41957, 333-39469,
333-31215 and 333-45149) of our report dated January 26, 1998 with respect to
the financial statements and schedule of DSC Communications Corporation
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 26, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1275 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1275

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 4, 2024.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Higgins of Louisiana.
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Zinke and Mr. Moylan.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Mr. Fong.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Fong.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 631.18 Operations. When an incident of substantial interest to the Service, involving Service property or affiliated personnel, occurs off-installation, the Service law enforcement organization exercising area responsibility will— ( a ) Obtain copies of civilian law enforcement reports for processing or forwarding according to applicable Service parts.
( b ) Return apprehended persons to representatives of their Service as soon as practicable.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0049

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLES MICHAEL BYRNE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 29 2024

05/29/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0049
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1357 

Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is 

in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain 

subpoena. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2024 

Mrs. LUNA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the 

United States, is in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain subpoena. 

Whereas, on February 27, 2024, Merrick Garland, Attorney 

General of the United States, was duly served with a subpoena to produce a narrow and specific set of materials 

possessed by the Department of Justice and related to 

Special Counsel Robert K. Hur’s investigation of President Joe Biden’s ‘‘willful’’ mishandling of classified documents to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Oversight and 

Accountability of the House of Representatives in Washington, DC; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1357 IH 

Whereas Attorney General Garland has, in disobedience of 

such subpoena, failed to produce the set of materials; and 

Whereas the set of materials possessed by the Department of 

Justice is material and necessary in order that the House 

of Representatives may properly execute the functions 

imposed on it and may obtain information necessary as 

a basis for such legislative and other action as the House 

of Representatives may deem necessary and proper: Now, 

therefore be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the 

3 United States, is found in contempt of the House of 

4 Representatives for disobeying the February 27, 

5 2024, subpoena; and 

6 (2) the Speaker of the House of Representa7 tives shall impose a fine, which may not be paid with 

8 appropriated funds, on Attorney General Garland of 

9 $10,000 per day, until such time as Attorney Gen10 eral Garland complies with the subpoena of the 

11 House of Representatives by turning over the audio 

12 tapes. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 2423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Developmental Biology 
Subcommittee.
    Date: February 26, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 
6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01-G, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6878, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1067757475757e73507d71797c3e7e79783e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c4b59585959525f7c515d555012525554125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 6, 2021.
Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00386 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### David Holman, Respondent, v. Andrew P. Calamari et al., Appellants.

— Motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division denied, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### Jay Morris *v.*Ruth Carlson

*Ruth Carlson,*pro se, on the petition.

Submitted September 19

decided October 2, 1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
Fiscal Year 2011 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2011 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1500001 Hawaii County 9,614,996 1,922,999 1,811.42

1500003 Honolulu County 31,928,424 6,385,685 2,017.21

1500005 Kalawao County 0 0 0.00

1500007 Kauai County 1,915,040 383,008 1,555.68

1500009 Maui County 4,016,800 803,360 1,502.73

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2011 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the maximum amount that affected LEAs -

 those with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 587 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 587

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit substantiation 
 requirements for charitable contributions to returns submitted by the 
                                 donor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2017

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit substantiation 
 requirements for charitable contributions to returns submitted by the 
                                 donor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Charitable Contributions 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARITABLE 
              CONTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 170(f)(8) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D) and by 
redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning after December 
31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```