alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

TO: Director, Institute of Education Sciences

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Authority to Designate a Department Employee to Serve as the Designated Federal 

Officer for the National Board for Education Sciences 

I. DELEGATION

By 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, or anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or 

delegated to perform the functions and duties of your position, the authority to designate a 

Department employee to serve as and carry out the duties of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) 

for the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES), as set forth in 41 C.F.R. §§ 102-3.25 

(definition of the term “Designated Federal Officer”), 102-3.105(i), and 102-3.120 and Sections 

1009(e) and (f) of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committees).

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

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

None. 

III. REDELEGATION

Subject to the requirements of law, you may redelegate any of the authority delegated to you in 

this delegation and authorize further redelegation. Any redelegation must be done in accordance 

with the Administrative Communications System directive, ACSD-OFO-015, Delegation of 

Authority, dated August 26, 2016. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE 

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegations Control 

Officer. I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of 

certification.

_____________/s_________ 

Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D. 

OGC Clearance: /s/ Lauren Friedrich, 02/08/2023 

Date Certified: 2/15/23

Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EA/ER/120
Exhibit
      23(b)











Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in PPL Energy Supply, LLC’s
      Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-128219, 333-116477, 333-106200,
      333-106200-01, 333-132574, 333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03)
      of
      our report dated February 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule of PPL Energy Supply, LLC, included in this Annual
      Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/
        Ernst
& Young LLP
 Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania
 February
        26, 2007
EX-10.22



 







Exhibit 10.22




November 23, 2005




Mr. David Holmberg




Dear David:



I very much appreciate the talent, expertise and strength that you have brought to Jo-Ann Stores,
Inc. I am counting on you to help me provide a strong bridge while we rebuild the leadership team.



As we have discussed, I will be hiring a President and CEO. David, you have contributed greatly
since you arrived and we both anticipate and desire a long term relationship. However, I also
understand that these are uncertain times for you and I want to give you peace of mind about your
financial benefits should circumstances change at Jo-Ann Stores.





	 	1.	 	As the Company has decided to hire a President and CEO, we acknowledge that there is a
risk that either you or the Company may conclude that your continued employment may not be
in its best interest. Therefore:






	 	a.	 	Should you decide to terminate your employment at any time between the
sixth and the twelfth month anniversary of the start date of the new President, the
Company agrees to pay your base salary for 24 months, in a lump sum, contingent on
the execution of a complete letter agreement including a non-compete covenant and a
non-solicitation covenant. We would anticipate that you would provide at least 30
days’ notice should you decide to trigger this agreement;
	 
	 	b.	 	You will not be eligible for the stock acceleration or payment of
target incentive as detailed in your current employment agreement;
	 
	 	c.	 	The Company will also provide continuation of benefits (except long
term disability) through the earlier of 24 months or the date you become benefit
eligible with a new employer;
	 
	 	d.	 	The Company agrees to provide continued car allowance through the
earlier of 24 months or your new employment date; and
	 
	 	e.	 	The Company will provide outplacement with a reputable firm.






	 	2.	 	Should the Company decide to terminate your employment at any time between the date of
this letter and 24 months after the hire date of the new President, you will receive the
same salary continuation and benefits as above, provided, however that if such termination
by the Company occurs prior to November 30, 2006, both cash retention payments totaling
$230,000, provided under the retention agreement dated November 18, 2005, will be
guaranteed. Thereafter, your existing employment agreement would be in effect.




David, your continued dedication is important to Jo-Ann’s success. I am happy to provide this
special incentive for you to remain with us through our transition and hopefully beyond.




 









 








	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sincerely,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	JO-ANN STORES, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Alan Rosskamm
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Alan Rosskamm

CEO, President, Chairman of the Board	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:	 	 November 23, 2005	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	AGREED

	 	TO:	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ David Holmberg	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	David Holmberg	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:	 	 November 23, 2005
§ 989.8 Analysis of alternatives. ( a ) The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and the “no action” alternative in all EAs and EISs, as fully as the proposed action alternative.
( b ) “Reasonable” alternatives are those that meet the underlying purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular course of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those directly within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may involve another government agency or military service to assist in the project or even to become the lead agency. The Air Force must also consider reasonable alternatives raised during the scoping process (see § 989.18) or suggested by others, as well as combinations of alternatives. The Air Force need not analyze highly speculative alternatives, such as those requiring a major, unlikely change in law or governmental policy. If the Air Force identifies a large number of reasonable alternatives, it may limit alternatives selected for detailed environmental analysis to a reasonable range or to a reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives.
( c ) The Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from detailed analysis, based on reasonable selection standards (for example, operational, technical, or environmental standards suitable to a particular project). In consultation with the EPF, the appropriate Air Force organization may develop written selection standards to firmly establish what is a “reasonable” alternative for a particular project, but they must not so narrowly define these standards that they unnecessarily limit consideration to the proposal initially favored by proponents. This discussion of reasonable alternatives applies equally to EAs and EISs.
( d ) Except in those rare instances where excused by law, the Air Force must always consider and assess the environmental impacts of the “no action” alternative. “No action” may mean either that current management practice will not change or that the proposed action will not take place. If no action would result in other predictable actions, those actions should be discussed within the no action alternative section. The discussion of the no action alternative and the other alternatives should be comparable in detail to that of the proposed action.
#### 1252.228-72 Risk and Indemnities.

As prescribed in 1228.306-70(a) and (d), insert the following clause:

# Risk and Indemnities (NOV 2022)

The Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its officers and employees from and against all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, suits and judgments (including all costs and expenses incident thereto) which may be suffered by, accrue against, be charged to or recoverable from the Government, its officers and employees by reason of injury to or death of any person other than officers, agents, or employees of the Government or by reason of damage to property of others of whatsoever kind (other than the property of the Government, its officers, agents or employees) arising out of the operation of the aircraft. In the event the Contractor holds or obtains insurance in support of this covenant, evidence of insurance shall be delivered to the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ada Bridges, Respondent, against Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board establishing the dependency of the claimant and making an award of death benefits. The deceased employee was the claimant’s illegitimate son. The claimant who is 74 lives with her 85-year-old invalid husband on a small and extremely poor farm in North Carolina. The record clearly indicates that she was and is in need of financial assistance. She testified that her son sent her money from time to time and although she was vague as to the times and amounts she steadfastly maintained that she did receive such amounts in cash and money orders. The woman who styled herself as the decedent’s common-law wife testified that he sent money to his mother “ off and on ” and that she herself had made out such money orders ranging in amounts from $25 to $100. The president of claimant’s bank stated that he knew the claimant received money from her son. The question of dependency is one of fact and we may not say on this record that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Hunter*v. *Goodstein Bros.,*2 A D 2d 387). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

A aron Rivera

,

Appellant

,

v.

T he State of Texas

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 1 36

- C R

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

o f El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20050D02112 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

b rief until March 19

, 20 20

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE

THE STATE ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ja ime E . Esparza

, the State ’ s attorney, prepare the

State ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 19

, 20 20

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 9 th day of February

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
### §7785. Relationship to other programs

Funds under this Act (other than those made available for section 7784(f) of this title) are intended to supplement, not replace, assistance available to weed management entities, areas, and districts for control or eradication of noxious weeds on Federal lands and non-Federal lands. The provision of funds to a weed management entity under this Act (other than those made available for section 7784(f) of this title) shall have no effect on the amount of any payment received by a county from the Federal Government under chapter 69 of title 31.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §456, as added Pub. L. 108–412, §1, Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2324.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, probably means the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004, subtitle E (§§451–457) of title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, as added by Pub. L. 108–412, §1, Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2320, which enacted this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: steam_record <steam_record@erg.com>, <Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov> Date: 8/16/2010 8:46 AM Subject: Fw: Extension for Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
For the record - this request was sent on June 21. This request was answered today. ----- Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/ DC/USEPA/US on 08/16/2010 08:43 AM

----- From: "Gary Ambrus" <gambrus@wyan.org> To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "'Kerry McLenon'" <kmclenon@wy an.org>, "'Melanie McCoy'" <mmccoy@wyan.org>, "'Jim French'" <jfrench@wyan.org> Date: 08/16/2010 08:08 AM Subject: RE: Extention for Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent

Alicea;
The request was sent via Email (June 21, 2010).....see Email below in red.........and I also left a voice mail sometime thereafter. Our plant ID # 03236
Thanks
Gary L. Ambrus, CHMM, CMfgT Environmental Coordinator Wyandotte Municipal Service-Power Plant 2555 Van Alstyne Wyandotte, Michigan 48192 (734) 324-7175 Fax (734) 324-7178 gambrus@wyan.org

-----Original Message----- From: Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Alicea.Jezebe le@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:01 AM To: Gary Ambrus Subject: RE: Extension for Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Hi Gary, Was the extension request sent by email or regular mail? Please provide the plant name and id when responding this email and we'll check the status of your extension request. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic28252.jpg)

From: "Gary Ambrus" <gambrus@wyan.org>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: "'Kerry McLenon'" <kmclenon@wyan.org>

Date: 08/13/2010 02:57 PM
Subject: RE: Extension for Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent

Ms. Alicia; As of today have not received a response to my extension request. Also, left you a voice mail on your phone this afternoon concerning this. Please advise
Gary L. Ambrus, CHMM, CMfgT Environmental Coordinator Wyandotte Municipal Service-Power Plant 2555 Van Alstyne Wyandotte, Michigan 48192 (734) 324-7175 Fax (734) 324-7178 gambrus@wyan.orgFrom: Gary Ambrus [mailto:gambrus@wyan.org] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 3:40 PM To: 'Alicea.jezebele@epa.gov' Cc: 'Kerry McLenon' Subject: RE: Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines Ms. Alicea; On behalf of Wyandotte Municipal Se rvices-Power Plant (ID # 03236), I would like to request an extension of the report deadline of at least 30 days or longer if possible. The report package was received today. Our due date would be September 20th under the 90 day request We are a small municipal power plant with limited staff. Every effort to submit the report within 90 days will be undertaken in either case.
Gary L. Ambrus, CHMM, CMfgT Environmental Coordinator Wyandotte Municipal Service-Power Plant 2555 Van Alstyne Wyandotte, Michigan 48192 (734) 324-7175 Fax (734) 324-7178 gambrus@wyan.org
#### SALSBERG v. TOBIAS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Judgment.

A judgment in the words: “Judgment rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. Plaintiff is duly entitled to §10”—determines nothing.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Bessie Salsberg against Sam Tobias. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Louis Levene (Abraham B. Schleimer, of counsel), for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The pleadings herein were oral. Plaintiff claimed and proved herself entitled to two weeks’ wages, earned in the employ of the defendant as bookkeeper, amounting to $10. Defendant claimed payment. Although the testimony is not very clear, it appears that the defendant gave his check for the amount due the plaintiff to the Legal Aid Society, who at one time had the plaintiff’s claim for collection, and that this check was subsequently returned by the bank upon which it was drawn as being not good. The trial court rendered judgment in these words, viz.: “Judgment rendered

in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. Plaintiff is duly entitled to $10.” This determines nothing. The plaintiff, if “duly entitled to $10,” should have had judgment therefor.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
### §8911. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12201, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4944

Section, Pub. L. 110–234, title XIV, §14111, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1454; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIV, §14111, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2216, related to Office of Homeland Security. See section 6922 of this title.
### §328. Power to amend, repeal, etc., reserved

Congress may at any time amend, suspend, or repeal any or all of the provisions of this subchapter.

(Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 841, §6, 26 Stat. 419.)
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00095 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Erie Family Life Insurance
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Philip A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Philip A. Garcia
---------------------------
Philip A. Garcia
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

November 6, 2002
### §916. Criteria for loans

In order to insure coordination of electric generation and transmission financing under this chapter with the national energy policy, the Secretary in making or guaranteeing loans for the construction, operation, or enlargement of generating plants or electric transmission lines or systems, shall consider such general criteria consistent with the provisions of this chapter as may be published by the Secretary of Energy.

(May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title I, §16, as added Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §709(f), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 608; amended Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §235(a)(13), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3221.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–354 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" before "in making".
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 665 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize additional 

lease sales to be added to an approved 5-year leasing program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize additional lease sales to be added to an approved 

5-year leasing program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unleashing American 

5 Energy Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF LEASE SALES TO 5-YEAR LEASING 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 18(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

9 Act (43 U.S.C. 1344(d)) is amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 665 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘After’’ and 

2 all that follows through ‘‘first occurs,’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph (4), after the leas4 ing program has been approved by the Secretary,’’; 

5 and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(4) INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL LEASE

8 SALES.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—As the Secretary de10 termines to be appropriate and subject to the 

11 considerations required under subsection (a)(2), 

12 the Secretary may include in an approved leas13 ing program additional lease sales to be con14 ducted under the approved leasing program. 

15 ‘‘(B) REVISION NOT REQUIRED.—The in16 clusion of any additional lease sales under sub17 paragraph (A) shall not be considered to be a 

18 significant revision requiring reapproval of the 

19 approved leasing program under subsection (e). 

20 ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE LAW.— 

21 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as pro22 vided in clause (ii), an individual lease sale 

23 added to an approved leasing program 

24 under subparagraph (A) shall be consid25 ered to be a major Federal action for purVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:51 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S665.IS S665

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 665 IS

1 poses of section 102(2)(C) of the National 

2 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

3 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

4 ‘‘(ii) GULF OF MEXICO AREAS.—An 

5 individual lease sale added to an approved 

6 leasing program covering the Gulf of Mex7 ico Region of the outer Continental Shelf 

8 shall not be considered to be a major Fed9 eral action for purposes of section 

10 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

11 Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

12 4332(2)(C)).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T21:45:21-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office