alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1522. Advanced internal defenses

#### (a) Advanced network security tools

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall include, in the efforts of the Department to continuously diagnose and mitigate cybersecurity risks, advanced network security tools to improve visibility of network activity, including through the use of commercial and free or open source tools, and to detect and mitigate intrusions and anomalous activity.

#### (2) Development of plan

The Director shall develop and the Secretary shall implement a plan to ensure that each agency utilizes advanced network security tools, including those described in paragraph (1), to detect and mitigate intrusions and anomalous activity.

#### (b) Prioritizing advanced security tools

The Director and the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate agencies, shall—

(1) review and update Government-wide policies and programs to ensure appropriate prioritization and use of network security monitoring tools within agency networks; and

(2) brief appropriate congressional committees on such prioritization and use.

#### (c) Improved metrics

The Secretary, in collaboration with the Director, shall review and update the metrics used to measure security under section 3554 of title 44 to include measures of intrusion and incident detection and response times.

#### (d) Transparency and accountability

The Director, in consultation with the Secretary, shall increase transparency to the public on agency cybersecurity posture, including by increasing the number of metrics available on Federal Government performance websites and, to the greatest extent practicable, displaying metrics for department components, small agencies, and micro-agencies.

#### (e) Omitted

#### (f) Exception

The requirements under this section shall not apply to the Department of Defense, a national security system, or an element of the intelligence community.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. N, title II, §224, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2967.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 224 of title II of div. N of Pub. L. 114–113. Subsec. (e) of section 224 of title II of div. N of Pub. L. 114–113 amended section 3553 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.
11.502 Procedures. ( a ) Include the applicable liquidated damages clause and liquidated damages rates in solicitations when the contract will contain liquidated damages provisions.
( b ) Construction contracts with liquidated damages provisions must describe the rate(s) of liquidated damages assessed per day of delay. The rate(s) should include the estimated daily cost of Government inspection and superintendence. The rate(s) should also include an amount for other expected expenses associated with delayed completion such as— ( 1 ) Renting substitute property; or
( 2 ) Paying additional allowance for living quarters.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Executive Officer

FROM: General Counsel

SUBJECT: Delegation of Travel Authority 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority from the Chief Financial Officer vested in me by delegation 

EL/GEN/14, certified May 23, 2008, I hereby delegate to you, and to anyone serving for 

you in an acting capacity, the authorities described below. These authorities must be 

exercised in accordance with 41 CFR Chapters 300-304, commonly known as the Federal 

Travel Regulation (FTR). This delegation covers travel for the Office of the General 

Counsel.

A. The authority to approve travel within the Continental United States (CONUS) and 

non-foreign travel areas. The term “non-foreign travel areas” as used in this 

delegation refers to the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths of 

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories and 

possessions of the United States such as American Samoa and the Virgin Islands, 

and excludes the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

B. The authority to certify travel authorizations and travel vouchers for temporary 

duty including: 

1. Authority to approve use of non-contract carriers between defined city pairs. 

2. Authority to approve the use of public transportation between defined 

locations. 

3. Authority to approve the use of privately owned conveyances by employees 

when advantageous to the Government.

4. Authority to approve rental automobile and miscellaneous travel expenses.

C. The authority to certify travel authorizations and travel vouchers for permanent 

changes of station. 

D. The authority to approve direct flights as indicated by the FTR. 
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

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

cited herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

A. The authority to approve international travel is reserved to the Secretary or his or 

her delegatee. International travel is travel outside the CONUS and non-foreign 

travel areas. 

B. The authority to approve premium class travel accommodations, cash travel 

advances, and actual subsistence expenses over the total allowable per diem rate for 

each trip in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation is reserved to the 

Director, Financial Systems Operations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, or 

his or her delegatee.

C. The authority to certify one’s own travel and voucher expenses is reserved to the 

Principal Officer.

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

The delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations 

Control Officer and supersedes EG/EG-1/82. I hereby ratify actions within the scope of 

this delegation taken by addressee prior to the date of certification.

_________/s/______________ 

 Kent D. Talbert

 General Counsel

Certified Date: 7/25/2008

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

Control Number: EG/EG1/113
§ 935.96 Execution of judgment. ( a ) If, after 60 days after the date of entry of judgment (or such other period as the Court may prescribe), the judgment debtor has not satisfied the judgment, the judgment creditor may apply to the Court for grant of execution on the property of the judgment debtor.
( b ) Upon a writ issued by the Court, any peace officer may levy execution on any property of the judgment debtor except— ( 1 ) His wearing apparel up to a total of $300 in value;
( 2 ) His beds, bedding, household furniture and furnishings, stove, and cooking utensils, up to a total of $300 in value; and
( 3 ) Mechanics tools and implements of the debtor's trade up to a total of $200 in value.
( c ) Within 60 days after levy of execution, a peace officer shall sell the seized property at public sale and shall pay the proceeds to the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk shall apply the proceeds as follows: ( 1 ) First, to the reasonable costs of execution and sale and court costs.
( 2 ) Second, to the judgment.
( 3 ) Third, the residue (if any) to the debtor.
( d ) In any case in which property has been seized under a writ of execution, but not yet sold, the property seized shall be released upon payment of the judgment, court costs, and the costs of execution.
EXHIBIT 15




TXU Gas Company:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of TXU Gas Company and subsidiaries
(TXU Gas) for the periods ended September 30, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in our
report dated November 10, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Gas'
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-85769,
333-85769-01, 333-85769-02, 333-85769-03 and 333-43811 on Form S-3, and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-43811-01 on
Form S-3, of TXU Gas.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 13, 2000
### §325. State to replace funds misapplied, etc.; restrictions on use of funds; reports by colleges

If any portion of the moneys received by the designated officer of the State or Territory for the further and more complete endowment, support, and maintenance of colleges, or of institutions for colored students, as provided in this subchapter, shall, by any action or contingency, be diminished or lost, or be misapplied, it shall be replaced by the State or Territory to which it belongs, and until so replaced no subsequent appropriation shall be apportioned or paid to such State or Territory; and no portion of said moneys shall be applied, directly or indirectly, under any pretense whatever, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings. An annual report by the president of each of said colleges shall be made to the Secretary of Agriculture, regarding the condition and progress of each college, including statistical information in relation to its receipts and expenditures, its library, the number of its students and professors, and also as to any improvements and experiments made under the direction of any experiment stations attached to said colleges, with their cost and results, and such other industrial and economical statistics as may be regarded as useful, one copy of which shall be transmitted by mail free to all other colleges further endowed under this subchapter.

(Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 841, §3, 26 Stat. 418; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. I, §§201, 204, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2728, 53 Stat. 1424; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(2)(E), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677; Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1419, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1306.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions under this section to Secretary of Agriculture, see note set out under section 321 of this title.

Functions of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and Secretary thereof under this subchapter transferred to Secretary of Education by section 301(a)(2)(E) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3441(a)(2)(E) of Title 20, Education.

Transfer of functions from Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, see note set out under section 321 of this title.
#### James J. Martin et al. *v.*Connecticut Personnel Commissioner et al.

House, C. J., Loiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanske and Longo, Js.

Argued November 12

decision released December 10, 1974

*378
      *Barry Scheinberg,*with whom, on the brief, was *Michael Sucoll,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Sidney D. Giber,*assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were *Robert K. Killian,*attorney general, and *F. Michael Ahern,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs, James J. Martin and Mary G-. Carty, former employees of the state of Connecticut, brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendants, commissioner of personnel Edward H. Simpson, commissioner of labor Jack A. Pusari, and the state retirement commission, seeking an “injunction restraining the defendants from laying off the . . . plaintiffs as of April 1, 1973.” From a judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court, assigning error in the conclusions of the trial court.

The record in this case contains no finding of facts and no conclusions other than the judgment for the defendants. A finding is essential where error is claimed in the court’s conclusions of law or fact that do not appear on the face of the record. Practice Book § 609; *Robertson*v. *Robertson,*164 Conn. 140, 142, 318 A.2d 106; *Gitlitz*v. *Davis,*146 Conn. 280, 281, 150 A.2d 213; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 126. The briefs of the parties in this case are based on the trial court’s memorandum of decision. A memorandum of decision, however, establishes no facts and cannot take the place of the required finding. *Wagner*v. *Zoning Board of Appeals,*153 Conn. 713, *379714, 216 A.2d 182; *Saraceno*v. *Capitol Theatre Realty Corporation,*154 Conn. 669, 672, 228 A.2d 507.

Our review is thus confined to the record presented consisting of the pleadings and the judgment. The judgment merely recites that after hearing the parties the court found the issues for the defendant. “Without the subordinate facts on which the court based its rulings and conclusions, we are in no position to do other than affirm the judgment.” *Lomas & Nettleton Co.*v. *Cadoux,*163 Conn. 603, 605, 316 A.2d 413.

There is no error.
### §426. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 426 was editorially reclassified as section 8351 of this title.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Director

Program Support Services Group

Research to Practice Division

Early Childhood Team

Elementary and Middle School Team

Secondary, Transition, and 

Post-Secondary Team 

National Initiatives Team

Monitoring and State Improvement 

Planning Division

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:473
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:474
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:475
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:476
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:477
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:478
Case: 1:12-cv-00024 Document #: 82 Filed: 04/01/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:479
### §1338. Transfer of quotas

Farm marketing quotas for wheat shall not be transferable, but, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary for such purpose, any farm marketing quota in excess of the supply of wheat for such farm for any marketing year may be allocated to other farms on which the acreage allotment has not been exceeded.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §338, 52 Stat. 55; Pub. L. 99–198, title III, §307, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1382.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–198 amended section generally, temporarily substituting provisions for voluntary surrender of any part of a farm marketing quota by the producer and reallocation by the Secretary to other farms having farm marketing quotas for provisions authorizing allocation of excess quotas to other farms on which the acreage allotment had not been exceeded. See Effective and Termination Dates of 1985 Amendment note below.

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates of 1985 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–198, title III, §307, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1382, provided that the amendment made by Pub. L. 99–198 is effective only for the 1987 through 1990 crops of wheat.

#### Inapplicability of Section

Section inapplicable to 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities, cotton, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Feb. 7, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2018, see section 9092(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2008 through 2012 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning June 18, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2012, see section 8782(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2002 through 2007 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning May 13, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2007, see section 7992(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1996 through 2001 crops of loan commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Apr. 4, 1996, and ending Dec. 31, 2002, see section 7301(a)(1)(A) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1991 through 1995 crops of wheat, see section 303 of Pub. L. 101–624, set out as a note under section 1331 of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1986 crop of wheat, see section 310(a) of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 1332 of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1982 through 1985 crops of wheat, see section 303 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 1331 of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1978 through 1981 crops of wheat, see section 404 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as a note under section 1331 of this title.

Pub. L. 91–524, title IV, §404(1), Nov. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1366, as amended by Pub. L. 93–86, §1(11), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 229, provided that this section is not applicable to 1971 through 1977 crops of wheat.
#### CAROLINA SPIRITS, INC. v. CITY OF RALEIGH

No. 602P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 745

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1998.
Exhibit 10.1


 


On April 4, 2006, the Board of
Directors of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”), based on the recommendation of the
Compensation Committee, established the salaries for the Company’s named
executive officers for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2007 as follows:
Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, $794,395; Frank P.
Mineo, Senior Vice President of the
Company and President of Direct Selling Group, $512,500; Bruce G. Crain,
Senior Vice President of the Company
and President of Wholesale Group, $461,250; Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
$369,000; and Robert B. Goergen, Jr., Vice President of the Company and President, Catalog & Internet
Group and Corporate Development Group, $325,000. In addition, the Committee
determined that the Company had not satisfied the performance measures set
forth under the Management Performance Incentive Plan in fiscal 2006; however,
the Committee determined that a cash bonus would be awarded to Mr. Barghaus for
performance related to a corporate reorganization in fiscal 2006. The following
sets forth the bonuses paid to the named executive officers for performance in
fiscal 2006: Robert B. Goergen, $0; Frank P. Mineo, $0; Bruce G. Crain, $0;
Robert H. Barghaus, $45,000; and Robert B. Goergen, Jr., $0.
# 2017 PRESIDENTS BUDGET

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET&11(in thousands of dollars)	February 9, 2016

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P
#### In the Matter of the County of Westchester, Appellant-Respondent, v. Anthony J. Rizzardi, as Assessor of the City of New Rochelle, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, to review an assessment for the year 1963 upon petitioner’s real property known as the Glen Island Casino, on Glen Island in Long Island Sound, and to declare such property to be exempt from taxation by the City of New Rochelle, the parties cross-appeal as follows from a final order of the Supreme Court of Westchester County, made July 17, 1963 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial: (1) The petitioner (the County of Westchester) appeals from so much of the order as adjudged that the property is not exempt from taxation by statute (Real .Property Tax Law, § 406, subd. 1; Westchester County Administrative Code, § 213). (2) The respondents (the assessor and other officials of the City of New Rochelle) appeal from so much of the order as adjudged illegal and void the addition of the property to the assessment roll as taxable property for the tax year 1963. [See 39 Mise 2d 820.] Order, insofar as appealed’ from by the several officials of the City of New Rochelle, affirmed, without costs. Appeal by the County of Westchester dismissed, without costs, as academic. In view of the affirmance of the order insofar as appealed from by the city officials, it becomes unnecessary now to reach or to determine the question whether the Casino as it was operated prior to the tax year 1963, rendered it exempt from taxation for such tax year. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Fiscal Year 2016 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - NEVADA

FY 2016 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

3200390 Carson City School District 1,762,614

3200030 Churchill County School District 591,499

3200060 Clark County School District 96,780,412

3200090 Douglas County School District 681,635

3200120 Elko County School District 1,057,453

3200150 Esmeralda County School District 16,463

3200180 Eureka County School District 28,459

3200210 Humboldt County School District 370,603

3200240 Lander County School District 112,449

3200270 Lincoln County School District 120,651

3200300 Lyon County School District 1,485,492

3200330 Mineral County School District 171,111

3200360 Nye County School District 1,428,939

3200420 Pershing County School District 168,639

3200450 Storey County School District 34,012

3200480 Washoe County School District 14,001,786

3200510 White Pine County School District 195,113

3299999 PART D SUBPART 2 827,283

* 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 2016 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joanne C. Feliciano, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 391]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

*1116Claimant worked as a commissioned sales executive for a time-share vacation company from March 2004 until November 2004. She resigned from her position because she did not feel that she was selling enough units to generate sufficient income. She applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, subsequently disqualified her from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Dissatisfaction with wages or commissions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment for the purpose of receiving unemployment insurance benefits *(see Matter of Landy [Commissioner of Labor],*9 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]; *Matter of Bollweg [Commissioner of Labor],*288 AD2d 811 [2001]). Claimant’s testimony that it was her unhappiness with the number of her time-share sales and concomitant lack of commissions that caused her to tender her resignation provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings that she left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.