alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 1341.204 GSA areawide Contracts.

The designee authorized to determine that the use of an areawide contract is not advantageous to the Government is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property in the City of New York in Connection with Public Housing Project Known as Borgia Butler Houses. David Kushner et al., Respondents.

Motion for an extension of time granted insofar as to extend appellant’s time to procure the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including October 4, 1960, with notice of argument for the November 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries, Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Yaron Elad, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




Date March 10, 2011

/s/ Yaron EladYaron EladVice - President & Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Inspector General

The Inspector General

MEMORANDUM

TO: Assistant Inspector General for Audit

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology

 Audits and Computer Crime Investigations

Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation, Inspection, and

 Management Services

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Enter Into Contracts and Other Agreements for 

Audits

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the 

authority under Section 6(a)(9) of the Act to enter into contracts and other 

arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services as necessary to carry 

out the Office of Inspector General’s responsibilities relating to Department of 

Education’s programs and operations.

II. RESERVATION

The authority for obligation of OIG funds for such agreements is reserved to the 

Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation, Inspection, and Management Services.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.
IV. CERTIFICATE 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/_______________ 

 John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 8/3/2004

Certified Date: 8/3/2004

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

Control No.: EF/EFT/161
1303.204 Treatment of violations. ( a ) The designee authorized to determine violations of the Gratuities clause is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
( b ) Upon receipt of an allegation or evidence of a violation of the Gratuities clause, the designee shall conduct a fact-finding. If there is a basis for further action, a signed notice shall be prepared and sent to the contractor by certified mail, return receipt requested, or any other method that provides signed evidence of receipt. If a reply is not received from the contractor within 45 calendar days of sending the notice, a decision shall be made on the appropriate action to be taken. If a reply is received from the contractor within 45 calendar days of sending the notice, the information in the reply must be considered before making a decision on the appropriate action to be taken. Upon request of the contractor, the contractor shall be provided an opportunity to appear in person to present information concerning the matter. A report shall be prepared following the presentation and the information must be considered when making a decision. A decision shall be made on the basis of all information available, including findings of fact and oral or written information submitted by the contractor. All mitigating factors shall be considered prior to making a final decision concerning what action will be taken.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry L. Kingston, Appellant.

Motion granted and case added to Calendar for May 1960 Term on condition that respondent’s printed brief is filed and served on or before May 6,1960. (Order entered May 3, 1960.)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4172-4173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance 
Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal 
from the Port of Astoria Airport Director to change certain portions of 
the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Astoria 
Regional Airport, Astoria, Oregon. The proposal

[[Page 4173]]

consists of three parcels on the south side of the airfield.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments can be 
provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports 
District Office, 2200 S. 216th St., Des Moines, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matt McGrath, Airport Director, 
Port of Astoria, 10 Pier 1, Ste. 103, Astoria, OR 97103; or Mandi M. 
Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 S. 
216 St., Des Moines, WA 98198, (206) 231-4140. Documents reflecting 
this FAA action may be reviewed at the above locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 
47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the 
Airport Director, Port of Astoria, to change a portion of the Astoria 
Regional Airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The 
proposal consists of a 3-acre parcel on the south side of the airport.
    The parcels are vacant, landlocked and do not have airfield access. 
The proposed property will be developed as a protein processing plant. 
The FAA concurs that the parcels are no longer needed for aeronautical 
purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with other 
airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures 
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in Federal Register on 
February 16, 1999.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington on January 11, 2021.
William C. Garrison,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-00776 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
1215.604 Agency points of contact. ( a ) Unsolicited proposals should be submitted to the responsible OA contracting office for appropriate handling. Specific information concerning the mission of each DOT OA is available online at *https://www.transportation.gov/ .* Offerors are urged to contact these contracting/procurement offices prior to submitting a proposal to ensure that the unsolicited proposal reaches the correct contracting office for action. This action will reduce unnecessary paperwork and wasted time for both the Government and offerors.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 354-2]

## Section 1. Delegation

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws and authorities of the United States, including those set forth in 22 U.S.C. 2651a; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (1996); the Office of Management and Budget's Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316 (December 17, 1996); the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-264 (1998); 5 U.S.C. 4108, 5379, 5514, 5522, 5524a, 5705, 5922, and 8707; 22 U.S.C. 2671, 2716, 4047 and 4071; and 31 U.S.C. Chapter 37, and delegated to the Comptroller by Delegation of Authority 354, dated April 23, 2013, I hereby delegate, to the extent authorized by law, authority to approve the compromise, suspension, termination of Department of State collection, advance decision, settlement or waiver of claims of or against debtors of the Department of State not in excess of $500 originating at post to the Principal Officer at post.

## Section 2. General Provisions

(a) The Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, the Under Secretary for Management, or the Comptroller may at any time exercise any function delegated by this delegation of authority. Functions delegated herein may not be re-delegated.

(b) Any reference in this delegation of authority to any act, executive order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure shall be deemed to be a reference to such act, executive order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.

                    (c) This Delegation of Authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 14, 2020.

Jeffrey C. Mounts,

Comptroller, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00794 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-37-P
(October 10, 1960)

#### Amity Associates, Inc., Appellant, v. Amity Farms Shopping Center, Inc., Respondent, and Samuel J. Wishner, Impleaded-Defendant-Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Session I: Creating Institutional 

Structures for Community Level IPM

Karl Malamud-Roam, IR-4 Project

John Carroll, USDA
The Vector Control Paradigm

• Reducing contact between vectors and people 

reduces transmission of pathogens, and thus 

reduces human disease

• Disease vectors cross property lines, and are 

therefore community problems

• While repellents and other individual actions 

can help, they are rarely enough to stop 

disease outbreaks
The Vector Control Paradigm (II)

• Protecting communities from vectors and 

vector-borne diseases often requires 

community-wide integrated action

• Vector eradication is rarely possible, but 

effective vector control can reduce disease

• Integrated Vector Management (IVM) uses 

surveillance, exclusion, and biological and 

chemical control tools as appropriate
Learning from Mosquito Control

• For over 100 years, publicly funded vector 

control programs, using chemical and nonchemical tools, have protected us from 

mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria, 

yellow fever, and West Nile Virus.

• Can this model work to protect us from Lyme 

Disease and other tick-borne diseases?
Major Questions

1. Do we know enough to recommend vector 

control by local governments as a strategy to 

reduce the risk of Lyme and other tick-borne 

diseases? In what conditions?
Major Questions

2. What needs to be done to develop, 

evaluate, and promote these 

recommendations? Who will do this?

3. What research is needed to determine 

which control options will be cost-effective 

in which conditions? How should we 

measure effectiveness?
#### 1313.303 Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs).
### §1428. Temporary absence of persons performing religious duties

Any person who is authorized to perform the ministerial or priestly functions of a religious denomination having a bona fide organization within the United States, or any person who is engaged solely by a religious denomination or by an interdenominational mission organization having a bona fide organization within the United States as a missionary, brother, nun, or sister, who (1) has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, (2) has at any time thereafter and before filing an application for naturalization been physically present and residing within the United States for an uninterrupted period of at least one year, and (3) has heretofore been or may hereafter be absent temporarily from the United States in connection with or for the purpose of performing the ministerial or priestly functions of such religious denomination, or serving as a missionary, brother, nun, or sister, shall be considered as being physically present and residing in the United States for the purpose of naturalization within the meaning of section 1427(a) of this title, notwithstanding any such absence from the United States, if he shall in all other respects comply with the requirements of the naturalization law. Such person shall prove to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his absence from the United States has been solely for the purpose of performing the ministerial or priestly functions of such religious denomination, or of serving as a missionary, brother, nun, or sister.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §317, 66 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 101–649, title IV, §407(c)(3), (d)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5041.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–649, §407(d)(2), struck out "and the naturalization court" after "Attorney General".

Pub. L. 101–649, §407(c)(3), substituted "application" for "petition".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after June 27, 1952, see section 407 of act June 27, 1952, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy Inspector General

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits

 and Computer Crime Investigations

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority 

under Sections 4(a)(1), 6(a)(2), and 7(a) of the Act to open investigative cases in 

Investigation Services and Information Technology Audits and Computer Crime 

Investigations under the jurisdiction of this office, and to sign Advice of Investigation 

forms.

Specifically:

A. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG) is authorized to concur/non-concur on the 

opening of investigative cases involving allegations of misconduct by U.S. 

Department of Education employees. The Assistant Inspector General for 

Investigation (AIGI) and Assistant Inspector General for Information 

Technology Audits and Computer Crime Investigations (AIG/ITACCI) are 

authorized to open these investigative cases only with the concurrence of the 

DIG. This authority may not be redelegated.

B. The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI are authorized to open all other investigative cases.

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

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

II. RESERVATIONS

None.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

III. REDELEGATION

The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI may redelegate the authority delegated to him/her except 

as noted above, and except in those cases which involve allegations of criminal 

activity by elected or appointed officials.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

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

Delegation Control Officer, and supersedes delegations EF/EF/109 and EF/EFI/110. 

I hereby ratify action within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date 

of certification.

 __________/s/___________ 

John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/13/2004

Certified Date: 7/23/2004

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

Control Number: EF/EF/156
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Digital Turbine, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:


The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ending March 31, 2016 of the Company (the “Form 10-K/A”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: July 29, 2016By:/s/Andrew SchleimerAndrew SchleimerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
### §75a. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §293(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3237

Section, act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. B, §3A, as added Oct. 21, 1976, Pub. L. 94–582, §4, 90 Stat. 2868; amended Sept. 29, 1977, Pub. L. 95–113, title XVI, §1604(b), 91 Stat. 1026; Nov. 24, 1993, Pub. L. 103–156, §15, 107 Stat. 1530, established Federal Grain Inspection Service in Department of Agriculture and provided for cost containment plan to make the Service more efficient.
### **CHAPTER 82—STATE AGRICULTURAL LOAN MEDIATION PROGRAMS**

Sec.
5101.
Qualifying States.
5102.
Matching grants to States.
5103.
Participation of Federal agencies.
5104.
Regulations.
5105.
Report.
5106.
Authorization of appropriations.
#### Mary Mariani v. Walter J. Maher.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, on condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points upon the attorney for the respondent, and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points, together with the original record, with this court. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
### §936d. Eligibility of distribution borrowers for loans, loan guarantees, and lien accommodations

For the purpose of determining the eligibility of a distribution borrower not in default on the repayment of a loan made or guaranteed under this chapter for a loan, loan guarantee, or lien accommodation under this subchapter, a default by a borrower from which the distribution borrower purchases wholesale power shall not—

(1) be considered a default by the distribution borrower;

(2) reduce the eligibility of the distribution borrower for assistance under this chapter; or

(3) be the cause, directly or indirectly, of imposing any requirement or restriction on the borrower as a condition of the assistance, except such requirements or restrictions as are necessary to implement a debt restructuring agreed on by the power supply borrower and the Government.

(May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title III, §306D, as added Pub. L. 103–129, §2(c)(7), Nov. 1, 1993, 107 Stat. 1364.)
child The court failed to address appellant's request that respondent 

solely cover the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses incurred up to 

$18,000. 

On appeal, appellant first contends that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying her request to modify the custody 

designation under the court's prior order. But appellant did not perfect an 

appeal from the prior order and did not establish a change in 

circumstances warranting a modification. Thus, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request. 

Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) 

(providing that this court reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of 

discretion). 

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in ordering her to pay $400 monthly in child support. Although 

appellant asserts that her child support obligation should be less than 

$400 per month, the record demonstrates that the district court considered 

the disparity in the parties' incomes and the costs associated with the 

secondary health insurance policy, and thus, the court did not abuse its 

discretion in calculating appellant's child support obligation. See Wallace, 

112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543 (explaining that this court reviews a 

child support order for an abuse of discretion). 

Lastly, appellant argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in failing to address her request that respondent be responsible 

for the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses up to $18,000. She 

asserts that these costs equal more than five percent of her gross monthly 

income, and if respondent paid for all the costs, they would equal only two 

percent of his gross monthly income. See NRS 125B.085(2)(a) (providing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
J. 

that reasonable healthcare costs are five percent of the parent's monthly 

income). While the district court adjusted appellant's child support 

obligation to offset respondent's share of the cost of the secondary 

insurance policy, it appears that the district court failed to consider 

appellant's request that respondent be ordered to pay for all of the out-ofpocket expenses. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in 

failing to address appellant's request, see Wallace, 112 Nev. at 1019, 922 

P.2d at 543, and we remand this matter to the district court so that the 

court can make specific findings in regard to appellant's request that 

respondent be responsible for the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses 

up to $18,000. We affirm the district court's order as to the other claims 

raised in this appeal. 

It is so ORDERED.' 

J. 

Hardest 

Douglas 

"We further deny appellant's request that this matter be remanded 

to a different district court judge. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A (e, 
cc: Hon. Linda M. Gardner, District Judge 

Karen G. Oki 

Leslie J. Shaw 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) I947A ce:o