alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fiscal Year 2016 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

FY 2016 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4400030 Barrington School District 97,888

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 564,935

4400090 Burrillville School District 445,170

4400120 Central Falls School District 3,127,250

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 344,706

4400210 Coventry School District 623,583

4400240 Cranston School District 2,896,315

4400270 Cumberland School District 608,023

4400300 East Greenwich School District 199,882

4400330 East Providence School District 1,592,501

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 160,384

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 105,253

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 105,327

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 86,177

4400510 Jamestown School District 135,757

4400540 Johnston School District 904,676

4400570 Lincoln School District 472,774

4400600 Little Compton School District 41,863

4400630 Middletown School District 304,400

4400660 Narragansett School District 202,275

4400690 New Shoreham School District 2,648

4400720 Newport School District 873,100

4400750 North Kingstown School District 543,391

4400780 North Providence School District 893,492

4400810 North Smithfield School District 189,110

4400840 Pawtucket School District 5,278,580

4400870 Portsmouth School District 282,467

4400900 Providence School District 20,296,536

4400960 Scituate School District 253,742

4400990 Smithfield School District 234,592

4401020 South Kingstown School District 452,427

4401050 Tiverton School District 211,851

4401110 Warwick School District 1,661,207

4401140 West Warwick School District 983,876

4401170 Westerly School District 527,831

4401200 Woonsocket School District 4,764,891

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* 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.
#### William Wolff et al., Respondents, v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., Appellant.

Order, entered on January 15, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### Alfoncino Pace *v.*Clark, Hall and Peck et al.

House, C. J., Cotter, Shapiro, Loiselle and MacDonald, Js.

Argued October 2

decision released November 12, 1974

*David M. Reilly, Jr.,*for the appellant (named defendant and third-party plaintiff).

*Stanley A. Jacobs,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Bruce W. Thompson,*for the appellee (third-party defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action seeking damages for injuries which she alleged were sustained as .a result of the negligence of the named defendant when she fell leaving the ladies’ room *293at the office of that defendant. From the judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the named defendant appealed, claiming, among other assignments of error, that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in refusing to set aside the verdict for lack of evidence on the issue of liability, there being no proof that any negligence on its part was a proximate cause of the injuries which the plaintiff alleged.

The record discloses that the elderly plaintiff failed to offer any evidence as to what caused her to fall. At the trial, she was unable to recall the circumstances of the accident and her only explanation of the fall was contained in her deposition which, over objection, was read to the jury. In response to the direct question, “What made you fall?” her reply was, “I was coming out of the bathroom, anybody can happen — so I just fell on the steps, and I fell.”

In the absence of any evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the defendant was negligent or, assuming they could reasonably and logically find that the defendant was'negligent, that that negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

There is error and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.
### §6e. Dealings by unregistered floor trader or broker prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any person to act as floor trader in executing purchases and sales, or as floor broker in executing any orders for the purchase or sale, of any commodity for future delivery, or involving any contracts of sale of any commodity for future delivery, on or subject to the rules of any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility unless such person shall have registered, under this chapter, with the Commission as such floor trader or floor broker and such registration shall not have expired nor been suspended nor revoked.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §4e, as added June 15, 1936, ch. 545, §5, 49 Stat. 1495; amended Pub. L. 93–463, title I, §103(a), Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1392; Pub. L. 102–546, title II, §207(a), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3604; Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §123(a)(6)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–407.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–554 inserted "or derivatives transaction execution facility" after "contract market".

1992—Pub. L. 102–546 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person to act as floor broker in executing any orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or involving any contracts of sale of any commodity for future delivery, on or subject to the rules of any contract market unless such person shall have registered, under this chapter, with the Commission as such floor broker and such registration shall not have expired nor been suspended nor revoked."

1974—Pub. L. 93–463 substituted "Commission" for "Secretary of Agriculture".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Pub. L. 102–546, title II, §207(c), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3604, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 6f, 6g, 12a, and 13a–2 of this title] shall become effective one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 1992], and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall issue any regulations necessary to implement the amendments made by this section no later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act."

#### Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 93–463, see section 418 of Pub. L. 93–463, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

#### Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 13 of act June 15, 1936, set out as an Effective Date of 1936 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of CyanotechCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gerald R. Cysewski, Chief Executive Officer of the Companycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  |   | June 26, 2006 |   | /s/ Gerald R.  Cysewski                  |
|--------|--------|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |   |               |   | Gerald R.  Cysewski,                     |
|   |   |               |   | *Chairman  of the Board of Directors,*   |
|   |   |               |   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:19
1404.402 General. ( a ) The DOI has entered into an agreement with the DOD to be covered by the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). The agreement is contained in 443 DM 1, Appendix 1.
( b ) Classified acquisitions or contracts (see FAR 4.401) shall be subject to the instructions contained in the DOD publications listed in FAR 4.402(b).
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-019-CR

MERRY KUBICEK APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 367 DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App.

P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received

this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 23, 2008
### §6805. Exclusion; determinations

#### (a) Exclusion

An order shall exclude from assessments under the order any sale of cut flowers or cut greens for export from the United States.

#### (b) Making determinations

#### (1) In general

For the purpose of applying the $750,000 annual sales limitation to a specific person in order to determine the status of the person as a qualified handler or an exempt handler under section 6802(4) of this title, or to a specific facility in order to determine the status of the facility as an eligible separate facility under section 6806(b)(2) of this title, an order issued under this chapter shall provide that—

(A) a determination of the annual sales volume of a person or facility shall be based on the sales of cut flowers and cut greens by the person or facility during the most recently-completed calendar year, except as provided in subparagraph (B); and

(B) in the case of a new business or other operation for which complete data on sales during all or part of the most recently-completed calendar year are not available to the PromoFlor Council, the determination may be made using an alternative time period or other alternative procedure specified in the order.

#### (2) Rule of attribution

#### (A) In general

For the purpose of determining the annual sales volume of a person or a separate facility of a person, sales attributable to a person shall include—

(i) in the case of an individual, sales attributable to the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, and grandparents of the person;

(ii) in the case of a partnership or member of a partnership, sales attributable to the partnership and other partners of the partnership;

(iii) in the case of an individual or a partnership, sales attributable to any corporation or other entity in which the individual or partnership owns more than 50 percent of the stock or (if the entity is not a corporation) that the individual or partnership controls; and

(iv) in the case of a corporation, sales attributable to any corporate subsidiary or other corporation or entity in which the corporation owns more than 50 percent of the stock or (if the entity is not a corporation) that the corporation controls.

#### (B) Stock and ownership interest

For the purpose of this paragraph, stock or an ownership interest in an entity that is owned by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, or partners of an individual, or by a partnership in which a person is a partner, or by a corporation more than 50 percent of the stock of which is owned by a person, shall be treated as owned by the individual or person.

#### (3) Reports

For the purpose of this subsection, the order may require a person who sells cut flowers or cut greens to retailers to submit reports to the PromoFlor Council on annual sales by the person.

(Pub. L. 103–190, §6, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2283.)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10161

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN LERAY HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CR-111-6-P

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

December 14, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Attorney Alexander Calhoun was appointed to represent Kevin

Henderson, and he has now moved for leave to withdraw and filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Henderson received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, and has

filed a response which discusses a difference between the amount

of drugs specified in his indictment and the amount specified in

sentencing calculations. 

Henderson’s argument is frivolous because our recent

decisions explain that a fact used in sentencing calculations
No. 00-10161

-2-

which does not increase a penalty beyond the statutory maximum

need not be alleged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. See United States v. Keith, __ F.3d __, 2000

WL 1532802 (5th Cir. 2000). In this case, the sentence Henderson

received was increased because of the greater amount of drugs,

but it was still less than the statutory maximum. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no other non-frivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerome S. Flum,
Chief Executive 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 2002,
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 results of operations
            of the Company.


                                   By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                           Jerome S. Flum
                                           Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CRM and will be retained by CRM and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1332.202-1 Policy.

The designee authorized to approve unusual contract financing is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__ 2011

________ - NM -

____ 116

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### 1602.170-15 Subcontractor.

*Subcontractor* means any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor, except for providers of direct medical services or supplies pursuant to the Carrier's health benefits plan.

[52 FR 16038, May 1, 1987. Redesignated at 53 FR 51783, Dec. 23, 1988, and further redesignated at 55 FR 27414, July 2, 1990; 62 FR 47574, Sept. 10, 1997 and 76 FR 38285, June 29, 2011]
#### 1501.101 Purpose.

This subpart establishes Chapter 15, the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR), within Title 48, the Federal Acquisition Regulations System.

[60 FR 38505, July 27, 1995]
#### State of Connecticut *v.*James Smalls

*Donald A. Browne,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Alan Neigher,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted unless the defendant files a request for a finding and draft finding on or before November 4,1974.
#### Gerald Robinson, Respondent, v Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Company, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Plastic Jewel Parts Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 21, 1978, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements, unless plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $600,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The damages proven by plaintiff warranted a verdict no greater than the amount specified above to which his recovery should be limited. Other than excessiveness of the verdict, the court finds no points meriting disturbance of the judgment. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
February 12, 2014

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M)

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

US EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460-0001

Attention: TSCA Section 4

40 CFR 799.5089 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112

RE: Letter from Lynne Oreschnigg to John Schaeffer dated October 11, 2013, Hunstman Study 

Submission, CBIC Control Number 356399

Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals

2-Oxiranemethanamine, N-[4-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]-N-(2-oxiranylmethyl)- (CAS No.

5026-74-4)

To Whom It May Concern:

Huntsman's understanding is health and safety studies cannot be claimed CBI. The studies submitted are 

non-CBI in the hard copy that was provided. However, while the studies can be viewed as non-CBI, the 

disclaimer on every page (as below) cannot be removed as it restricts the public from using the studies for 

regulatory or registration purposes. 

“The use of these studies/documents for regulatory or registration purposes, including but not 

limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances 

(REACH), without express written permission of Huntsman International LLC is unauthorized and 

strictly prohibited.”

Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions and/or additional information is required.

Sincerely,

Lynne Oreschnigg

Regulatory Compliance Specialist

Huntsman Corporation

Phone: 281-719-3021

Fax: 281-719-3050

lynne_oreschnigg@huntsman.com

HUNTSMAN CORPORATION

10003 Woodloch Forest Drive, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, USA

Tel.: +1-281-719-6000 Fax .: +1-281-719-6416 www.huntsman.com
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Larry E. Finger, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.



|            |  |                                                                                                     
|----------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            |  | /s/ LARRY E. FINGER                                                                                 
|May 2, 2007 |  | Larry E. Finger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer)