alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FY 2018 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 117

Table 6.

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended, requires agencies to make 

regular and consistent inflationary adjustments of civil monetary penalties to maintain their deterrent effect. To 

improve compliance with the act, and in response to multiple audits and recommendations, agencies should report 

annually in the Other Information section the most recent inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties to ensure 

penalty adjustments are both timely and accurate.

Location for Penalty Update Details:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/16/2018-00614/adjustment-of-civil-monetary-penalties-for-inflation

Penalty Authority Date of Previous 

Adjustment

Date of Current 

Adjustment

Current Penalty 

Level

Failure to provide information for cost of higher education 20 USC 

1015(c)(5) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $37,601 

Failure to provide information regarding teacherpreparation programs20 USC 

1022d(a)(3) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $31,320

Violation of Title IV of the HEA 20 USC 1082(g) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $55,907

Violation of Title IV of the HEA 20 USC 

1094(c)(3)(B) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $55,907

Failure to disclose information to minor children and parents 20 USC 

1228c(c)(2)(E) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $1,650

Improper lobbying for government grants and contracts 31 USC 

1352(c)(1) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $19,639 to $196,387

False claims and statements 31 USC 3802(a)(1) 20-Apr-17 15-Jan-18 $11,181
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Family Allowances in Various Countries, 1944-45

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					 and 	Waggaman, Mary T. (Mary Theresa). 						*Family Allowances in Various Countries, 1944-45 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 853*,												Washington: 								For sale by the Supt. of Docs, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1946,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4319,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §9094. Assignment of payments

#### (a) In general

The provisions of section 590h(g) of title 16, relating to assignment of payments, shall apply to payments made under this chapter.

#### (b) Notice

The producer making the assignment, or the assignee, shall provide the Secretary with notice, in such manner as the Secretary may require, of any assignment made under this section.

(Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1611, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 710.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 113–79, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 649, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.
§ 2400.29 Accountability and control. ( a ) Each item of Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential information is subject to control and accountability requirements.
( b ) The Security Officer will serve as Top Secret Control Officer (TSCO) for the Office of Science and Technology Policy and will be responsible for the supervision of the Top Secret control program. He/she will be assisted by an Assistant Top Secret Control Officer (ATSCO) to effect the Controls prescribed herein for all Top Secret material.
( c ) The TSCO shall receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for Top Secret information. The records shall show the number and distribution of all Top Secret documents, including any reproduced copies.
( d ) Top Secret documents and material will be accounted for by a continuous chain of receipts.
( e ) An inventory of Top Secret documents shall be made at least annually.
( f ) Destruction of Top Secret documents shall be accomplished only by the TSCO or the ATSCO.
( g ) Records shall be maintained to show the number and distribution of all classified documents covered by special access programs, and of all Secret and Confidential documents which are marked with special dissemination and reproduction limitations.
( h ) The Security Officer will develop procedures for the accountability and control of Secret and Confidential information. These procedures shall require all Secret and Confidential material originated or received by OSTP to be controlled. Control shall be accomplished by the ATSCO.
#### 1239.7100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart includes Privacy Act and data protection considerations for DOT contracts. Data protection requirements are in addition to provisions concerning the general protection of individual privacy (*see* FAR subpart 24.1) and privacy in the acquisition of information technology (*see* FAR 39.105). DOT rules and regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 are located at 49 CFR part 10.
#### 1352.246-70 Place of acceptance.

As prescribed in 1346.503, insert the following clause:

# Place of Acceptance (APR 2010)

(a) The Contracting Officer or the duly authorized representative will accept supplies and services to be provided under this contract.

(b) The place of acceptance will be:

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
No. 772.

#### Murle L. Rowe, as Trustee, etc. *v.*James L. Drohen et al.

April 19, 1920.

*Mr. Herman J. Westwood*for petitioner.

*Mr. Grafton L. McGill*and *Mr. Francis S. Maguire*for respondents.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### 1352.271-82 Department of Labor occupational safety and health standards for ship repair.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.113, insert the following clause:

# Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Ship Repair (APR 2010)

The contractor, in performance of all work under the contract, shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.15. Nothing contained in this contract shall be construed as relieving the contractor from any obligations which it may have for compliance with the aforesaid regulations.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
### §511j. Publication of violations

The Secretary is authorized to publish the facts regarding any violation of this chapter.

(Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 623, §11, 49 Stat. 734.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Panhandle Royalty Company ("Panhandle")
on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, HW
Peace II, Chief Executive Officer of Panhandle, 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 Panhandle.

                                 /s/ HW Peace II
                                 ---------------




HW Peace II
President &
Chief Executive Officer

December 18, 2002




                                       50
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOY MACK,

Appellant,

v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, FSB f/k/a

WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3799

[December 5, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10024485.

Joy Mack, Hollywood, pro se.

Jason F. Joseph of the Tromberg Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

to the

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF CALVIN EXPLORATION, INC.

JUNE 4, 1991





Article 1 of the Articles of Incorporation shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Name

The name of the Corporation shall be CLX, Inc.



Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation shall be amended to read as follows:

Capital Stock



The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 52,000,000 shares, consisting of 50,000,000 shares of common stock having a par value of $.01 per share (the common shares) and 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock having a par value of $.01 per share (the preferred shares)..
126 FY 2017 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

This effort strives to bring a new approach to the 

workplace at the Department, by building greater 

employee performance and productivity through 

innovative space designs and technology enhancements, 

while reducing the agency’s space footprint and associated 

out-year costs. The project will also allow the agency to 

meet the new federal space guidelines (150–180 usable 

square footage/person vs. the current usable square 

footage of 338).

THE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGES ARE:

 Limited IT tools to support new mobile workforce,

 IT infrastructure is outdated,

 In some cases, telework expansion has outpaced 

space designs, and

 Agency employee recruitment efforts restricted to 

a limited number of states, limiting the size of the 

mobile workforce.

THE DEPARTMENT STRATEGY IS TO:

 Upgrade the IT infrastructure,

 Provide mobile workers with 21st century tools,

 Strengthen the Performance Management Program, 

 Promote cultural acceptance of a mobile workforce,

 Design innovative work spaces,

 Implement an Electronic Records Management 

System, and

 Reduce the space footprint.

The square footage totals are for the office and warehouse 

domestic assets, which are assets located in the 50 states, 

Washington, D.C., and United States territories. The 

square footage total includes owned and leased assets. 

Updated square footage information is posted on the 

performance.gov website.

REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT

Table 5. Reduce the Footprint Baseline Comparison

FY 2015 Baseline 2016 Change (FY 2015 Baseline–2016)

Square Footage 1,548,425 1,381,775 (166,650)
#### 1328.106-2 Substitution of surety bonds.

The designee authorized to approve substituting a new surety bond for the previously approved original bond is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
### §1405. Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §305, 66 Stat. 237.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Admission of Hawaii as State

Hawaii Statehood provisions as not repealing, amending, or modifying the provisions of this section, see section 20 of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 13, set out as a note at the beginning of chapter 3 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
#### Charles Benton *v.*Edwin Benton

*Gordon A. Evans,*in support of the motion.

Submitted July 25

decided July 30, 1974

The defendant’s motion for a review of the order of the trial court dated July 16, 1974, terminating the stay of *judgment in*the appeal *from*the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.
NUMBER 13-11-00445-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

CAMBPELL STEWART HEISS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 52nd District Court

of Coryell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Campbell Stewart Heiss, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion 

to dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having 
2

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed 10th 

day of November, 2011.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Functional Statements >  Office of the Secretary

## Office of the Secretary (OS)

                - OS Functional Statement
                - OS Organization Chart    PDF (86KB)
                -  OS Delegations of Authority 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Feb-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    May-30-1999              
<CASH>                              723,000
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    12,960,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                      23,417,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 38,021,000
<PP&E>                           11,663,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    8,397,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   46,453,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            29,904,000
<BONDS>                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0 
<PREFERRED>                               0 
<COMMON>                          1,267,000          
<OTHER-SE>                       17,438,000          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     45,453,000          
<SALES>                          10,705,000          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 17,165,000          
<CGS>                             8,186,000         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    11,190,000         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    139,000       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  332,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (1,370,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,370,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0     
<CHANGES>                                 0     
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,370,000)              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .26       
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .26       
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Eugene J. Donnelly et al., as Assessors of the City of Buffalo, Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal by petitioner from order of Erie Special Term denying a motion of petitioner to *878strike out as sham the denials by respondents with respect to the equalization rate for City of Buffalo.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herman Mendel, Appellant.

Motion for reargument, or in the alternative, for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs.
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John A. Luce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ John A. Luce 
John A. Luce, 
Chief Financial Officer
April 30, 2009

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

---
(January 20, 1961)

#### In the Matter of the Estate of Jennie M. Speroni, Deceased. Leo Pollack, Appellant; Iride Donohue, as Administratrix, Respondent.

Motion for final order of dismissal granted on default, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### (A) Edwin A. Ellis et al., Respondents, v. Morris Kaufman, Appellant. (B) Hugo Di Giulio, Respondent, v. Marion L. Di Giulio, Appellant.

[In each action] Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation.
#### 1239.101-71 Scope.

This subpart applies to all acquisitions of products or services supporting the development or maintenance of software.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6597** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICKY EUGENE EVERHART, a/k/a Red , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:03

- cr - 00034

- RLV

- 1; 5:11

- cv - 00119

- RLV )

Submitted : August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, D IAZ , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ricky Eugene Everhart, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Eugene Everhart seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) m otion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability w ill not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would fi nd that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclu de that Everhart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED