alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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

TeachersIMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE 

Schoolwide programs address the educational needs of children living in impoverished communities with comprehensive strategies for improving the whole school so every student achieves high levels of academic proficiency. Schoolwide programs have great latitude to determine how to organize their operations and allocate the multiple funding sources available to them. They do not have to identify particular children as eligible for services or separately track Federal dollars. Instead, schoolwide programs can use all allocated funds to increase the amount and quality of learning time. 

For additional information about schoolwide programs see:- Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidance   (March 2006)
-  Notice Authorizing Schoolwide Programs to Consolidate Federal Education Funds   and Exempting Them from Complying with Statutory or Regulatory Provisions of Those Programs (July 2, 2004)
- Legislation: Title I, Part A, Section 1114, Schoolwide Programs     Archived Information   -  Guidance on Schoolwide Programs 
-  Profiles of Successful Schoolwide Programs, December 1998  
- Re-energizing Schoolwide Programs, Speech at the Title I Conference     PPT  (5.5M)
-  Implementing Schoolwide Programs An Idea Book on Planning (October 1998)  
             Printable view  Last Modified: 06/15/2017                How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
Helping Your Child Become a Reader     *Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
#### In the Matter of Joseph A. Benzinger, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

February 28, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David E. Brennan*for petitioner.

*Maynard C. Schaus*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this court on March 13, 1957. This proceeding was commenced on October 5, 1978 on the petition of the Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District. In its petition the grievance committee charged respondent with violating canons 1, 6 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and section 155.35 of the Penal Law in placing funds from an estate in his special bank account which, on numerous occasions prior to *427distribution of the estate on June 13, 1977, contained insufficient funds to distribute to the legatees. Respondent admits the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the petition and submits himself to discipline by this court.

Presently, respondent is an Assistant Town Attorney for the Town of Hamburg. In mitigation of his misconduct respondent has made complete distribution of the estate, with interest, through the refinancing of the mortgage covering his residence, and has fully co-operated with the grievance committee. There has been no showing of any prior misconduct. Considering these facts, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years and until further order of this court.

Card amone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.
11.301 Policy. ( a ) Agencies must not require virgin material or supplies composed of or manufactured using virgin material unless compelled by law or regulation or unless virgin material is vital for safety or meeting performance requirements of the contract.
( b ) ( 1 ) When acquiring products other than commercial products as defined in 2.101, agencies must require offerors to identify used, reconditioned, or remanufactured supplies; or unused former Government surplus property proposed for use under the contract. These supplies or property may not be used in contract performance unless authorized by the contracting officer.
( 2 ) When acquiring commercial products, the contracting officer must consider the customary practices in the industry for the product being acquired. The contracting officer may require offerors to provide information on used, reconditioned, or remanufactured supplies, or unused former Government surplus property proposed for use under the contract. The request for the information must be included in the solicitation, and to the maximum extent practicable must be limited to information or standards consistent with normal commercial practices.
( c ) ( 1 ) When the contracting officer needs additional information to determine whether supplies meet minimum recovered material or biobased standards stated in the solicitation, the contracting officer may require offerors to submit additional information on the recycled or biobased content or related standards. The request for the information must be included in the solicitation. When acquiring commercial products, limit the information to the maximum extent practicable to that available under normal commercial practices.
( 2 ) For biobased products, agencies may not require, as a condition of purchase of such products, the vendor or manufacturer to provide more data than would typically be provided by other business entities offering products for sale to the agency, other than data confirming the biobased content of a product (see 7 CFR 3201.8).
[65 FR 36018, June 6, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 63043, Nov. 7, 2007; 77 FR 23367, Apr. 18, 2012; 86 FR 61021, Nov. 4, 2021. Redesignated at 89 FR 30237, Apr. 22, 2024]
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


January 30, 2006

Ingen Technologies, Inc. ("the company")
c/o Scott Sand, CEO & Chairman

Re:  Attorney's representation agreement - General Counsel

Via email attachment only

Dear Mr. Sand,

     This letter is an addendum to our representation agreement dated August 31,
2005. Use of "you" and "your" refers to the company.

     We have agreed that I will become General Counsel for the company. The term
of this agreement is the same as our agreement of August 31, 2005 (ending on
December 31, 2006). This agreement may be extended by mutual agreement.

     In exchange for becoming General Counsel of the company, we have agreed to
the following:

     - Attorney's Errors and Omissions Insurance - a portion of the proceeds of
the company's next public offering will be utilized to procure Attorney's Errors
and Omissions Insurance. Coverage will be at least as much as the amount of the
public offering.

     - I am entitled to an option for 954,545 restricted preferred shares of the
company. This letter will serve as the option itself, or you can provide the
option on an option form if you'd prefer. This option is for a period of up to
five years from the date of this agreement and is exercisable at $0.11 per
share. The option is in the name "Wilke LLC."

The option granted cannot be diluted (i.e. no adjustment to the number of shares
or the exercise price) based upon any split of the Ingen's common or preferred
stock. It is understood that the exercise of this option will dilute Ingen
shareholders by the amount of shares so purchased.

The decision about whether to exercise the stock option or any portion thereof
is subject to the control of Wilke LLC (my wife and I are the managers).
However, we will consult with Ingen management concerning the timing and amount
of shares of the exercise of the stock option.


Very Truly Yours,

/s/ Peter Wilke

PETE WILKE


Accord:
Ingen Technologies, Inc.

/s/ Scott Sand
---------------------------
Scott Sand, CEO & Chairman
- 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

The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requires co-educational institutions of postsecondary education that participate in a Title IV, federal student financial  assistance program, and have an intercollegiate athletic program, to prepare an annual report to the Department of Education on athletic participation, staffing, and revenues and expenses, by men's and women's teams. 

**Equity in athletics data is now available on the Web at: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics**. This site provides data from thousands of colleges and universities in a convenient searchable form.

**Statute and Regulations**

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) (HEOA) was enacted on August 14, 2008. This law reauthorizes and extends the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.  The Higher Education Act (HEA) provides the statutory authority for most of the programs and activities administered or conducted by the Office of Postsecondary Education, including requirements related to equity in athletics disclosure.
regulations
**Data Collection**

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Survey. This site is for institutions completing the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act survey.

----

 

 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
Exhibit
31.4



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER

THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I,
Heather Raines, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc.; and



2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report.



|Date:
    May 9, 2019 | By: | /s/
    Heather Raines                                   
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Heather
    Raines                                       
|                      |     | Chief
    Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
#### § 989.32 Noise.

Aircraft noise data files used for analysis during EIAP will be submitted to HQ AFCEE for review and validation prior to public release, and upon completion of the EIAP for database entry. Utilize the current NOISEMAP computer program for air installations and the Assessment System for Aircraft Noise for military training routes and military operating areas. Guidance on standardized Air Force noise data development and analysis procedures is available from HQ AFCEE/TDB. Develop EIAP land use analysis relating to aircraft noise impacts originating from air installations following procedures in AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program. Draft EIAP aircraft noise/land use analysis associated with air installations will be coordinated with the MAJCOM AICUZ program manager.

[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16869, Mar. 28, 2001; 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007]
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Joel M. Ellis,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Joel M. Ellis,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Argued October 1

decided October 2, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.

The defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of the trial court in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
### §4536. Dairy Research Trust Fund

#### (a) Establishment

There may be established in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the "Dairy Research Trust Fund" if the Institute is established under section 4532 of this title and a dairy products research order issued under section 4533 of this title is effective during such fiscal year.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations; transfer of moneys; investments

(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund or transferred from moneys available to the Commodity Credit Corporation for deposit in the Fund, $100,000,000.

(2) Moneys deposited in the Fund under paragraph (1) shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in obligations of the United States or any agency thereof, in general obligations of any State or any political subdivision thereof, in any interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit of a bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System, or in obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States. Interest, dividends, and other payments that accrue from such investments shall be deposited in the Fund and also shall be so invested, subject to subsection (c).

#### (c) Availability of moneys for authorized and approved activities

Moneys in the Fund, other than moneys appropriated or transferred under paragraph (1) of subsection (b), shall be available to the board, in such amounts, and for such activities authorized by this subchapter, as the Secretary may approve.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §135, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title I, §121, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1371.)
#### Shirley Fastenberg, Also Known as Shirley F. Silfen, v. Essbee Estates, Inc., et al.

Motion to dispense with printing granted only insofar as to dispense with the printing in the record on appeal of the illegible exhibits, on condition that six typewritten copies of such omitted exhibits are filed with this court simultaneously with the filing of the record on appeal. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Michael Danielewicz et al., Respondents, v Klewin Building Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[834 NYS2d 813]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Klock, Sr., A.J.), entered October 19, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Klewin Building Company, Inc.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied in its entirety.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Michael Danielewicz (plaintiff) when he fell from a 32-foot extension ladder. We agree with Klewin Building Company, Inc. (defendant) that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion that sought partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant. “In order to prevail upon such a cause of action a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated, and that the violation was a proximate cause of his [or her] injuries” *(Alava v City of New York,*246 AD2d 614, 615 [1998]). Here, plaintiffs inconsistent accounts of the manner in which the accident occurred raise issues of fact whether the statute was violated and, if so, whether that violation was a proximate cause *1195of the accident *(see e.g. Barber v Kennedy Gen. Contrs.,*302 AD2d 718, 719 [2003]; *Woodworth v American Ref-Fuel,*295 AD2d 942 [2002]; *Briggs v Halterman,*267 AD2d 753 [1999]; *Cook v Presbyterian Homes of*W. *N.Y.,*234 AD2d 906 [1996]; *Macutek v Lansing,*226 AD2d 964, 965 [1996]; *cf. Wasilewski v Museum of Modern Art,*260 AD2d 271 [1999]). In light of our determination, we see no need to address defendant’s remaining contention. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 72—NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COST OF PRODUCTION STANDARDS REVIEW BOARD**
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10(b)

                       REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL



I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life (N.Y.) Variable
Account A (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed pursuant to
paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based on my
review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material relating to
the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby certify as of
the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Post-Effective Account.

                                         /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                         -----------------------
                                         Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.


April __, 2000
- 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

## Award Year

2017-18  MS Excel (328K)

2016-17  MS Excel (362K)

2015-16  MS Excel (399K)

2014-15 MS Excel (879K)

2013-14 MS Excel (840K)

2012-13 MS Excel (908K)

2011-12 MS Excel (853K)

2010-11 MS Excel (856K)

2009-10 MS Excel (718K)

2008-09 MS Excel (829K)

2007-08 MS Excel (868K)

2006-07 MS Excel (728K)

2005-06 MS Excel (731K)

2004-05 MS Excel (728K)

2003-04 MS Excel (688K)

2002-03 MS Excel (642K)

2001-02 MS Excel (813K)

2000-01 MS Excel (866K)

1999-00 MS Excel (470K)

Program Data | OPE Policy Initiatives

----

 

 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
M. P. No. 74-117.

#### Raymond J. Martin *et ux. v.*Dr. Richard Kraemer *et al.*

*McGee, Gifford, Farrelly & Keough, Joseph A. Keough,*for plaintiffs-respondents. *Edward L. Gnys, Jr.,*for defendant-petitioner George Mitchell.

Motion of respondents to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court under Rule 16(g), as amended, is denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135998 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135998 

 COA: 281750 

Muskegon CC: 06-054222-FH

ANIBAL DIAZ MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Vincent D. O’Connor, Respondent, v. Liza Blacktop Corp. et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants *504appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 18, 1960, which grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out defendants’ answer and directs an assessment of damages. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER I—SHORT TITLE, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS