alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 552.62 Advertising rules and educational programs. ( a ) The Department of the Army expects that commercial enterprises soliciting military personnel through advertisements appearing in unofficial military publications will voluntarily observe the highest business ethics in describing both the goods, services, and commodities and the terms of the sale (such as guarantees and warranties). If not, the publisher of the military publication will request the advertiser to observe them. The advertising of credit will conform to the provisions of the Truth-in-Lending Act, as implemented by Regulation Z, published by the Federal Reserve Board (12 CFR part 226).
( b ) Commanders will provide appropriate information and educational programs to provide members of the Army with information pertaining to the conduct of their personal commercial affairs (e.g., the protections and remedies offered consumers under the Truth-in-Lending Act, insurance, Government benefits, savings, estate planning, and budgeting). The services or representatives of credit unions, banks, and nonprofit military associations approved by HQDA may be used for this purpose provided their programs are entirely educational. Under no circumstances will the services of commercial agents, including loan or finance companies and their associations, be used for this purpose. Educational materials prepared or used by outside organizations or experts in this field may be adapted or used with applicable permission, provided the material is entirely educational and does not contain applications or contract forms.
§ 935.122 Arrests. ( a ) Any person may make an arrest on Wake Island, without a warrant, for any crime (including a petty offense) that is committed in his presence.
( b ) Any peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest any person on Wake Island who violates any provision of this part or commits a crime that is not a violation of this part, in his presence, or that he reasonably believes that person to have committed.
( c ) In making an arrest, a peace officer must display a warrant, if he has one, or otherwise clearly advise the person arrested of the violation alleged, and thereafter require him to submit and be taken before the appropriate official on Wake Island.
( d ) In making an arrest, a peace officer may use only the degree of force needed to effect submission, and may remove any weapon in the possession of the person arrested.
( e ) A peace officer may, whenever necessary to enter any building, vehicle, or aircraft to execute a warrant of arrest, force an entry after verbal warning.
( f ) A peace officer may force an entry into any building, vehicle, or aircraft whenever— ( 1 ) It appears necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or damage to property and time does not permit the obtaining of a warrant;
( 2 ) To effect an arrest when in hot pursuit; or
( 3 ) To prevent the commission of a crime which he reasonably believes is being committed or is about to be committed.
#### § 935.124 Release from custody.

The Chief Judge may authorize the Clerk to issue pro forma orders of the Court discharging any person from custody, with or without bail, pending trial, whenever further restraint is not required for protection of persons or property on Wake Island. Persons not so discharged shall be brought before a Judge or U.S. Magistrate as soon as a Judge or Magistrate is available. Judges may discharge defendants from custody, with or without bail or upon recognizance, or continue custody pending trial as the interests of justice and public safety require.
1333.102 General. ( a ) Contracting officers shall promptly notify the Procurement Counsel, and seek legal advice upon receiving notice that a protest has been filed in any forum.
( b ) The designee authorized to determine that a solicitation, proposed award, or award under protest does not comply with the requirements of law or regulation, and to take the actions specified at FAR 33.102 (b) is set forth in CAM 1301.70. Corrective action shall only be taken after consultation with Procurement Counsel.
Fiscal Year 2019 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DELAWARE

No data No data No data

LEA ID District FY 2019 Title I Allocation

1000080 Appoquinimink School District 1,228,527

1001240 Brandywine School District 3,737,368

1000180 Caesar Rodney School District 2,794,250

1000170 Cape Henlopen School District 1,509,903

1000190 Capital School District 4,454,602

1000200 Christina School District 11,108,446

1000230 Colonial School District 5,356,498

1000270 Delmar School District 298,157

1000680 Indian River School District 3,823,169

1000790 Lake Forest School District 2,187,495

1000810 Laurel School District 1,101,746

1001080 Milford School District 1,983,643

1001300 Red Clay Consolidated School District 7,567,165

1001530 Seaford School District 2,131,478

1001620 Smyrna School District 1,286,448

1001850 Woodbridge School District 1,544,824

1099999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

No data No data No data

* 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 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.

X0AT
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.602 Mission.

To decide, in accordance with standards of naval law and discipline and the standards for discharge review set forth in subpart I, whether a discharge or dismissal from the naval service is proper and equitable, or whether it should be changed.
§ 750.46 Applicable law. ( a ) *Claims arising within the United States, Territories, Commonwealth, and Possessions.* The law of the place where the act or omission occurred will be applied in determining liability and the effect of contributory or comparative negligence on claimant's right of recovery.
( b ) *Claims within foreign countries.* ( 1 ) Where the claim is for personal injury, death, or damage to or loss or destruction of real or personal property caused by an act or omission determined to be negligent, wrongful, or otherwise involving fault of DON personnel acting within the scope of their employment, liability of the United States will be assessed under general principles of tort law common to the majority of American jurisdictions.
( 2 ) Apply the law of the foreign country governing the legal effect of contributory or comparative negligence by the claimant to determine the relative merits of the claim. If there is no foreign law on contributory or comparative negligence, apply traditional rules of contributory negligence. Apply foreign rules and regulations on operation of motor vehicles (rules of the road) to the extent those rules are not specifically superseded or preempted by U.S. Armed Forces traffic regulations.
( c ) *Principles applicable to all MCA claims.* ( 1 ) “Scope of employment” is determined in accordance with Federal law. Reported FTCA cases provide guidance on this determination;
( 2 ) Claims for emotional distress will be considered only from the injured person or members of the injured person's immediate family. Claims from the injured person's immediate “zone of danger” (*i.e.*, immediate vicinity of the incident) and the claimant substantiates the claim with proof of the physical manifestation(s) of the emotional distress; and
( 3 ) Claims under the MCA do not include the principles of absolute liability and punitive damages.
( d ) *Clarification of terms.* Federal law determines the meaning and construction of the MCA.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53420, Sept. 19, 2007]
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OLANDO C HIQUETE-VER DUGO, AKA R ola

ndo Ve rdugo, DB A R ola

ndo C hique te Ve rdugo, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-72136 Age n c y No. A205-316-189 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. R ola ndo C hique te -Ve rdugo, a nat ive and c i tiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his re que s t for a c ontinua nc e . W e have 

# FIL E D DEC 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a c ontinua nc e , a nd re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola t ions. SandovalLuna v . Muk

ase y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing C h ique te -Ve rdugo’ s re que s t for a

furthe r c ontinua

n c e for fa ilure to de m onstra te good c a

use . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29; Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th C ir. 2009) (fa c tors c onside re d in de te rm ining whe the r the de nia l of a c ontinua nc e c onstitute s an a b use of disc re tion inc l ude the nature of the e vide nc e e xc lude d a s a re sult of the de nia l). Furthe rm ore , the de nia l of C hique te -Ve rdugo’ s re q ue st for a c ontinua nc e did not viola

te his dueproc e ss rights, where he ha s not provide d suffic ie nt e vide nc e of e ligibility

for re lie f that would de m onstra te pre judic e . Se eLata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror an d pre judic e to pre va il on a due proc e ss c la im ). C hique te -Ve rdugo’ s c la im tha t he wa s de nie d a

full a nd fa ir he aring a lso fa ils. Se eid. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 2 1 3 6 2
M. P. No. 74-290.

#### Florence T. Concannon *v.*Richard Concannon *et al.*

*Edwards & Angelí, John Fenn Brill,*for Rhode Island Bankers Association, amicus curiae.

Petition of the Rhode Island Bankers Association for leave to appear as amicus curiae is granted.

Paolino and Joslin, JJ. not participating.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 01 43 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 077 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### In the Matter of Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant, v. William Malone, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court. The order finally determines a special proceeding. Motion granted. Pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 589, subd. 4, par. [a]), we certify that questions of law have arisen which in our opinion ought to he reviewed by the Court of Appeals. We further certify that the said order was made solely on the law and not in the exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
14.501 General. Two-step sealed bidding is a combination of competitive procedures designed to obtain the benefits of sealed bidding when adequate specifications are not available. An objective is to permit the development of a sufficiently descriptive and not unduly restrictive statement of the Government's requirements, including an adequate technical data package, so that subsequent acquisitions may be made by conventional sealed bidding. This method is especially useful in acquisitions requiring technical proposals, particularly those for complex items. It is conducted in two steps: ( a ) Step one consists of the request for, submission, evaluation, and (if necessary) discussion of a technical proposal. No pricing is involved. The objective is to determine the acceptability of the supplies or services offered. As used in this context, the word *technical* has a broad connotation and includes, among other things, the engineering approach, special manufacturing processes, and special testing techniques. It is the proper step for clarification of questions relating to technical requirements. Conformity to the technical requirements is resolved in this step, but not responsibility as defined in 9.1.
( b ) Step two involves the submission of sealed priced bids by those who submitted acceptable technical proposals in step one. Bids submitted in step two are evaluated and the awards made in accordance with subparts 14.3 and 14.4.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1739, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
**MEMORANDUM**

TO:Principal Officers

FROM:The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) (Public Law 96-88), 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to you for employees in your Principal Office the authority described in 34 C.F.R. Part 8 regarding demands issued to Departmental employees for testifying or records in legal proceedings.  This authority only applies to legal proceedings in which the United States is not a party.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the existing authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATION

The authority should be exercised in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may be redelegated to Senior officials in your office who report directly to you.  No other redelegation is permitted.

IV. CERTIFICATION 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/___________

        Richard W. Riley

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

OGC Clearance and Date:/s/ R. Wexler, 9/2/92

Certified Date:   9/4/92

Control No.    EA/EP/183

Certified by:   /s/ Wilma J. Hodo______________

                       Departmental Delegations Control Officer

Addressees:

Principal Officers and List and PO Control No.

EA/EB/132 – Deputy Secretary

EA/EC/150 – Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

EA/EE/3 – Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning

EA/EF/58 – Inspector General

EA/EG/54 – General Counsel

EA/EH/61 – Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

EA/EJ/22 - Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs

EA/EK/75 - Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

EA/EL/43 – Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget/CFO

EA/EM/180 – Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration

EA/EP/183 - Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

EA/ES/42 - Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education

EA/ET/34 - Director, OBEMLA

EA/EV/40 - Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education

EA/EI/2 – Chief Information Officer

 EA/EN/2 – Chief Operating Officer, FSA

EA/EQ/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools

EA/ER/1 – Director, Institute of Education Sciences

EA/EU/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00644 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
### §394a. Overtime of employees working at establishments which prepare virus, serum, toxin, and analogous products

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to pay employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry employed in establishments subject to the provisions of section 157 of title 21, for all overtime, night, or holiday work performed at such establishments, at such rates as he may determine, and to accept from such establishments wherein such overtime work is performed reimbursement for any sums paid out by him for such overtime work.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 392, 63 Stat. 495.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Bureau of Animal Industry transferred to Secretary of Agriculture by 1947 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §301, eff. July 1, 1947, 12 F.R. 4534, 61 Stat. 952. See note set out under section 391 of this title.
February 17, 2012 Docket Management Facility U.S. Department ofTransportation, 1200 New Jersey Av. SE West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, D.C. 20590 f : 1 ':**~** !·**~I ~·**  1 • ! I

- '"f"l**-~~-** 

## '2**~~.** 

## l. 8**~-** .J.**~. ~**  _,...... ·, 1**i""-'"'~** •**~.r**

Ref: Sun Country Slot Exemption-Docket Number FAA-2012-0089 Ladies and Gentlemen: www.ICCUonline.com

Sun Country Airlines has requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) set forth in 93.123(a), to permitthe FAA to create air carrier slots during certain limited hours for Sun Country's use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot exemptions under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun Country. On January 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit vacated the DOT Order, and Sun Country will lose its existing se.r\lke betwee'n

### DCA a'nd'Uinsirig's Capital Region International Airport. Specifically, Sun Country desires 

## o·ne·daily slot during 'each-ofthe 1000 and 1100 hours. The proposed exemption would permit Sun Country to continue operating its existing services and avoid an inequitable result ofthe Court's order. When the need to travel to Washington D.C. arises, we preferto fly out of Lansing's Capital Region International Airport. By allowing Sun Country Airline multipliable slots would increase the likely hood of us using acloser and more convenient airport (Lansing). The Sun Country DCA service is essential to the economic growth ofthe Greater Lansing Region. The · daily service is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to Washington Reagan Airport, in the state of Michigan outside of Detroit. Prior to Sun Country, the regional community had requested the introduction ofthis service from numerous other airline operators without success. Accordingly, it is critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to ensure the continuation ofthe Sun Country slots at the established flight times-in support ofGreater Lansing's business and economic growth. Your immediate approval ofthis exemption, so that Sun Country can begin to enterflights schedules for sale forthe balance of2012, will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

# ~-o~. 

# 0'1
.)
. JayAndersi ·President/tEo , ': : .·· '
.... lsabe.liaCominunlt'y Credit Union>'·

'· .·• ·. •' "•. ,' 

### .. -.. -._.**~·-** ._.. ·_ \ :.,.. . ..' :-. 

### .'. 

# . ..· ,.**-~** . :.
.,_ .......**~**... : >":**-~**

2400 South Isabella Road • PO Box 427, Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48804-0427 • 989.773.5927 or 1.866.773.5927