alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7611. Standards for Federal funding of agricultural research, extension, and education

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall ensure that agricultural research, extension, or education activities described in subsection (b) address a concern that—

(1) is a priority, as determined under section 7612(a) of this title; and

(2) has national, multistate, or regional significance.

#### (b) Application

Subsection (a) applies to—

(1) research activities conducted by the Agricultural Research Service; and

(2) research, extension, or education activities administered, on a competitive basis, by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

(Pub. L. 105–185, title I, §101, June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 526; Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7511(c)(29), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7511(c)(29), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2031.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 110–246, §7511(c)(29), substituted "National Institute of Food and Agriculture" for "Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service".

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

Amendment by section 7511(c)(29) of Pub. L. 110–246 effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 7511(c) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 1522 of this title.
§ 750.41 Scope of subpart C. This section prescribes the substantive bases and special procedural requirements for the settlement of claims against the United States for death, personal injury, or damage, loss, or destruction of property: ( a ) *Caused by military personnel or civilian employees of the Department of the Navy (DON) (hereinafter DON personnel).* For the purposes of this section, DON personnel include all military personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps, volunteer workers, and others serving as employees of the DON with or without compensation, and members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or of the Public Health Service when serving with the DON. DON personnel does not include DON contractors or their employees.
( b ) *Incident to noncombat activities of the DON.* Claims for personal injury or death of a member of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard, or civilian officer or employee of the U.S. Government whose injury or death is incident to service, however, are not payable.
( c ) *Territorial limitation.* There is no geographical limitation on the application of the MCA, but if a claim arising in a foreign country is cognizable under the Foreign Claims Act (10 U.S.C. 2734), the claim shall be processed under that statute. See 10 U.S.C. 2733(b)(2).
( d ) *Suit.* The MCA authorizes the administrative settlement and payment of certain claims. The United States has not consented to be sued.
### §954. Grades and standards for classification

The Secretary is authorized to establish and promulgate grades and standards for the classification of peanuts, whenever in his discretion he may see fit.

(June 24, 1936, ch. 745, §4, 49 Stat. 1899.)
#### § 37.610 Must I tell participants what requirements they are to flow down for subrecipients' systems?

If it is an expenditure-based award, your TIA must require participants to flow down the same financial management, property management, and purchasing systems requirements to a subrecipient that would apply if the subrecipient were a participant. For example, a for-profit participant would flow down to a university subrecipient the requirements that apply to a university participant. Note that this policy applies to subawards for substantive performance of portions of the research project supported by the TIA, and not to participants' purchases of goods or services needed to carry out the research.
- 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 Legislative and Congressional Affairs

## V. Primary Delegations of Authority 

The Secretary has delegated the following authorities to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs, subject to certain reservations:- Authority to carry out the Congressional relations functions of the Department.
- Authority to sign Federal Register notices other than policy statements and interpretations, including notices of meetings and workshops.
   Printable view  Last Modified: 05/01/2020How 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* 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 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
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 6286 (12 C 1487) DATE 1/8/2013

CASE

TITLE

In Re: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Pursuant to Stipulation [268], all claims and counterclaims between plaintiff and defendant Discover

Financial Services, are dismissed with prejudice, and Discover Financial Services is dismissed as a party in

this case, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Civil case terminated.

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

MD

12C6286 In Re: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01487 Document #: 36 Filed: 01/08/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:384
#### BALLANTYNE v. STEENWERTH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 30, 1903.)

1. Executors — Pull Statutory Costs — Liability—Review.

An order awarding full statutory costs against a defendant executor, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1836, on the ground that the claim was unreasonably resisted or neglected, could not be disturbed on appeal, where the motion therefor was based not alone' on the affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, but on all the proceedings in the action, which were not before the reviewing court.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

■ Action by Amelia B. Ballantyne against John H. Steenwerth, as executor of Phillip Steichelmann, deceased. From an order granting full statutory costs and disbursements to plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HIRSCHBERG, JJ.

Fred L. Gross, for appellant.

Metcalf B. Hatch, for respondent.

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The county court has awarded to the plaintiff full costs against the defendant executor under section *381836 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order cannot be sustained, on the ground that defendant did not seasonably file the consent provided for in section 1822 and in the section cited, because the suit was begun only eight days after the claim was rejected by the executor, whereas the executor has five months and twenty days after the rejection to file the necessary consent. Hart v. Hart, 45 App. Div. 280, 61 N. Y. Supp. 131. It would seem, therefore, that the or- ■ der must have been based upon the alternative proposition that the payment of the claim was unreasonably resisted or neglected, and we cannot say that the learned county judge erred in so holding. The motion was based not alone upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, but upon all the proceedings in the action. These proceedings are not before us, but were presumably in the mind of the learned trial judge at the time he entertained and decided the motion. The circumstances of the trial may well have shown that the suit was unreasonably defended, and, as we cannot indulge in any presumption to the contrary, the order should be affirmed. All concur.
#### 1815.670 Foreign proposals.

Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NPD 1360.2, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautics Programs.

[64 FR 36606, July 7, 1999]
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, STEWART, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Caden E. RHOADS

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100247

_________________________

Decided: 6 December 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Glen R. Hines

Sentence adjudged 8 July 2021 by a special court-martial convened at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:

reduction to E-1, confinement for three months, and a bad-conduct 

discharge.

For Appellant: 

Captain Thomas P. Belsky, JAGC, USN 

_________________________
United States v. Rhoads, NMCCA No. 202100247

Opinion of the Court

2

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
P.1 

OAR Box 1158 

Prepped by RyanDugan 

Document Number: 

2) 11-A-24 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 4/28/2008 2:34:11 PM Sheet 2 of 349 
P.2 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP.
#### The Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC, Appellant, v Stephen M. Evangelisti, M.D., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent. Ralph P. Pennino, M.D., et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[832 NYS2d 840]

Appeal from a decision (denominated amended and corrected decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered September 29, 2006. The decision, among other things, directed the parties to settle an order consistent with the decision.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

*1266Memorandum: Although the document on appeal in appeal No. 1 is denominated an amended and corrected decision and order, we conclude that it is a mere decision, from which no appeal lies *(see Kuhn v Kuhn,*129 AD2d 967 [1987]). We affirm the order in appeal No. 2 for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that the requests of plaintiff and the counterclaim defendants for an award of costs and expenses incurred in opposing the contempt motion and for the imposition of sanctions against defendant based on his conduct in filing the contempt motion are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not properly before this Court *(see Moss v McKelvey,*32 AD3d 1281, 1283 [2006]; *Ali v Ahmad,*24 AD3d 475, 476 [2005]; *see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
#### Lenore V. Beaumont v. Jean Beaumont et al.

Motion for a stay-granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before November 3, 1960, with notice of argument for November 15, 1960, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated October 18, 1960, is continued pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §7488. Investigations and power to subpoena

#### (a) Investigations

The Secretary may make such investigations as the Secretary considers necessary—

(1) for the effective administration of this subchapter; and

(2) to determine whether any person subject to this subchapter has engaged, or is about to engage, in an act that constitutes or will constitute a violation of this subchapter or of an order or regulation issued under this subchapter.

#### (b) Oaths, affirmations, and subpoenas

For the purpose of an investigation under subsection (a), the Secretary may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance of witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of any records that are relevant to the inquiry. The attendance of witnesses and the production of records may be required from any place in the United States.

#### (c) Aid of courts

#### (1) Request

In the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to, any person, the Secretary may request the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where the person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of the person and the production of records.

#### (2) Enforcement order of the court

The court may issue an enforcement order requiring the person to appear before the Secretary to produce records or to give testimony concerning the matter under investigation.

#### (3) Contempt

A failure to obey an enforcement order of the court under paragraph (2) may be punished by the court as a contempt of the court.

#### (4) Process

Process in a case under this subsection may be served in the judicial district in which the person resides or carries on business or wherever the person may be found.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §579, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1083.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio Gallotta, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the County Court, Kings County, rendered August 2, 1960, convicting him, on his pleas of guilty, of (1) violation of section 974 of the Penal Law (keeping a place for game of policy), and (2) conspiracy to violate section 1372 of the Penal Law (contriving, drawing and assisting in a lottery); and sentencing him on each count to serve a term of three months in the Workhouse, such terms to run concurrently. The appeal is taken solely on the ground that the sentences are excessive. Judgments affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 750.5 Claims: Proper claimants. ( a ) *Damage to property cases.* A claim for damage to, or destruction or loss of, property shall be presented by the owner of the property or a duly authorized agent or legal representative. “Owner” includes a bailee, lessee, or mortgagor, but does not include a mortgagee, conditional vendor, or other person having title for security purposes only.
( b ) *Personal injury and death cases.* A claim for personal injury shall be presented by the person injured or a duly authorized agent or legal representative, or, in the case of death, by the properly appointed legal representative of the deceased's estate or survivor where authorized by State law.
( c ) *Subrogation.* A subrogor and a subrogee may file claims jointly or separately. When separate claims are filed and each claim individually is within the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk's adjudicating authority limits, they may be processed by the Tort Claims Unit, even if the aggregate of such claims exceeds the Tort Claims Unit's monetary authority. However, if the aggregate of the claims exceeds the sum for which approval of the Department of Justice (DoJ) is required, currently $200,000.00 under the Federal Tort Claims Act, then the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk must obtain DoJ approval via the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Claims and Tort Litigation Division, before the claims may be settled.
( d ) *Limitation on transfers and assignment.* All transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, are absolutely null and void unless they are made after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof. 31 U.S.C. 203. This statutory provision does not apply to the assignment of a claim by operation of law, as in the case of a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy appointed for an individual, firm, or corporation, or the case of an administrator or executor of the estate of a person deceased, or an insurer subrogated to the rights of the insured.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53418, Sept. 19, 2007]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6199
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLYDE N. DAVIS, JR., Clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina; WARREN A. KOHN, Staff Attorney, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-407-6-8AK) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emory Alvin Michau, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting themagistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Michau v. Davis , No. CA-95-407-6-8AK (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### 1409.506 Procedures.

If the CO determines that contractor performance of the contemplated work is likely to create an organizational conflict of interest, then the contracting officer shall refer the documentation of the potential conflict and proposed resolution prepared in accordance with 7.105(b)(18) to the HCA for approval. Referrals to the HCA shall be initiated by the CO and reviewed by the SOL.
US EPA Water Quality Standards Regulatory Changes - National Tribal Consultation

December 14, 2010

Participant Listing

First & Last Name Affiliation

1 ROMAN ORONA AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 TODD THORN COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

3 PAULA WEBSTER CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES

4 DEEPAK SEHGAL CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS

5 JEFF LYNCH CORTINA INDIAN RANCH

6 DEBBIE DOTSON EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OK

7 SALLY BROUGH EPA REGION 10

8 KATHLEEN MAYO EPA REGION 5

9 DIANE EVANS EPA REGION 6

10 JANE KLOECKNER EPA REGION 7

11 GEORGE PARRISH EPA REGION 8

12 NANCY SCHULDT FOND DU LAC RESERVATION

13 MATTHEW STEINBACH FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI

14 SANDRA WHITEEAGLE FORT PECK TRIBE

15 WARREN SCARLETT HOH INDIAN TRIBE

16 KEN MARTIN HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

17 ALEX CABILLO HUALAPAI TRIBE

18 KEN KNIGHT / VICKIE KUJAWA IOWA TRIBE OF OK

19 SHARON KOZEVNIKOFF IQURMIUK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

20 SARAH BURGER KAIBAB PAIUTE TRIBE

21 HENRY HARJO KIALEGEE TRIBAL TOWN

22 GEORGE BECK LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND

23 DIANE MCHENRY LOS COYOTES

24 JOSE AGUTO NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

25 MARK LAMARO NATIVE VILLAGE EQUIP

26 CLAYTON TACKETT NATIVE VILLAGE OF FORT YUKON

27 ERIC MORRIS NATIVE VILLAGE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN

28 ERIC RICH NAVAJO NATION

29 JOE WALKSALONG NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE

30 NAOMI ARCHURLETA OHKAY OWINGEH

31 TERESA SWOYER OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

32 KELTON KERSEY PAWNEE NATION

33 ADAM RINGIA PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

34 CURTIS FRANCISCO PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

35 SCOTT BULGRIN PUEBLO OF SANDIA

36 BART VANDENPLAS PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

37 ROBERT GOMEZ PUEBLO OF TAOS

38 JEFF OGBURN PUEBLO OF TAOS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE

39 MARY CANTRELL QUAPAW TRIBE OF OK

40 CATHY KINDQUIST QUARTZ VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

41 DEBBIE MCCUBBIN ROBINSON RANCHERO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

42 RICHARD KING SAADMI
43 DANIEL WIND SAC AND FOX NATION (OK)

44 TERESA AUSBERGER SAC AND FOX NATION OF MISSOURI

45 CAREY PAUQUETTE-SCHALM SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

46 CANDON TANAKA SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES

47 CINDY SPIRY SNOQUALMIE INDIAN TRIBE

48 KIMBERLY MILLER SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

49 JOHN O'LEARY SUQUAMISH TRIBE

50 NAOMI TILLISON THE BAD RIVER TRIBE

51 RACHAEL YOUMANS THE SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE

52 ROBIN BLYTHE THE YUROK TRIBE

53 KATHLEEN SLOAN THE YUROK TRIBE

54 JIM SMITGEN UNITED TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WI

55 MEGAN ULRICH UPPER SIOUX COMMUNITY

56 JUANITA WATERSON UTU UTU GWAITU PAIUTE TRIBE

57 TARA HESS WASHOE

58 DEAN GOGGLES WIND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

59 JANICE WILSON WYANDOTTE NATION

60 JOANNE CORWALL YAKAMA NATION