alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1252a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1252a, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 5, §242A, as added Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7347(a), 102 Stat. 4471, as amended, which related to expedited removal of aliens convicted of committing aggravated felonies, was renumbered section 238 of ch. 4 of title II of act June 27, 1952, by Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §308(b)(5), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–615, and was transferred to section 1228 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Aging Adult Brain Connectome.                    

*Date:*                         March 15, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-6208,                         *joshua.park4@nih.gov.*
      ( print page 2684)    
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 7, 2021. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00490 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### FOX et al., Appellants, v. LEVI, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Morris Fox and another against Louis S. Levi.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event. Held, that the trial court erred in deciding that the discharge of the defendant in the bankruptcy proceeding is a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action. Frey v. Torrey, 70 App. Div. 166, 75 N. Y. Supp. 40, affirmed 175 N. Y. —, 67 N. E. 1082. We do not pass upon the other questions argued.
#### James Malloy, Appellant, v Sheila A. Malloy, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 262]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), dated September 9, 2005, which, upon a decision entered June 15, 2005, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, equitably distributed the parties’ marital assets.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the wife a distributive award in the sum of $26,480, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the wife a distributive award in the sum of $24,856.13; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and disbursements.

We reject the husband’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in using the date of commencement of the action as the valuation date for his savings and thrift plan, as opposed to the date of the trial, as the husband failed to either secure the wife’s stipulation to the valuation he now contends should have been *603used, or to introduce any evidence as to that valuation at the trial *(see Anonymous v Anonymous,*289 AD2d 106, 107-108 [2001]; *Verrilli v Verrilli,*172 AD2d 990, 993 [1991]).

The husband further argues that the Supreme Court should have valued the other marital assets as of the date of the parties’ separation in 1994, since neither party thereafter contributed to the appreciation of the other’s assets. However, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (b), the Supreme Court was required to select a valuation date from “anytime from the date of commencement of the action to the date of trial.” In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in selecting the date of the commencement of the action as the valuation date for the parties’ pensions and the husband’s savings and thrift plan (see *D’Angelo v D’Angelo,*14 AD3d 476 [2005]).

It was improper for the Supreme Court to have valued the marital residence as of the date of the parties’ separation. Under the circumstances of this case, the husband should have been awarded a 25% share of the net proceeds from the sale of the home, which was consummated shortly before commencement of the trial. Because these proceeds were in the sum of $139,775.49, the husband is entitled to a credit in the sum of $34,943.87.

The Supreme Court also improperly valued the wife’s pension by reducing it by the amount of a loan she took out against the pension, as there was no evidence that the loan was used for marital purposes *(see Feldman v Feldman,*204 AD2d 268, 270 [1994]). Consequently, the pension should have been valued in the sum of $121,312, representing the sum of $99,400 plus interest, without any reduction for the loan. Accordingly, the husband was entitled to a credit for 40% of that amount, i.e., in the sum of $48,524.

Based on these modifications, the wife is entitled to a distributive award in the sum of $24,856.13. The husband’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### William E. Leonard, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael H. Leonard, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Donald J. O’Mara, as Administrator, et al., Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

A comparison of the relative contacts and interests of the States of New York and Vermont in this litigation sounding in automobile negligence — the flexible jurisdictional test formulated in *Babcock*v. *Jackson*(12 N Y 2d 473)—makes clear that the traditional rule should be applied (see *Naphtali*v. *Lafazan,*8 A D 2d 22, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1097) and the rights and liabilities of the parties stemming from the operation of the latter’s guest statute, to which the third affirmative defense relates, governed by the law of Vermont where the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reinstating the third separate defense and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs. Herlihy, J. p., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### 15.301 [Reserved]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES A. HAMM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD

SUPPORT SERVICES; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 55605

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 08381

- PSG

- AJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Charles A. Hamm appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action after denying his application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust , 821 F.2 d 1368, 1369

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 55605

(9th Cir. 1987), and w e affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hamm’s IFP

application because Hamm failed to make a sufficient showing of indigency

. See

28 U. S.C. § 1915(a) (IFP statute); Escobedo v. Applebees , 787 F.3d 1226, 1234

(9th Cir. 2015) ( a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some

particular ity, definiteness and certainty ( citation and internal quotation omitted) )

.

AFFIRMED.
#### 1352.271-75 Delivery and shifting of the vessel.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.106, insert the following clause:

# Delivery and Shifting of the Vessel (APR 2010)

(a) The Government shall deliver the vessel to the contractor, at the location specified in the contract.

(b) Whether the specified location of performance is the contractor's own facility or any other authorized facility, it shall be understood to mean the fairway of the facility. The contractor shall provide necessary tugs and pilot services to move the vessel from the fairway to the pier or dock, and, upon completion of all work, from the pier or dock to the fairway of the facility.

(c) While the vessel is in the possession of the contractor, any necessary movement of the vessel incidental to the work specified in the contract shall be furnished by the contractor without additional charge to the Government.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1689

ELKIN EDISSON MURIEL VELASQUEZ; OLGA LUCIA VALENCIA QUINCENO,

JULIEN E. MURIEL VALENCIA; MELISA MURIEL VALENCIA,

 AND VANESSA MURIAL VALENCIA,

Petitioners,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET

The unpublished opinion of this Court issued on August 10,

2004, is amended as follows:

Page 2, line 1: insert an "a" after "is"

Page 5, line 5: omit "in July of 1999, which he said was".
Exhibit 99.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002)





The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company





In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:





(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.





Dated:    November 13, 2002





/s/    MATTHEW K. ROSE

/s/    THOMAS N. HUNDMatthew K. Rose

Thomas N. HundChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




E-3
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.15  


 
 

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TERMS    
    


        The following is a summary of the terms of the compensation package for Stephen Tisdall in his position as Vice President, Concrete Construction. 



	•
	Annual
base salary of CDN$275,000.



	•
	Eligible
to participate in the Brand MIC Bonus Plan with a bonus of up to 120% of annual salary per year (pro-rated in 2005). Additional signing bonus of
US$153,750 to be applied toward equity investment in Brand Holdings, LLC, with a tax gross-up amount, to be deducted from first year MIC bonus.



	•
	Receipt
of a retention bonus equal to CDN$281,167 for each year of the first three full years Mr. Tisdall remains with Brand Services, Inc. Any unpaid amounts
will be fully payable immediately if employment is terminated by Brand for any reason other than for cause.



	•
	Eligible
to participate further in the Brand equity investment program, including:



	•
	Signing
bonus will be applied to purchase 25,000 Class B Units at the price of US$6.15 per Class B unit.



	•
	eligibility
for a loan from Brand Holdings, LLC to purchase additional Class B Units at the rate of $1.00 for every $2.00 invested in Class B Units (up to
12,500 Class B units).



	•
	receipt
of 92,610 Class C and C1 Units.



	•
	Of
this amount 12,965 Class C Units have a strike price of $10 per unit and vest on a time based schedule and will fully vest upon a change of control.



	•
	An
additional 39,822 Class C Units of this total number have a strike price of $10 per unit and vest on a company performance based schedule.



	•
	The
final 39,822 Class C1 Units of this total number have a strike price of $5 per unit and also vest on a performance based schedule.









	•
	Eligible
for the standard medical, dental, life and disability programs and a RRSP with a matching contribution of 2% of earnings according to the current Aluma Canadian
benefit policy.



	•
	Eligible
for four weeks of vacation from the date of employment.



	•
	Eligible
for vehicle allowance of US$840 per month in accordance with Brand Services, Inc.'s policy.



	•
	If
employment is involuntarily terminated for any reason other than for cause, provided with 12 months of salary continuation at then current rate of pay as well as
medical and other insurance benefits being received at that time. 
















QuickLinks


SUMMARY COMPENSATION TERMS
#### 1252.231-70 Date of Incurrence of Costs.

As prescribed in 1231.205-3270(b), insert the following clause:

# Date of Incurrence of Costs (NOV 2022)

The Contractor shall be entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred on or after__ [*Contracting Officer insert date*] in an amount not to exceed $__ [*Contracting Officer insert amount*] that, if incurred after this contract had been entered into, would have been reimbursable under this contract.

(End of clause)
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 673 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to decrease the distance 

away from home required for a member of a reserve component of 

the Armed Forces to be eligible for the above-the-line deduction for 

travel expenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MARKEY, 

Mr. KAINE, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to decrease 

the distance away from home required for a member 

of a reserve component of the Armed Forces to be eligible for the above-the-line deduction for travel expenses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Savings for 

5 Servicemembers Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 673 IS

1 SEC. 2. DECREASE IN REQUIRED DISTANCE AWAY FROM 

2 HOME FOR ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION 

3 FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF A 

4 RESERVE COMPONENT OF THE ARMED 

5 FORCES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62(a)(2)(E) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘100 

8 miles’’ and inserting ‘‘50 miles’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
- 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

Financial AidFINANCIAL AID PROFESSIONALS

The Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program (BEOG) was authorized as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972.  The program was created to provide grant aid to assist eligible students  attain a postsecondary education.  In 1980, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program was renamed after Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island.

## 1979-1980

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1979-1980 End of Year Report PDF (1.41M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (270K)

## 1978-1979

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1978-1979 End of Year Report PDF (1.3M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (271K)

## 1977-1978

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1977-1978 End of Year Report PDF (253K)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (134K)

## 1976-1977

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1976-1977 End of Year Report PDF (475K)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (101K)

## 1975-1976

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1975-1976 End of Year Report PDF (156K)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (236K)

## 1974-1975

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1974-1975 End of Year Report PDF (89K)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (72K)

## 1973-1974

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program 1973-1974 End of Year Report PDF (90K)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (69K)

For additional information contact mary.miller@ed.gov
Top

Pell Program Data | OPE Program Data | OPE Policy Page
 Printable view  Last Modified: 04/18/2011How 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

 
Federal Student Aid*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
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 77 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 77

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to repeal the forfeiture rule for 
    peanuts under the nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2017

   Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to repeal the forfeiture rule for 
    peanuts under the nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Paying U.S. in Peanuts Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR PEANUTS.

    Section 1201 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9031) is 
amended by striking subsection (e).
                                 <all>
```
13.302-5 Clauses. ( a ) Each purchase order (and each purchase order modification (see 13.302-3)) shall incorporate all clauses prescribed for the particular acquisition.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.213-2, Invoices, in purchase orders that authorize advance payments (see 31 U.S.C. 3324(d)(2)) for subscriptions or other charges for newspapers, magazines, periodicals, or other publications (*i.e.,* any publication printed, microfilmed, photocopied, or magnetically or otherwise recorded for auditory or visual usage).
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.213-3, Notice to Supplier, in unpriced purchase orders.
( d ) ( 1 ) The contracting officer may use the clause at 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services), in simplified acquisitions exceeding the micro-purchase threshold that are for other than commercial products or commercial services (see 12.301).
( 2 ) The clause— ( i ) Is a compilation of the most commonly used clauses that apply to simplified acquisitions; and
( ii ) May be modified to fit the individual acquisition to add other needed clauses, or those clauses may be added separately. Modifications (*i.e.,* additions, deletions, or substitutions) must not create a void or internal contradiction in the clause. For example, do not add an inspection and acceptance or termination for convenience requirement unless the existing requirement is deleted. Also, do not delete a paragraph without providing for an appropriate substitute.
( 3 ) ( i ) When an acquisition for supplies for use within the United States cannot be set aside for small business concerns and trade agreements apply (see subpart 25.4), substitute the clause at 52.225-3, Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act, used with the appropriate Alternate (see 25.1101(b)(1)), instead of the clause at 52.225-1, Buy American-Supplies.
( ii ) When acquiring supplies for use outside the United States, delete clause 52.225-1 from the clause list at 52.213-4(b).
( 4 ) When the senior procurement executive allows for application of an alternate domestic content test for the contract in accordance with 25.101(d), so that the initial domestic content threshold will apply to the entire period of performance, the contracting officer shall fill in the 52.213-4(b)(1)(xvii)(B) for 52.225-1 Alternate I as follows: For contracts that the contracting officer estimates will be awarded in calendar year 2022 or 2023, the contracting officer shall insert “60” in paragraph (1)(ii)(A) of the definition of domestic end product. For contracts that the contracting officer estimates will be awarded in calendar year 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028, the contracting officer shall insert “65”. For contracts that the contracting officer estimates will be awarded after calendar year 2028 the contracting officer shall insert “75”.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 72418, Dec. 27, 1999; 67 FR 21534, Apr. 30, 2002; 69 FR 1053, Jan. 7, 2004; 79 FR 24201, Apr. 29, 2014; 86 FR 61025, Nov. 4, 2021; 87 FR 12790, Mar. 7, 2022; 87 FR 73891, Dec. 1, 2022]