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

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 5310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00620]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11308]

Designation of Yahya al-Sayyid Ibrahim Musa and Alaa Ali Ali 
Mohammed Al-Samahi as Specially Designated Global Terrorists

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 
1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended 
by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of 
January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I 
hereby determine that the persons known as Yahya al-Sayyid Ibrahim 
Musa, also known as Yahya Alsayed Ibrahim Mohamed Moussa, also known as 
Yahia ElSayed Ibrahim Mohammad, also known as Basim Ibrahim and Alaa 
Ali Ali Mohammed Al-Samahi, also known as Allaa al-Samahy, are leaders 
of Harakat Sawa'd Misr, a group whose property and interests in 
property are blocked pursuant to a prior determination by the Secretary 
of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00620 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
```
#### Angelo Di Beneditto et al., Respondents, v. Katherine Murphy et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and *692for loss of services, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 9, 1964, which: (a) granted conditionally defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution; and (ib) denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate defendants’ notice of the pretrial examination of plaintiffs and for other relief. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution granted unconditionally; and plaintiffs’ cross motion dismissed as academic. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to show any reasonable excuse for their delay in the prosecution of this action. Hence, defendants’ motion to dismiss should have been granted unconditionally. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### Mary Tornambe, Respondent, v. Paul R. Tornambe et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 1, 1961, after trial, on a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff failed to show, either by direct proof or by circumstantial evidence, her freedom from contributory negligence. No presumption that she was free from blame arises from the mere happening of an injury and from proof that defendant was, or might have been, negligent *(Weston*v. *City of Troy,*139 N. Y. 281, 282). When, as in this ease, circumstances point as much to the negligence of the plaintiff as to its absence, or point in neither direction, a nonsuit should be granted *(Wiwirowski*v. *Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co.,*124 N. Y. 420, 425). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 770.54 Background. ( a ) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard maintains and operates facilities “to provide logistic support for assigned ships and service craft; to perform authorized work in connection with construction, conversion, overhaul, repair, alteration, drydocking, and outfitting of ships and craft, as assigned; to perform manufacturing, research, development, and test work, as assigned; and to provide services and material to other activities and units, as directed by competent authority.”
( b ) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is a major naval ship repair facility, with operational requirements to complete repairs and overhaul of conventionally powered and nuclear-powered naval vessels. It is vital to national defense that the operation and use of the shipyard be continued without undue or unnecessary interruptions. Additionally, most of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is dedicated to heavy industrial activity where potentially hazardous conditions exist.
( c ) For prevention of interruption of the stated use of the base by the presence of any unauthorized person within the boundaries of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and prevention of injury to any such unsupervised person as a consequence of the dangerous conditions which exist, as well as for other reasons, it is essential to restrict entry upon Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to authorized persons only.
1480.402 Delegations and responsibility. ( a ) The Secretary has delegated authority under the Buy Indian Act to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. IA exercises this authority in support of its mission and program activities and as a means of fostering Indian employment and economic development.
( b ) The Secretary may delegate authority under the Buy Indian Act to a bureau or office within the Department of the Interior other than IA.
( c ) The Chief Financial Officer of The Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is responsible for ensuring that all IA acquisitions under the Buy Indian Act comply with the requirements of this part.
### §619a. Cotton tax, time for payment

The processing tax authorized by section 609 of this title, when levied upon cotton, shall be payable ninety days after the filing of the processor's report: Provided, That, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, the time for payment of such tax upon cotton may be extended, but in no case to exceed six months from the date of the filing of the report.

(May 17, 1935, ch. 131, title I, §2, 49 Stat. 281.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Constitutionality

Unconstitutionality of processing and floor stock taxes, see note set out under section 616 of this title.

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

#### Separability

Validity of remainder of this chapter as not affected should any of the provisions of this chapter be declared unconstitutional, see section 614 of this title.
400 MARYLAND AVE. SW, WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

DEC 28, 2016

Honorable Tony Smith

Superintendent

Illinois State Board of Education

100 N. 1st Street 

Springfield, IL 62777

Dear Superintendent Smith:

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide a summary of the monitoring and support 

activities conducted by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for the Illinois State 

Board of Education (ISBE) during August 29-31, 2016. In 2016, OSEP began providing 

differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) to States as part of its Results Driven 

Accountability System (RDA) framework. Under RDA, OSEP made a shift from monitoring 

based solely on compliance to monitoring and support focused on both compliance and 

improving results for students with disabilities. OSEP differentiates its approach for each State 

based on the State’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs. 

With the DMS process, OSEP conducts an organizational assessment (OA) of risk factors to 

identify States’ progress in meeting performance standards and compliance with the legal 

requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Education 

Department General Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. OSEP uses the information from 

the OA and an Engagement Decision Tree to make designations of universal, targeted, or 

intensive monitoring and support (DMS) for the fiscal year. The 2016 DMS areas were: 

1) results; 2) compliance; 3) dispute resolution (FFY 2015 Special Focus Area); and 4) fiscal. 

On April 26, 2016, OSEP sent Mr. David Andel, ISBE’s former director of special education, the 

DMS notice for Illinois. That notice provided a designation of universal, targeted, or intensive 

engagement in each of four areas: results, compliance, dispute resolution, and fiscal. The 

information in the notice was based on FFY 2013 data in the four areas, along with information 

about the factors contributing to elevated needs, the support your State has accessed, your State’s 

capacity to improve results and compliance, and additional contextual information. We have 

attached a copy of the DMS notice for your convenience.
Page 2 - Chief State School Officer 

Attached is a summary, by area, of the engagement provided by OSEP during the visit. If OSEP 

identified findings of noncompliance with IDEA requirements, you will find specific 

instructions, within the attachments for each DMS area, regarding corrective actions the State 

must take to address the noncompliance. If you have any questions, please contact Koko Austin, 

your OSEP State Lead at 202-245-6720. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Ruth E. Ryder

Acting Director

Office of Special Education Programs 

cc: State Director of Special Education

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 2ND QUARTER 10-Q 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,063
<INVENTORY>                                     26,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,022
<PP&E>                                          27,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,280
<SALES>                                         62,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,194
<CGS>                                           36,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (240)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,667
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
<FN>
<F1> For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Beryl H. Barton et al., Respondents, v David G. La Pointe et al., Appellants.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 27, 1978 in Essex County, which denied a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the condition that plaintiffs furnish a verified bill of particulars. A 30-day conditional order of preclusion against the plaintiffs was signed on February 21, 1977 for failure to comply with a demand for a bill of particulars, dated October 14, 1976. Defendants claim that a copy of the order, together with notice of entry, was mailed to plaintiffs’ attorney on March 2, 1977. Plaintiffs’ attorney, however, claims that he never received them and argues that the 30-day time period never began to run. In any event, plaintiffs never served the bill of particulars and on February 14, 1978, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the preclusion order rendered it impossible for the plaintiffs to prove a prima facie case. The motion was denied on the condition that plaintiffs serve a verified bill of particulars within 10 days, and defendants appeal therefrom. Service by mail is complete upon deposit of a properly stamped and addressed letter in a United States Post Office depository (CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 2). This service by mail is complete regardless of *761delivery to the addressee *(A & B Serv. Sta. v State of New York,*50 AD2d 973, mot for lv to app den 39 NY2d 709). Thus, when defendants moved for summary judgment, over 10 months had passed from when the preclusion order became final. There is no explanation for the protracted inactivity on the part of plaintiffs’ counsel. His contention that he never received a copy of the order and notice of entry cannot be deemed an excuse for the delay in serving the bill of particulars where, as here, there is a letter in the record from plaintiffs’ attorney indicating that he had consented to the conditional preclusion order. Thus, it was a clear abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(Ciccarelli v Welcome,*50 AD2d 1046, affd 40 NY2d 954; *Paris v Poticha,*1 AD2d 277). The order appealed from should be reversed and judgment granted for the defendants. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
- 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

Disclaimer of Endorsement

This icon identifies hypertext links or pointers that leave the U.S. Department of Education (ED) web site and go to information created and maintained by other public and private organizations. These links and pointers are provided for the user's convenience. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of links or pointers to particular items in hypertext is not intended to reflect their importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered, on these outside sites, or the organizations sponsoring the sites.

*(Click on the "BACK" button in your browser to return to the page with an external link and then click on the text link to follow it.)*

Thank you for visiting the Department of Education! 

*This page last updated February 5, 1998 (kms).*
 Printable view  Last Modified: 03/07/2006How 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

 
Website Policies & Important Links*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
### SUBCHAPTER IV—AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK APPROPRIATION
#### Jacqueline F. Schoonmaker, Respondent, v. Frank Schoonmaker, Appellant.

Order, entered on or about February 21, 1964, granting motion to dismiss affirmative defenses, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the complaint dismissed with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within 20 days of service of a copy of the order entered hereon, with notice of entry. The motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses searches the record (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]). The *778complaint, alleging that the parties are married, in a single cause of action seeks recovery for support in accord with an antenuptial agreement, for damages for failure to perform other terms of the agreement, and for a declaratory judgment in regard to her rights that may accrue under the alleged agreement. Insofar as the agreement provides for support, the appropriate action is the statutory action applicable to the matrimonial litigation involved *(Weintraub*v. *Weintraub,*302 N. Y. 104). Agreements for support between persons about to be married or married and living together are not per se actionable *(Garlock*v. *Garlock,*279 N. Y. 337). As the agreement for support is the gist of the alleged contract, the cause of action as presently pleaded is defective. In view of this it is not necessary to comment on Special Term’s conclusions as to whether defendant is estopped to plead the invalidity of his Mexican divorce. The failure to so comment is not an indication that we take a similar view. Concur —Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Fiscal Year 2016 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - MARYLAND

FY 2016 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

2400030 Allegany County Public Schools 2,820,436

2400060 Anne Arundel County Public Schools 13,592,434

2400090 Baltimore City Public Schools 54,764,489

2400120 Baltimore County Public Schools 29,169,844

2400150 Calvert County Public Schools 1,447,953

2400180 Caroline County Public Schools 1,874,761

2400210 Carroll County Public Schools 2,486,732

2400240 Cecil County Public Schools 3,171,276

2400270 Charles County Public Schools 3,867,544

2400300 Dorchester County Public Schools 2,121,875

2400330 Frederick County Public Schools 4,596,523

2400360 Garrett County Public Schools 1,154,739

2400390 Harford County Public Schools 5,467,247

2400420 Howard County Public Schools 5,428,306

2400450 Kent County Public Schools 639,748

2400480 Montgomery County Public Schools 26,579,749

2400510 Prince George's County Public Schools 38,642,305

2400540 Queen Annes County Public Schools 937,983

2400570 Somerset County Public Schools 1,508,248

2400600 St. Marys County Public Schools 3,127,662

2400630 Talbot County Public Schools 1,118,094

2400660 Washington County Public Schools 6,972,574

2400690 Wicomico County Public Schools 5,624,086

2400720 Worcester County Public Schools 1,958,663

2499999 PART D SUBPART 2 559,528

* 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 4 percent in fiscal year 2016 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7819

WAYNE DOUGLAS BUTTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. STUBBLEFIELD, Master Jail Officer; MR.

CHASE, Sgt./Supervisor Laundry; MR. REEVES,

Sgt./Housing Unit Manager; MR. FOX,

Sgt./Hearings Officer; D. L. SIMONS, Asst.

Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-02-873)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Douglas Butts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

 Wayne Douglas Butts appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Butts v. Stubblefield, No.

CA-02-873 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 18, 2002, entered Nov. 19, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
- 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

Laws & GuidanceHIGHER EDUCATION
### §1614. Notification and information reporting

Each Federal agency that administers a program to which section 1611, 1612, or 1613 of this title applies shall, directly or through the States, post information and provide general notification to the public and to program recipients of the changes regarding eligibility for any such program pursuant to this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–193, title IV, §404(a), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2267.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this subtitle", meaning subtitle A of title IV of Pub. L. 104–193, Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2261, which enacted this subchapter and sections 611a and 1437y of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and amended section 1383 of Title 42. For complete classification of this subtitle to the Code, see Tables.