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

TO: Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Assistant Secretary for Career and Technical Education

Assistant Deputy Secretary for English Language Acquisition 

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority from the Secretary to the OESE, OPE, OSERS, and OCTAE 

Assistant Secretaries and the OELA Assistant Deputy Secretary to Issue Final Determinations Related to 

Waivers Requests from Applicants and Grantees as Authorized in the Build America Buy America Act, 

Section 70935(b).

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization 

Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, or to anyone 

serving for you in an acting capacity or delegated the authority to perform the functions and 

duties of your position, the authority to issue final determinations related waivers requests that 

seek to waive the Buy America Sourcing requirements for Federal financial assistance programs 

for infrastructures as authorized under section 70935(b) of the Build America, Buy America Act 

(BABAA)(Pub. L. No. 117-58 §§ 70901-52). In accordance with this delegation, the addressees 

identified above may consider whether or not to grant waivers and, if they determine any of the 

following conditions are met, to grant waivers to the Buy America Sourcing requirements when

applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with the public 

interest; 

1. types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced 

in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory 

quality; or 

2. the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced 

in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 

percent. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority cited herein are 

included within the scope of this delegation. 

THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov
II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated except in the event that the delegatee is disqualified 

because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, in which case they 

may redelegate their authority to an official who directly reports to them.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Delegations Control Officer. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you, your predecessors in

function, or anyone serving in an acting capacity or officially performing the functions and 

duties of your position, which involved the exercise of the authorities delegated herein, prior to 

the date of the certification of this delegation.

 ______________/s___________ 

 Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D. 

OGC Concurrence and Date: Debbie Friendly, 10/7/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BRESLER &
REINER, INC. UNAUDITED 09/30/96 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      20,159,000
<SECURITIES>                                 8,344,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,632,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,150,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      61,723,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,581,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             102,819,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     32,358,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,806,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               102,819,000
<SALES>                                      7,328,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,117,000
<CGS>                                        6,358,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,358,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,672,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,221,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,866,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,957,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,865,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,865,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10328

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR ASCENCION-GUARDADO, also known as Chris

Ascencion, also known as Chris Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-83-ALL-K

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar AscencionGuardado raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 9, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00180

- CR

IN RE Martin BALLEZA , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on June 9, 2021

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of June, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CR12645 , styled State v. Balleza , pending in the 399th Judicial District

Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Frank J. Castro presiding.
### §1353. Travel expenses and expense of transporting remains of officers and employees dying outside of United States

When officers, inspectors, or other employees of the Service are ordered to perform duties in a foreign country, or are transferred from one station to another, in the United States or in a foreign country, or while performing duties in any foreign country become eligible for voluntary retirement and return to the United States, they shall be allowed their traveling expenses in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may deem advisable, and they may also be allowed, within the discretion and under written orders of the Attorney General, the expenses incurred for the transfer of their wives and dependent children, their household effects and other personal property, including the expenses for packing, crating, freight, unpacking, temporary storage, and drayage thereof in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5. The expense of transporting the remains of such officers, inspectors, or other employees who die while in, or in transit to, a foreign country in the discharge of their official duties, to their former homes in this country for interment, and the ordinary and necessary expenses of such interment and of preparation for shipment, are authorized to be paid on the written order of the Attorney General.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 9, §283, 66 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 100–525, §9(p), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2621.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–525 substituted "subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5" for "the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 Stat. 806; 5 U.S.C., sec. 73b–1)".

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 September 12, 2019

Order 

Clerk

September 12, 2019

159646(51)

DANNY D. AULD, II, and TAMARA 

AULD,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 159646

v COA: 341335

Genesee CC: 13-101457-NH

MCLAREN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

GJON G. DUSHAJ, MD, and PAUL W.

BROWN, DO,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

HATEM ATAYA, MD, and HATEM M.

ATAYA, MD, PC,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the time 

for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before September 24, 2019.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K V / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PA U L A . W ESBECH ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S T E P H E N D . L A N D A K E R ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17051 D. C . No . 2 : 0 1 - c v - 0 2 4 1 0 - F C DDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r ank C . D am r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P aul A . W es becher app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary ju d g m e n t f

o rd e f e n d an ts in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g e x c e s s iv e f o r c e . 

# FI LED MA R 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK V / Res ea r ch 08- 17051 2 W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , W hi takerv. G a r c e tti , 4 8 6 F. 3 d5 7 2 , 5 7 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n W es b ec h er ’s e xc e s s i ve f

or c e c l a i m be c aus e aj udgm e nti n hi s f avorw oul d ne c e s s ar i l yi m pl ythe in v a lid ityo f

h is c o n v ic tio n s , an dW e s b e c h e ro f f e r e dn o e v id e n c e th a t h is c o n v ic tio n s h av e b e e n in v a lid a te d . See H ec k v . H um ph re y , 512 U . S . 477, 486- 87 (199 4). D e f e ndantL andake r ’ s m ot i on t o s uppl e m e ntthe r e c or d and m ot i on f orl e ave t o f i l e al a t e br i e f

ar e gr ant e d. AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

QURAN HERRINGTON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 269 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
#### State Division of Human Rigths, Respondent, v Stromberg Carlson Corporation, Petitioner, and I. U. E., Local No. 338, Respondent.

Determination unanimously reversed insofar as it awarded damages and otherwise confirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings in accordance with memorandum in *SDHR (Truitt) v Stromberg Carlson Corp.*(66 AD2d 990). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, §298.) Present-Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the February
28, 1999 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  611,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    852,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,663,023
<PP&E>                                       1,719,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 887,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,993,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,222,052
<BONDS>                                        786,869
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,070
<COMMON>                                       504,382
<OTHER-SE>                                     303,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,993,499
<SALES>                                      4,147,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,073,898
<CGS>                                        3,963,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,852,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,294)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Dragados USA, Inc. )

)

)

ASBCA Nos. 62217, 62252, 62253

 62443, 62480, 62481

 62532

)

Under Contract No. N40085-12-C-7714 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Gregory H. Koger, Esq. 

Stephen B. Shapiro, Esq.

 Holland & Knight LLP

 Washington, DC

 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Rachel J. Goldstein, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The disputes have been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 1, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62217, 62252, 62253, 62443, 

62480, 62481, 62532, Appeals of Dragados USA, Inc., rendered in conformance with the 

Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 2, 2021 

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

     THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT RATIO AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                                     March  31,
                                                                        -----------------------------------
 
                                                                             1999                  1998
                                                                        -------------        --------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                  <C>           
Earnings:
 
  Pre-tax income                                                         $        403         $         458
 
  Add:
    Interest and fixed charges,
      excluding capitalized interest                                               76                    73
 
    Portion of rent under long-term
      operating leases representative
      of an interest factor                                                        49                    45
 
    Amortization of capitalized interest                                            1                     1
 
  Less:  Undistributed equity in earnings
         of investments accounted for
         under the equity method                                                    3                     3
                                                                        -------------        --------------
 
  Total earnings available for fixed charges                             $        526         $         574
                                                                        =============        ==============
 
Fixed charges:
 
  Interest and fixed charges                                             $         79         $          76
 
  Portion of rent under long-term operating
    leases representative of an interest factor                                    49                    45
                                                                        -------------        --------------
 
  Total fixed charges                                                    $        128         $         121
                                                                        =============        ==============
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                              4.11x                 4.74x (1)
</TABLE>

(1)  Earnings for the three months ended March 31, 1998 include a pre-tax gain
     on the pipeline partnerships sale of $67 million. Excluding this gain, the
     ratio for the three months ended March 31, 1998 would have been 4.19x.
### §6505. Compliance requirements

#### (a) Domestic products

#### (1) In general

On or after October 1, 1993—

(A) a person may sell or label an agricultural product as organically produced only if such product is produced and handled in accordance with this chapter; and

(B) no person may affix a label to, or provide other market information concerning, an agricultural product if such label or information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is produced and handled using organic methods, except in accordance with this chapter.

#### (2) USDA standards and seal

A label affixed, or other market information provided, in accordance with paragraph (1) may indicate that the agricultural product meets Department of Agriculture standards for organic production and may incorporate the Department of Agriculture seal.

#### (b) Imported products

Imported agricultural products may be sold or labeled as organically produced if the Secretary determines that such products have been produced and handled under an organic certification program that provides safeguards and guidelines governing the production and handling of such products that are at least equivalent to the requirements of this chapter.

#### (c) Exemptions for processed food

Subsection (a) shall not apply to agricultural products that—

(1) contain at least 50 percent organically produced ingredients by weight, excluding water and salt, to the extent that the Secretary, in consultation with the National Organic Standards Board and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has determined to permit the word "organic" to be used on the principal display panel of such products only for the purpose of describing the organically produced ingredients; or

(2) contain less than 50 percent organically produced ingredients by weight, excluding water and salt, to the extent that the Secretary, in consultation with the National Organic Standards Board and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has determined to permit the word "organic" to appear on the ingredient listing panel to describe those ingredients that are organically produced in accordance with this chapter.

#### (d) Small farmer exemption

Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to persons who sell no more than $5,000 annually in value of agricultural products.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXI, §2106, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3937.)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 703 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 703

 To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
            the Equus Beds Division of the Wichita Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2017

Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
            the Equus Beds Division of the Wichita Project.

    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 ``Wichita Project Equus Beds Division 
Authorization Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EQUUS BEDS DIVISION.

    Section 10(h) of Public Law 86-787 (74 Stat. 1026; 120 Stat. 1474) 
is amended by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 135801 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135801 COA: 271851 Grand Traverse CC: DEAN WILLIAM JUNKER, Defendant-Appellant. 06-010011-FH

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 29, 2008

Clerk