alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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 2011 Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book provides fiscal information and recipient data for the 2009-10 award year and institutional allocation data for the 2011-12 award year.  The Federal Campus-Based Programs consist of the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), the Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan programs.  These data were generated from the institutional data file, current as of April 1, 2011, the Fiscal Operations Report for 2009-10 and Application to Participate for 2011-12 (FISAP).

This report is divided into three sections:
                -  Allocations of Program Funds to Participating Institutions for Award Year 2011-12; 
                -  Fiscal Data Reported by Participating Institutions for Award Year 2009-10; and
                -  Student Recipient Data Reported by Participating Institutions for Award Year 2009-10. 

Included in this report are statistical tables providing funding levels, administrative costs, and default data by state and institutional type and control, and other essential fiscal and recipient data.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Donald Conner at (202) 502-7818, or e-mail donald.conner@ed.gov.

Office of Policy, Planning, & InnovationOffice of Postsecondary Education

Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book 2011  (zip format, 266K)

## I. Allocation Data - Award Year 2011-12

| History of Funding and Awards                                  | Download Excel Sheet (52K) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Participating Institutions by Type and Control                 | Download Excel Sheet (20K) |
| Comparison of 2011-12 and 2010-11 Allocations                  | Download Excel Sheet (43K) |
| Final 2011-12 Allocations - State Listings by Type and Control | Download Excel Sheet (59K) |
| Under-Utilization Penalty - State Listing                      | Download Excel Sheet (27K) |

## II. Fiscal Data - Award Year 2009-10

### Administrative Expense Allowance

| National Summaries by Type and ControlState Listing | Download Excel Sheet (30K) |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|

### Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG)

| Fiscal Data | Download Excel Sheet (53K) |
|-------------|----------------------------|

### Federal Work-Study (FWS)

| Fiscal Data                  | Download Excel Sheet (54K) |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Job Location and Development | Download Excel Sheet (35K) |
| Community Service Activities | Download Excel Sheet (35K) |
| Reading Tutor Activities     | Download Excel Sheet (36K) |
| Math Tutor Activities        | Download Excel Sheet (36K) |
#### 1437.7101 General.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 requires that no federal agency shall conduct or sponsor the collection of information, upon identical items, from ten or more public respondents unless prior approval is obtained from OMB.
1545.309 Providing Government production and research property under special restrictions. Government production and research property, other than foundations and similar improvements necessary for installing special tooling, special test equipment, or plant equipment, shall not be installed or constructed on land not owned by the Government in such fashion as to be nonseverable unless the contract under which the property is provided contains— ( a ) One of the provisions in FAR 45.309(a);
( b ) A requirement that the Government will have the right to abandon in place all nonseverable Government property provided; and
( c ) A requirement that the Government will not have any obligation to disassemble or remove the property or to restore or to rehabilitate the premises on which the property is located.
No. 697.

#### John P. Galbraith *v.*John Vallely, Trustee, etc.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Fred B. Dodge*for petitioner.

*Mr. Francis J. Murphy*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.
#### 1631.205-78 FEHBP printed material costs.

Unless OPM determines that it is in the best interest of the FEHBP to do otherwise, if a carrier orders printed material that is available from the Government Printing Office (GPO) under the “rider system” from another source, the allowable contract charges shall be the lesser of the amount actually paid or the cost that would have been incurred had the carrier ridden OPM's GPO order.
Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 12 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:70
Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 12 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:71
Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 12 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:72
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7457

RAMULUS A. MASON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARTIN J. MCDADE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-442-5-H)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ramulus A. Mason, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ramulus Mason appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Mason v. McDade, No. CA-98-442-5-H

(E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 1998). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,004,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,132,247
<PP&E>                                         248,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,714,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,359,350
<BONDS>                                      6,469,591
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,855
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,881,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,714,127
<SALES>                                     16,665,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,019,466
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,412,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             320,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,287,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,528,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,759,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
1809.206-1 General. (NASA supplements paragraph (b) and (c)) ( c ) If an offeror seeks to demonstrate its capability, both the product and the producer must meet the established standards.
[61 FR 47075, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 21763, Apr. 22, 2004]
#### 1425.206 Noncompliance.

The CO will report, in writing, any use of non-excepted, foreign construction materials by contractors, subcontractors and suppliers through the HCA to the Director, PAM for debarment action in accordance with Subpart 1409.4.
**Exhibit 10.15**

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION 

FORM 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended December 28, 2008

AMENDMENT TO THE KEY EMPLOYEES SAVINGS 

AND INVESTMENT PLAN 

**Amendment to Briggs & Stratton Corporation**

**Key Employee Savings and Investment Plan**

WHEREAS, the Briggs & Stratton Key Employee Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”) provides that if any provision or term thereof would be prohibited by or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 409A of theInternal Revenue Code, then such provision or term shall be deemed to be reformed to comply with Section 409A of the Code; and 

WHEREAS, the Company’s legal counsel has advised that the disability exception to the five year delay in payment rule resulting from a change in a distribution election would be viewed by the IRS as inconsistent with the requirementsof Section 409A of the Code and, therefore, it is desirable to revise the Plan document to reflect its reformation to eliminate such provision; 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the action of the undersigned officer, Section 6.2(f) of the Plan is amended by deleting all of the text thereof after the word “death” in the second line thereof and thePlan document shall be restated to reflect this change. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of Briggs & StrattonCorporation executes this amendment on its behalf this 10th day of December, 2008. 

 
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATIONBy: 
/s/ Thomas R. Savage
Title: Senior Vice President - Administration
Docket No. FAA-2016-3696 Dir. ID 2015-NM-113-AD
------------.....:..A.:..:I..:..:...:.::.:.... A,_.I~.:,_,·I:..:.~: ""C;.o.O::..:I"'{I,_'<::..:>.:..R:..:.A..:..'~r,_,IC~lN,_,_ 

_____ . h;l\ ing ih prinup.tl 

( Nam..: of Cnmpany. please print) 

Rrga International r\irport,_~t~I!!!J~Ii't r., l.:....\!...~-1!..!.1!,.15""~"-'-1 :!!-'t~t:..!!.!.'----------­

( r\ ddn:~~) hereh~ designates. pursuant h•..;ectwn 41llll.1ni'Tith: -l 1J 11l the U.S. Code former! ~ 'e4.'tion HKI:'i(h) ol the 

Federal Aviation Act of \IJ:'iH. as amended) the pcr~nnnamcd hclnw as tts Agent upnn ''hom o;cn·i<..·L ol all 

notices and process. and all orders. decisions. and requirements uf the Departmcnt 11l I r.tn'iportatum m.t~ he 

made for and on behalf of said carrier. herehy canceling all previou..; designation'> oJ age nts made h~ it to th1. 

DOT. 

Name uf Agent l>;tvid llelfernml.-----·------·------

1 l'lc;N: Print) 

Address Cot.en O'Connor, lt11J I Street, NW, Suite I !(HI, Washingltln. DC ::!IKIOh (:~02) -lfl~-2537 !direl:l); dhdfcrnan(ul:o/en.mm (e-mail) 

IlK \~~.nt "'lk~ignated ha~ wrillen hi~ name and ;ll..,o hi~ initial-; in the lollowing ~pace "1.11111. Vt;.~ A H:<.f&-'-r-=-~:.......,..._ 

_______ (lnitiab) .hid....;:...._ ___ _ 

IN \\'II'NESS WliEREOF. Air Baltic ( 'orlli""'r.!!a"'-'ti.:..:n.:..:.n ________ Ita.., c,tused theo;~ (Name of C'ompan~) 

pre~t.nh to hL signed in it~ name ~~~--------__,;lv.!,!l:!!.•r.!.!ti-'-'n~<.'""''""'n!...t':....:'--------- l'n ,ldt.nt ( l'lcihl. l'ri nt) 

nl s;ud company. and tu he alte:-tcd under its cmp,•ratc seal h~ Chief l:inancial Ollicer Board Memhcr 

( Scl'retary. 11r other 'I itle) 

on 1 h ~ ')!.!.! II a y of _____ _.;.;f\:..:.; ·l;"'tr..:oc.:..oh ____ . :!Ill:' 

,\rt I '-.I 

0'>1 I· 11110 51 l·.'J5)
13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall evaluate quotations or offers— ( i ) In an impartial manner; and
( ii ) Inclusive of transportation charges from the shipping point of the supplier to the delivery destination.
( 2 ) Quotations or offers shall be evaluated on the basis established in the solicitation.
( 3 ) All quotations or offers shall be considered (see paragraph (b) of this subsection).
( b ) *Evaluation procedures.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. The procedures prescribed in parts 14 and 15 are not mandatory. At the contracting officer's discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in part 14 or 15 may be used.
( 2 ) If telecommuting is not prohibited, agencies shall not unfavorably evaluate an offer because it includes telecommuting unless the contracting officer executes a written determination in accordance with FAR 7.108(b).
( 3 ) If using price and other factors, ensure that quotations or offers can be evaluated in an efficient and minimally burdensome fashion. Formal evaluation plans and establishing a competitive range, conducting discussions, and scoring quotations or offers are not required. Contracting offices may conduct comparative evaluations of offers. Evaluation of other factors, such as past performance— ( i ) Does not require the creation or existence of a formal data base; and
( ii ) May be based on one or more of the following: ( A ) The contracting officer's knowledge of and previous experience with the supply or service being acquired;
( B ) Customer surveys, and past performance questionnaire replies;
( C ) The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at *https://www.cpars.gov ”*; or
( D ) Any other reasonable basis.
( 4 ) For acquisitions conducted using a method that permits electronic response to the solicitation, the contracting officer may— ( i ) After preliminary consideration of all quotations or offers, identify from all quotations or offers received one that is suitable to the user, such as the lowest priced brand name product, and quickly screen all lower priced quotations or offers based on readily discernible value indicators, such as past performance, warranty conditions, and maintenance availability; or
( ii ) Where an evaluation is based only on price and past performance, make an award based on whether the lowest priced of the quotations or offers having the highest past performance rating possible represents the best value when compared to any lower priced quotation or offer.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 58593, Oct. 30, 1998; 69 FR 59702, Oct. 5, 2004; 72 FR 63076, Nov. 7, 2007; 74 FR 31560, July 1, 2009; 84 FR 47866, Sept. 10, 2019]
§ 756.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Nonappropriated-fund instrumentality (NAFI).* An instrumentality of the Federal Government established to generate and administer nonappropriated-funds for programs and services contributing to the mental and physical well-being of Department of Defense personnel and their dependents. A NAFI is not incorporated under the laws of any State and enjoys the privileges and immunities of the Federal Government.
( b ) *Nonappropriated-funds.* Funds generated through the use and patronage of NAFI's, not including funds appropriated by Congress.
( c ) *Employees of NAFIs.* Personnel employed by NAFIs whose salaries are paid from non-appropriated funds.
[57 FR 4736, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53425, Sept. 19, 2007]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
                 SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purposes of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon its request.

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted, the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"), Kerry P. Gray,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Stephen B. Thompson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company for the period specified.

Signed at the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 31st day of March,
2005.

/s/ Kerry P. Gray                                 /s/ Stephen B. Thompson
-----------------                                 -----------------------
Kerry P. Gray                                     Stephen B. Thompson
President and Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer
#### § 536.83 Statutory authority for the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The statutory authority for this subpart is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (60 Stat. 842, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680), as amended by Public Law 89-506, July 1966 (80 Stat. 306); Public Law 93-253, March 1974 (88 Stat. 50); Public Law 97-124, December 1981 (93 Stat. 1666); Public Law 100-694, November 1988 (102 Stat. 4563-67); and Public Law 101-552, November 1996 (104 Stat. 734); and as implemented by the Attorney General's Regulations (28 CFR 14.1-14.11 and its appendix), all of which are posted on the USARCS Web site; for the address see § 536.2(a).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 1, 2006

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1616

STACEY MILLER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 04 C 527 

Barbara B. Crabb, 

 Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Judge William J. Bauer and Judge Richard A. Posner summarily AFFIRM and

adopt as their own the attached opinion and order of the district court dated

December 29, 2004, and the orders dated March 8, 2005. Judge Kenneth F. Ripple’s

dissent is also attached.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53























No. 05-1616 Page 25

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. In my view, summary affirmance on the basis

of a memorandum order issued by the district court should be reserved for the most

extraordinary of situations. This principle is especially true when the decision of this

court is not the product of the usual processes of decision-making, but of a preliminary

screening. Before we truncate the usual appellate procedures, at a minimum, the

appeal ought to be facially frivolous, or the writing of the district court should be so

extensive that it fairly can be said to be responsive to all the arguments made by the

appellant in this court. In any event, our basis of decision should be clear to the

Supreme Court of the United States when it reviews our decision if a petition for

certiorari is filed.

Inthecasebeforeus,theappeal cannot be considered facially frivolous. Indeed, both

parties have submitted extensive and thoughtful briefs. Nor can the discussion ofthe

issue on appeal by the district court be said to be totally responsive to the presentation

of the appellant in this court. Finally, our order in this case, adopting the order of the

district court, does not fulfill our obligation to provide the Supreme Court with an

adequate explanation of our decision.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissentfrom the order issued by the court today. I would

set this case for oral argument in due course.
1814.201-670 NASA solicitation provisions. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-70, Caution to Offerors Furnishing Descriptive Literature, in invitations for bids. See FAR 52.214-21, Descriptive Literature.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-71, Grouping for Aggregate Award, in invitations for bids, except for construction, when it is in the Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of certain items. Insert the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular procurement.
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-72, Full Quantities, in invitations for bids, except for construction, when it is in the Government's best interest not to make award for less than the full quantities solicited.
( d ) If a pre-bid conference is planned, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference. See 1815.209-70(a).
[61 FR 47079, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 9966, Feb. 27, 1998]
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications**I, J. Collier Sparks, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of MDI, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: March 23, 2007         By /s/ J. Collier Sparks             J. Collier Sparks      Chief Executive Officer