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

Laws & GuidanceGENERAL

**About FOIA** | About the Privacy Act | FOIA Reading RoomsMaking a Request | FAQs | Contacts | Links

## FOIA Exemptions

All agency records must be made available to the public under the FOIA, except for records that are:

- Properly classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (b)(1).
- Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices (b)(2).
- Specifically exempted by other statutes (b)(3).
- Concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential (b)(4).
- Privileged interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, except under certain circumstances (b)(5).
- Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (b)(6).
- Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes (b)(7).
- Contained in or related to certain examination, operating, or condition reports concerning financial institutions (b)(8).
- Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells (b)(9).

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## How 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

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Key Policy Letters |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

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
#### Michael Liebl et al., Respondents, v. Metropolitan Jockey Club et al., Appellants.

Motion fo.r reargument and for resettlement of order referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Nolan, P* J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur*
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Louis Terner, Deceased. Selma Slater et al., Respondents; William Terner, Appellant.

In a probate proceeding, the contestant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, dated June 17, 1977, which, *inter alia,*directed that the will and a codicil thereto be admitted to probate, upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict, at a jury trial. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondents payable by appellant. Upon our review of the evidence adduced at the trial, there is no rational process by which the jury could have found in favor of the contestant. The contestant failed to demonstrate that the will was anything other than the unfettered manifestation of the decedent’s testamentary, intentions. The omission of a natural object of the testator’s bounty and affection in his testamentary design raises no inference of undue influence where that person has previously been provided for. The Surrogate found that the decedent was a very successful businessman and quite capable of managing his own affairs. There was no evidence that he was under the influence of any of his children. Accordingly, the decree should be affirmed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21



ANDREW CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

List of Significant Subsidiaries



Significant subsidiaries of the registrant, all of which are wholly-owned, are as follows:



|                                                      |  |                                           
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Registration
|Andrew Australia Pty Ltd                              |  | Australia                                 
|Andrew do Brazil, Ltda.                               |  | Brazil                                    
|Andrew Canada Inc.                                    |  | Canada                                    
|Andrew Broadband Telecommunications (Yantai) Co. Ltd. |  | China                                     
|Andrew Telecommunications (China) Co. Ltd.            |  | China                                     
|Forem China (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.                       |  | China                                     
|Andrew Telecommunications s.r.o.                      |  | Czech Republic                            
|Andrew S.A.R.L.                                       |  | France                                    
|Andrew GmbH                                           |  | Germany                                   
|Andrew Wireless Systems GmbH                          |  | Germany                                   
|Andrew Hong Kong Ltd.                                 |  | Hong Kong                                 
|Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd.             |  | India                                     
|Andrew Telecommunication Products Srl                 |  | Italy                                     
|Andrew Japan KK                                       |  | Japan                                     
|Andrew Corporation S.A. de C.V.                       |  | Mexico                                    
|Andrew Limited                                        |  | United Kingdom                            
|Precision Antennas Ltd.                               |  | United Kingdom                            
|Andrew Satcom Africa (Pty.) Ltd.                      |  | South Africa                              
|Andrew Amplifiers Inc.                                |  | State of Delaware                         
|Andrew International Holding Corporation              |  | State of Delaware                         
|Andrew Systems Inc.                                   |  | State of Delaware                         
|Allen Telecom LLC                                     |  | State of Delaware                         
|Andrew International Corporation                      |  | State of Illinois                         
|Allen Telecom Sweden, AB                              |  | Sweden                                    
|Andrew AG                                             |  | Switzerland                               
|Andrew Corporation Taiwan                             |  | Taiwan
#### SPENCER v. TOWN OF SARDINIA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 24, 1903.)

Action by Ella D. Spencer against the town of Sardinia.

No opinion. Motion to amend order, dated July 7, 1903, allowing an appeal from the judgment and order of this court to the Court of Appeals, granted, and said order is amended by adding thereto: “And this court hereby certifies that in its opinion a question of law is involved in this case which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.”
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Chase General Corporation, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Barry M. Yantis                  
|Barry M. Yantis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Treasurer and Chairman of the Board  
|                                     
|Dated: May 8, 2008                   



23
Exhibit 32(f)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  March 1, 2004 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. Abel
Treasurer
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1335.014 Government property and title.

The designee authorized to determine that the policies in FAR 35.014(b)(1)-(4) will not apply regarding title to equipment purchased by nonprofit institutions of higher learning and nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### 1842.7202 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.242-73, NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting, in solicitations and contracts when any of the NASA Form 533 series of reports is required from the contractor.

[62 FR 36721, July 9, 1997]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 85 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 85

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 
made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify 
 expenses for over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 
                 health flexible spending arrangements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2017

  Mr. Roberts (for himself and Ms. Heitkamp) 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 repeal the amendments 
made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify 
 expenses for over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 
                 health flexible spending arrangements.

    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 ``Restoring Access to Medication Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF EXPENSES FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER 
              DRUGS UNDER CERTAIN ACCOUNTS AND ARRANGEMENTS.

    (a) HSAs.--Section 223(d)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Archer MSAs.--Section 220(d)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (c) Health Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Reimbursement 
Arrangements.--Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subsection (f).
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenses incurred after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
#### 1209.507 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-2701

___________

Renardo J. Boyd, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Centers for Youth and Families, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 20, 1996

 Filed: March 29, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Renardo J. Boyd, Sr., appeals the district court's grant of summary 1

judgment to defendant in his employment discrimination action. Having

carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs we conclude that the

district court's judgment was correct and that an opinion would lack

precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
9/30/97 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      20,057,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,647,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,502,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      62,963,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,609,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,429,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     21,122,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  70,946,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,429,000
<SALES>                                      4,136,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,202,000
<CGS>                                        3,294,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,294,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,173,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,534,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,201,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,393,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,732,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,732,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.05
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
condition with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals
Limited (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|                          |                        | 
|------------------------- | ---------------------- | 
|By                        | /s/ 
  George G. Usher | 
|                          |                        | 
|George G.
  Usher,        |                       
|Chief
  Executive Officer |                       
|April 29,
  2005          |                       

A signed
original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
NEW YORK, NY 

TYSONS CORNER, VA 

CHICAGO,IL 

STAMFORD, CT 

PARSIPPANY, NJ 

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM 

AFFILIATE OFFICES 

MUMBAI. INDIA 

By Hand Delivery 

Ms. Dorothy Y. Beard 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 

3050 K STREET, N. W. 

SUITE 400 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 

(202) 342-8400 

October 19,2010 

Director, Office of Information Services 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

M-30, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Application of UPS Europe SA and UPS International, Inc. 

for an Exemption (Sudan), Docket OST-2010-0257 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

FACSIMILE 

(202) 342-8451 

www.kelleydrye.com 

DIRECT LINE (202) 342-8528 

EMAIL dfisher@kelleydrye.com 

N 

r:: 

On October 13,2010, UPS Europe SA and UPS International, Inc. (the 

"Applicants") filed an Application for an exemption from the provisions of the Department's 

Order No. 98-2-5 ("Sudan Order") so as to permit the Applicants to operate four (4) one-way air 

freight forwarding movements to Sudan to transport medicine to treat tuberculosis. 

The Applicants polled all persons served with the Application and hereby inform 

the Department that no party has any objection to the Application. Accordingly, the Applicants 

request that the Department grant the Application as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

cc: All parties (via e-mail) 

Brett Kmger (via e-mail) 

DCOI/FISHD/429673.1 

{1:It~ Danielle K. Fisher
#### 1432.502-2 Contract finance office clearance.

The CO shall obtain approval of the bureau finance office prior to taking actions listed in FAR 32.502-2.
#### 1435.010 Scientific and technical reports.

If a Research and Development (R&D) contract results involve classified or national security information, the CO shall follow the agency procedures prescribed in DIAR 1404.403 prior to making the results available. Copies of publications and reports are also required to be sent to the DOI Departmental Library, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-2258, Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240.
# April 2023 FOIA Log
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NADER ZAKI ABDELHAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

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

Judge. (CR-03-89)

Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James O. Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael C.

Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial, Nader Zaki Abdelhay was

convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and making

materially false statements to a federal agent, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Abdelhay

to concurrent sentences of forty-one months of imprisonment on each

count, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

On appeal, Abdelhay maintains that the evidence at trial

was insufficient to find him guilty of being a felon in possession

of a firearm and ammunition. Abdelhay stipulated at trial that he

had been convicted of a felony and that the firearm and ammunition

in question had traveled in interstate commerce. In addition,

there was evidence establishing that Abdelhay exercised dominion

and control over the firearms and ammunition found at his place of

employment. Therefore, we conclude that there was sufficient

evidence at trial to find Abdelhay guilty of being a felon in

possession of a firearm and ammunition. See Glasser v. United

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). 

Accordingly, we affirm Abdelhay’s § 922(g) conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §1376. Data on nonimmigrant overstay rates

#### (a) Collection of data

Not later than the date that is 180 days after April 27, 1998, the Attorney General shall implement a program to collect data, for each fiscal year, regarding the total number of aliens within each of the classes of nonimmigrant aliens described in section 1101(a)(15) of this title whose authorized period of stay in the United States terminated during the previous fiscal year, but who remained in the United States notwithstanding such termination.

#### (b) Annual report

Not later than June 30, 1999, and not later than June 30 of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit an annual report to the Congress providing numerical estimates, for each country for the preceding fiscal year, of the number of aliens from the country who are described in subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 105–173, §2, Apr. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 56.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **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.