alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1804.11 Requirements as to who may apply. ( a ) *Historical researchers:* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Any historian engaged in a historical research project as defined above may submit a request in writing to the Coordinator to be given access to classified information for purposes of that research. Any such request shall indicate the nature, purpose, and scope of the research project.
( 2 ) *Additional considerations.* In light of the very limited resources for NACIC's various historical programs, it is the policy of NACIC to consider applications for historical research privileges only in those instances where the researcher's needs cannot be satisfied through requests for access to reasonably described records under the Freedom of Information Act or the mandatory declassification review provisions of Executive Order 12958 and where issues of internal resource availability and fairness to all members of the historical research community militate in favor of a particular grant.
( b ) *Former Presidential appointees.* Any former Presidential appointee as defined herein may also submit a request to be given access to any classified records which they originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving in that capacity. Such appointees may also request approval for a research associate but there is no entitlement to such enlargement of access and the decision in this regard shall be in the sole discretion of NACIC. Requests from appointees shall be in writing to the Coordinator and shall identify the records of interest.
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Team II – Student Loan Program Issues

January 9, 2012, 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm

January 10‐12, 2012, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

January 13, 2012, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

AGENDA

Welcome

Introductions

Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Review and Adopt Protocols

Petitions for Membership

Overview of the Student Loan Program Issues

Review Agenda of Issues to be Negotiated

Workshop‐Style Review of Issues

• Modifications to the Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan in the Direct Loan

Program

• Modifications to the Income‐Based Repayment (IBR) Plan in the Direct Loan and FFEL

Programs

o New borrower notification for annual IBR evaluation

o Annual IBR income verification

o Borrower repayment after leaving IBR

• Deadline for FFEL lender 60‐day delinquent borrower repayment disclosure

• Forbearance

o Borrowers under Department of Defense repayment plans

o Delinquent borrowers entering forbearance

o Process for defaulted borrowers

• Minimum loan period for transfer students in non‐term programs and certain non‐

standard term programs

                                                           

* Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.
2

• Loan rehabilitation in the Direct Loan and FFEL Programs

o Reasonable and affordable payment standard

o Treatment of borrowers subject to administrative wage garnishment

• Participation rate index appeal for one‐year cohort default rates

• Repeal of unnecessary regulations in the FFEL Program  

• Incorporation and modification of corresponding requirements in the Direct Loan

Program

• Loan discharges based on total and permanent disability

o Single application process

o Borrower notification of denial

o Post‐discharge monitoring of employment earnings

• Closed school loan discharge – 90 day eligibility period for borrowers

• Satisfactory repayment arrangements for defaulted borrowers

• School enrollment status reporting requirements

• Perkins Loan Issues

o Graduate fellowship deferment eligibility

o Social security number requirement for loan assignment

o Cancellation rate progression across cancellation categories

o Economic hardship deferment debt‐to‐income provision

Logistics

• Schedule future meeting

• Identify additional information needs

Next Steps

• Draft Regulatory Text

• Agenda for Meeting 2: February 13‐17, 2012

• Meeting Summary

• Other
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Fenza and Antonio Gallotta, Appellants. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio Gallotta, Peter Guido and Albert Fenza, Appellants.

Motion by appellants to enlarge their time to perfect the appeals granted; time enlarged to the January Term,-beginning January 3,1961; appeals ordered to be placed on the calendar for said term. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed February 6,

reconsideration allowed; former disposition (190 Or App 299,78 P3d 132 (2003)) withdrawn; dangerous offender sentences on counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 vacated; sentence on count 9 vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed April 7, petition for review denied June 15, 2004 (337 Or 160)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*WILLIE LARON TANNER, *Appellant.*

990231447; A111473

87 P3d 688

Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jennelle Meeks Barton, Deputy Defender, Office of Public Defense Services for petition.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge,* and Leeson, Judge pro tempore.

PER CURIAM

*

 Wollheim, J., *vice*Schuman, J.

*671PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks reconsideration of our previous decision in this case, *State v. Tanner,*190 Or App 299, 78 P3d 132 (2003), arguing that we erred in affirming on an issue on which the state correctly conceded error. We agree and grant reconsideration.

Defendant was convicted of numerous felonies. The trial court imposed dangerous offender sentences under ORS 161.725(1)(b) or (c) on several Class B felonies in the absence of a jury’s determination of the necessary underlying facts. As the state concedes, that action was erroneous and requires resentencing. *State v. Mitchell,*84 Or App 452, 457-58, 734 P2d 379, *rev den,*303 Or 590 (1987).

We adhere to our previous conclusion that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to two upward departures on count 9, resulting in a minimum sentence of 260 months for a Class A felony that had a maximum sentence of 20 years, or 240 months. *See State v. Remme,*173 Or App 546, 565-66, 23 P3d 374 (2001). We also adhere to our rejection of defendant’s other assignments of error.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; dangerous offender sentences on counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 vacated; sentence on count 9 vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
fips state county sector 03_07 nh3_20 VOC_07 VOC_20

47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co nonpoint 194.2493500000 201.9844191700 5,338.85500000 5,372.13951490
47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co nonroad 2.6798625000 3.1182413289 2,383.26970000 1,213.31023020
47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co onroad 161.5558652000 92.5074357430 4,797.47406810 1,541.83392420 47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co point 12.4540000000 12.4539276990 1,047.00000000 1,038.08119910
204.7109 Contract clauses. ( a ) Use the clause at 252.204-7002, Payment for Contract Line or Subline Items Not Separately Priced, in solicitations and contracts when the price for items not separately priced is included in the price of another contract line or subline item.
( b ) Use the clause at 252.204-7006, Billing Instructions—Cost Vouchers, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract, a time-and-materials contract, or a labor-hour contract is contemplated.
[85 FR 19692, Apr. 8, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 33833, May 25, 2023]
#### In The Matter of the Arbitration between TPO, Incorporated, *719Respondent, and Henry Kaufman et al., Appellants. Frank W. Callahan et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 26, 1978, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Rubin, J., at Special Term. Petitioner-respondent shall recover of respondents-appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.