alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: January 18, 2024

To: U.S. Department of Education

From: Erika Linden and Scott Dolan, Private-Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education

Re: Issue Paper 3—Distance Education (Data Request)

The Department of Education has proposed modifications to 34 C.F.R. § 600.2, Definitions, that looks to 

remove asynchronous learning as an option in clock hour programs. The department notes that the 

proposed changes will strengthen the Department’s ability to monitor clock hour programs offered 

programs offered via distance education, including the Department’s ability to protect students from, and 

keep taxpayer funds from going to programs failing to provide the required training. Further the 

department has become aware of instances in which clock-hour programs offered through distance 

education have not complied with this requirement and students have not received the required training” 

In the summary of issues, the Department expresses concerns about the ability of institutions to monitor 

academic engagement in asynchronous delivery, “because it requires technical expertise and the 

Department has limited information on which clock-hour programs are offered via distance education, 

including whether a program is offered through synchronous or asynchronous instruction.”

Data Request

We are asking for the Department to provide additional data, research and/or clarification regarding the 

following:

1) How many clock hour programs currently qualify for Title IV financial aid? How many of these 

programs currently include asynchronous learning?

2) While cosmetology and scuba classes were highlighted during negotiated rulemaking discussions, 

can the Department provide a better overview of the types of programs that are typically offered 

in clock hour format? How many are using asynchronous learning?

3) What challenges does the Department have with enforcing the current regulations that require 

institutions to use technology that can adequately measure academic engagement? What makes 

this difficult to enforce? With accreditors? With institutions?

4) Can the Department provide better data on the total number and/or percentage of institutions 

that are out of compliance with the requirement to track hours using technology? Is there a 

potential to estimate the impact on taxpayer dollars?

5) How has the Department communicated its expectation around compliance monitoring on this 

topic to independent auditors? Via audit guides? Other sub-regulatory guidance or 

mechanisms?
Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TO: Swiss Medica, Inc.

As  independent   certified  public  accountants,   we  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  by  reference  in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  under the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 of  Swiss  Medica,  Inc.  for the  year  ended
December  31,  2002 of our  report  dated  April  20,  2003  which  includes  an
explanatory  paragraph  regarding  the  substantial  doubt  about the  Company's
ability to  continue  as a going  concern,  and  contained  in the  Registration
Statement No. 333-110840 of Swiss Medica, Inc. Form S-8 under the Securities Act
of 1933  insofar as such report  relates to the  financial  statements  of Swiss
Medica, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                  /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                      Russell Bedford  Stefanou Mirchandani LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 24, 2004
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HABIB KOLAWOLE KOFI BRAIMAH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70295

Agency No. A079-151-845

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Habib Kolawole Kofi Braimah, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JUL 31 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70295

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056

(9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Braimah established

extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely asylum application. See

Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,

Braimah’s asylum claim fails.

With respect to withholding of removal, Braimah does not challenge the

agency’s finding that he failed to demonstrate past persecution, but he fears

returning to Ghana because of his Ewe ethnicity, his Muslim religion, and his

family’s wealth. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Braimah

failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be subject to

persecution on account of a protected ground. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962

(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as

offensive as it may be”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)

(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Braimah’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Braimah failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
3 12-70295

at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Ghana.

See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### Proceedings of a U.S. Geological Survey workshop on environmental geochemistry

Edited by: Bruce R. Doe

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1033

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**Exhibit (32)(b)**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Empire District Electric Company(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Gregory A. Knapp, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| **By**                                                             | **/s/  Gregory A. Knapp** |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Gregory A. Knapp                                            |
| Title:  Vice President - Finance and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

Date:  November 8, 2010

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to The Empire District Electric Companyand will be retained by The Empire District Electric Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Maurice A. Levine, Respondent, v. Westchester Construction Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

In two negligence actions subsequently consolidated, the defendant Westchester Construction Co., Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 27, 1962, which denied conditionally its motion to dismiss the complaint in the action against it for lack of prosecution; and the defendant Holland Avenue Corporation appeals from an order of said court, dated the same day, which denied conditionally its motion to dismiss the complaint in the action against it for lack of prosecution. Defendants contend that the motions should have been granted and that the complaints should have been dismissed unconditionally. Order reversed, without costs, motions to dismiss the complaints granted unconditionally, and complaints dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, plaintiff failed to show either a reasonable excuse for the inordinate delay in prosecution or that his causes of action are meritorious. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Janet McLaughlin, Respondent, v. Edwin McLaughlin, Appellant.

Order entered on September 16, 1960 unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, without costs, and cross motion of defendant-appellant is granted to the extent of modifying the judgment of February 9, 1960 to strike therefrom the provision that the defendant-appellant pay to the plaintiff-respondent the sum of $25 per week commencing December 8, 1959 and to direct new trial solely as to the issue of the amount of alimony to be awarded plaintiff-respondent, with time of payment thereof to commence at such date on or after February 9, 1960, as may be fixed by the trial court; and otherwise said cross motion is denied, all without costs. The defendant did not contest the granting of the decree of annulment, and we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence as to the alleged *“*guilty knowledge ” of the plaintiff with respect to defendant’s prior existing marriage. It appears that at the time of the trial the defendant was fully aware of the relevant facts pertinent to such issue, and that his alleged newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative or such that could have been produced at time of trial had he used due diligence. It now appears, however, as recently *761discovered by defendant, which he could not have learned about earlier, that the plaintiff testified falsely as to material facts bearing on the issue as to the amount of alimony, if any, to be awarded to her. Namely, she testified that she was not working at the time of the trial and had been unable to find a position after having made every effort to do so, when in fact she had then found a position and was then employed. She submits no affidavit explaining her patently false testimony and the award of alimony based thereon may not stand. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### 18.113 Interagency acquisitions.

Interagency acquisitions are authorized under certain conditions. (See Subpart 17.5.)

[71 FR 38248, July 5, 2006. Redesignated at 72 FR 46344, Aug. 17, 2007]
Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
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 periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: November 15, 2010
    /s/ Andrew DavisAndrew DavisChief Financial Officer  22
#### 1804.404-70 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.204-75, Security Classification Requirements, in solicitations and contracts if work is to be performed will require security clearances. This clause may be modified to add instructions for obtaining security clearances and access to security areas that are applicable to the particular acquisition and installation.
#### 1403.806 Processing suspected violations.

Suspected violations shall be referred to the HCA. The HCA, in consultation with the SOL and OIG, shall act in accordance with FAR 3.807.
Appeal No. 74-244.

#### David R. Piccoli *et al. v.*Providence Washington Insurance Co.

*Anthony DeSimone,*for appellants. *John W. Kershaiv,*for appellee.

Motion of appellee to dismiss appeal for failure of appellant to file brief is granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1064
ZAFAR KHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus POPEYES OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1478-H) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zafar Khan, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Henry Pazulski, CHARLES E. CHLAN & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Zafar Khan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellee in his discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Khan v. Popeyes of Maryland, Inc. , No. CA-01-1478- H (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2002). We deny Khan’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
# Úřední věstník C 330A/7. ř

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 330A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 587. října 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 330A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 587. října 2015

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznámení |
| | SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ |
| | Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Oznámení o zrušení | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Oznámení o zrušení

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

V Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 330/1

---

OZNÁMENÍ O ZRUŠENÍ

(2015/C 330 A/01)

Zveřejnění otevřeného výběrového řízení EPSO/AD/321/15 – Administrátoři v oboru auditu (AD 5/AD 7) v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie
   (1) se zrušuje.

---

(1)  Úř. věst. C 316A, 24.9.15, s. 1.

---
#### Tyron Duckette et al., Respondents, v Neighborhood Lenox Avenue, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[835 NYS2d 274]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated November 16, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The defendants were under no legal duty to install a window gate on the subject window, which provided access to a fire escape *(see*New York City Health Code [24 RCNY] § 131.15; *Rivera v Nelson Realty, LLC,*7 NY3d 530 [2006]; *see generally Molina v Sercia,*290 AD2d 425 [2002]; *Moore v Bender,*280 AD2d 588 [2001]; *Deer v DiPiazza,*225 AD2d 514 [1996]; *Costanzo v New York City Hous. Auth.,*158 AD2d 576 [1990]; *Ramos v 600 W. 183rd St.,*155 AD2d 333 [1989]). Absent such a duty, the defendants are not liable to the plaintiffs *(see Rivera v Nelson Realty, LLC, supra).*In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. *(See*9 Misc 3d 1130(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51864(H) (2005).]
EXHIBIT 3(d)





AMERICAN WATER WORKS
COMPANY, INC.





CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT





OF





CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION





American Water Works Company, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the Company), does hereby certify:





FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Company, at a meeting thereof held on March 7, 1996, adopted a resolution declaring it advisable
that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, of the Company be further amended as follows:





The first paragraph
of Article Fourth of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:





FOURTH:  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue shall be 305,520,000 of which (a) 1,770,000 shares shall be Cumulative Preferred Stock,
of the par value of $25 per share, issuable in series, (b) 750,000 shares shall be Cumulative Preference Stock, of the par value of $25 per share, issuable in series, (c) 3,000,000 shares shall be Cumulative Preferential Stock, of the par value of
$35 per share, issuable in series, and (d) 300,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, of the par value of $1.25 per share.





SECOND:  That thereafter, an annual meeting of stockholders of the Company was duly called and held on May 2, 1996, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which
meeting the necessary number of votes as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.





THIRD:  That said
amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.




---




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and this
Certificate to be executed by George W. Johnstone, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and by W. Timothy Pohl, its General Counsel and Secretary, this 2nd day of May, 1996.





AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.By:

George W. JohnstonePresident and Chief Executive Officer





(Corporate Seal)





Attest:








W. Timothy Pohl


General Counsel and
Secretary





2
#### 1.603-4 Termination.

Termination of a contracting officer appointment will be by letter, unless the Certificate of Appointment contains other provisions for automatic termination. Terminations may be for reasons such as reassignment, termination of employment, or unsatisfactory performance. No termination shall operate retroactively.
#### 1850.103 Contract adjustments.