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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 882 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the entitlement to 

educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs for members of the Armed 

Forces awarded the Purple Heart, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 4), 2017 

Mr. ROUNDS (for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

entitlement to educational assistance under the Post9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs for members of the Armed Forces 

awarded the Purple Heart, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 882 IS

1 SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER POST-9/11 

2 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR 

3 MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AWARDED 

4 THE PURPLE HEART. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—Section 3311(b) of title 38, 

6 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(10) An individual who is awarded the Purple 

9 Heart for service in the Armed Forces occurring on 

10 or after September 11, 2001.’’. 

11 (b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—Section 3313(c)(1) of 

12 such title is amended by striking ‘‘or (9)’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘(9), or (10)’’. 

14 (c) ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN YELLOW RIB15 BON G.I. EDUCATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.—Sec16 tion 3317(a) of such title is amended, in the second sen17 tence, by striking ‘‘(1) and (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘(1), (2), 

18 and (10)’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 16, 2020 

Honorable Hanseul Kang 

State Superintendent of Education 

Office of the State Superintendent of Education 

1050 First Street Northeast 

Washington, District of Columbia 20002 

hanseul.kang@dc.gov 

Dear State Superintendent Kang: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant awards H027A180010 and H173A180006. 

The Department received your June 25, 2020 request on behalf of the Office of the State

Superintendent of Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal 

year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for 

obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Lead, Jennifer Finch, at

Jennifer.Finch@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Case: 3:11-cr-50082 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:224
#### In the Matter of Lewis S. Carpenter, Respondent, v. Bryant Olin et al., Appellants.

Appeal from orders of the Supreme Court, Chemung County, in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Petitioner-respondent, the owner of a discontinued schoolhouse, applied for a certificate of occupancy and permission to extend and remodel the premises to make it suitable for residency. This request was denied by the building inspector and then by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Horseheads. Petitioner brought the instant proceeding to review the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The court below has held that while petitioner could not obtain a permit for an extension of the existing building, he was entitled to a permit to remodel it into a one-family dwelling and a certificate of occupancy upon filing reasonable plans for the remodeling and upon approval of sanitary and sewage facilities by the Health Department of the County of Chemung. Appellants raise on this appeal the issue whether the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, although adverse to petitioner, was reviewable by a proceeding under article 78. Subdivision 2 of section 267 of the Town Law provides that the “board of appeals shall hear and decide *729appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article. It shall also hear and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance ”. Since article VII, section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Horseheads states: “No nonconforming building shall be altered or extended except as authorized by the Town Board.”, it is urged that the Town Board reserved unto itself original jurisdiction in the area here involved, thus rendering the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdietionally defective and .therefore not reviewable in this proceeding. Since the court below denied respondent’s application to extend the existing premises and no appeal is brought here from that determination, this aspect of the proceeding has become academic. With respect to the remainder of the holding of the court below, even if it is assumed that the alteration of the sehoolhouse to a family dwelling constituted a change in “use” (see Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Horseheads, art. Ill, § 1), the change sought to be made here is specifically authorized by article VII, section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance providing that a “ nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or more restrictive classification”. Therefore, with the extension of the structure no longer in issue, no question of variance is involved here, and as to the remaining issues the Zoning Board of Appeals had jurisdiction in its appellate capacity-to review the action of the building inspector in denying petitioner’s application (Town Law, § 267). Orders affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
1813.302-570 NASA solicitation provisions. ( a ) ( 1 ) The contracting officer may use the provision at 1852.213-70, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in simplified acquisitions exceeding the mircro-purchase threshold that are for other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. This provision shall not be used for acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services as defined in FAR 2.101.
( 2 ) This provision provides a single, consolidated list of certifications and representations for the acquisition of other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services using simplified acquisition procedures and is attached to the solicitation for offerors to complete and return with their offer. ( i ) Use the provision with its Alternate I in solicitations for acquisitions that are for, or specify the use of recovered materials (see FAR 23.4).
( ii ) Use the provision with its Alternate II in solicitations for the acquisition of research, studies, supplies, or services of the type normally acquired from higher education institutions (see FAR 26.3).
( iii ) Use the provision with its Alternate III in solicitation which include the clause at FAR 52.227-14, Rights in Data—General (see FAR 27.404(d)(2) and 1827.404(d)).
( b ) The contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 1852.213-71, Evaluation—Other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in solicitations using simplified acquisition procedures for other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services when a trade-off source selection process will be used, that is, factors in addition to technical acceptability and price will be considered. (*See* FAR 13.106.)
[67 FR 38904, June 6, 2002, as amended at 67 FR 50823, Aug. 6, 2002; 88 FR 64385, Sept. 19, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Lee Williams, Appellant.

— Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction after a guilty plea to sodomy in the first degree, asserting that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and was not afforded a hearing to determine the reasons for the delay. Defendant was charged on August 7, 1974 in a six-count indictment alleging rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and kidnapping. On September 13, 1974 his appearance was noted when a codefendant pleaded to a misdemeanor charge. Williams pleaded guilty (Jan. 9, 1975) to a charge of sodomy in satisfaction of the indictment. This plea was withdrawn on March 3, 1975. On March 12, 1975 all parties responded ready for trial which was anticipated to be held in the April Term. The record, however, is devoid of any indication of activity until December, 1975 when the case was then returned to the calendar. Defense counsel then made a motion returnable January 15, 1976 for dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20, 30.20 and 30.30. The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and in the absence of excuse prosecutorial delay will lead to dismissal *(People v Johnson,*38 NY2d 271). CPL 30.30 (subd 1, par [a]) mandates dismissal of the indictment if the People are not ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action and fail to establish periods of exclusion under the statute *(People v Washington,*43 NY2d 772). Where the defendant is to be tried following the withdrawal of a plea of guilty, the criminal *1095action is deemed to have commenced on the date of the withdrawal of the plea (CPL 30.30, subd 5, par [a]). The prosecutor’s affidavit does not sufficiently set forth the facts to document the cause of the delay from March 3, 1975 until December 24, 1975. An affidavit merely asserting a backlog of cases is insufficient to overcome the right to speedy trial relief *(People v Sturgis,*38 NY2d 625). An assertion of readiness without substantiation, if allowed to excuse needless delay, could make a mockery of CPL 30.30 *(People v Dean,*45 NY2d 651). Where a question of fact is presented, the court is required to have a hearing prior to determination *(People v Gruden,*42 NY2d 214; CPL 210.45, subd 6). The record before us on appeal contains no finding or conclusion concerning the 10-month period of delay. Since the burden is on the People to establish periods of exclusion under CPL 30.30 (subd 4), the case is remanded for further proceedings. On remand the trial court will conduct a hearing and make appropriate findings in accordance with CPL 30.30 (subd 4) *(People v De Valle,*63 AD2d 830; *People v Cook,*63 AD2d 842). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court — sodomy, first degree.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
#### Johnston *v.*Town of Palmetto *et al.*

February 28, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Gilbert. Campbell superior court. November 10, 1911.

P. *II. Brewster, Claude C. Smith,*and *J. F. Colightly,*for plaintiff. *C. S. Beid*and *W. C. Wright,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

1. Where a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a municipality from interfering with his placing an obstruction in a street opened and used as such, on the ground that he has the superior title, the burden is on him to show such superior title.

2. When a street is referred to in a grant or other conveyance, the way as opened and actually used, rather than as formerly existing, is to be construed to be the boundary intended by the parties. 5 Cyc. 907; 4 Am. <& Eng. Enc. Law, 815.

3. On the issue as to the location of a street, parol evidence is competent to show that the particular place was used as a street by the public.

4. In view of the evidence in this case, while there may have been some inaccuracies in the charge, they do not, in the light of the rulings announced in the preceding notes, require a reversal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### The Georges Bank monitoring program 1985: Analysis of trace metals in bottom sediments during the third year of monitoring

By: Michael H. BothnerR.R. RendigsEsma CampbellM. W. DoughtenC.M. ParmenterC. H. O'DellG.P. DiLisioR. G. JohnsonJ.R. GillisonNorma Rait

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir988

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

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.
#### 19.805 Competitive 8(a).
ORDER ADOPTING CHANGES TO 

REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

The attached fourteen pages of regulations, dealing with air quality permit administration fees, 

emission fees and negotiated service agreements are hereby adopted and certified to be a correct 

copy of the regulation changes that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopts under 

the authority of AS 46.03 and AS 46.14 and after compliance with the Administrative Procedure 

Act (AS 44.62), specifically including notice under AS 44.62.190 and 44.62.200 and opportunity 

for public comment under AS 44.62.210. 

This action is not expected to require an increased appropriation. 

In considering public comments, the Department of Environmental Conservation paid special 

attention to the cost to private persons of the regulatory action being taken. The Department of 

Environmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical methods in this 

regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024. 

The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been 

filed by the lieutenant governor as provided in AS 44.62.180. 

DATE: August 7, 2015 

Anchorage, Alaska 

~~Department of Environmental ner Conservation 

FILING CERTIFICATION 

v 5;c.ot Mu;w~ter {;'.-

I, Byron Mallott, Lieutenant Governor for the State of Alaska, certify that on AIA~u.sf 'J..7 

2015, at {D:O{,o...m., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions of AS 44.62.040 -

44.62.120. 

Effective: 

Register: 

<;;'ffevnh~r 2.6 1 2015 

) tS , Ov../r,be r ..2or5 

' 

Byron Mallott, Lieutenant Governor 
FOR DELEGATION OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S AUTHORITY 

I, BYRON MALLOTT, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, 

designate the following state employee to perform the Administrative Procedures Act filing 

functions of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor: 

Scott Meriwether, Special Assistant 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have 

signed and affixed the Seal of the State of 

Alaska, in Juneau, on December 2nd, 

2014. 

······· ~~················· BYRON MALLOTT 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.1


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-
K) of Genentech, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 2001, included in the
2000 Annual Report to Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Genentech, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan,
the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the
1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction
Investment Plan, and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated January
17, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated
herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with
respect to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                       Ernst & Young LLP




Palo Alto, California
March 9, 2001
Exhibit 31.1
**Certifications**
I, J. Collier Sparks, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K 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, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis 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 or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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 30, 2005       By /s/ J. Collier Sparks       J. Collier Sparks   Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11305]


In the Matter of the Designation of Harakat Sawa'd Misr (and 
Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Harakat Sawa'd Misr, also known as 
Harakah Sawa'id Misr, also known as Harikat Souaid Misr, also known as 
HASM, also known as HASM Movement, also known as Hassam Movement, also 
known as Arms of Egypt Movement, also known as Movement of Egypt's 
Arms, also known as Movement of Egypt's Forearms, also known as Hassm, 
also known as Hamms, also known as Hassam, also known as Hasam.
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00608 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P