alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Diario Oficial C 330A/7 de

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 330A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 58° año7 de octubre de 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 330A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

58° año7 de octubre de 2015

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anuncios |
| | PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Anuncio de anulación | 1 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

V   Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Anuncio de anulación

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

V Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 330/1

---

ANUNCIO DE ANULACIÓN

(2015/C 330 A/01)

El anuncio de la oposición general EPSO/AD/321/15 — Administradores en el ámbito de la auditoría (AD 5/AD 7), publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
   (1), queda anulado.

---

(1)  DO C 316 A de 24.9.2015, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  ULTRAK, INC.
                                        
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF ULTRAK, INC.
                                        
1.   Ultrak Operating, L.P., a Texas limited partnership

2.   Ultrak GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation

3.   Ultrak LP, Inc., a Delaware corporation

4.   Diamond Electronics, Inc., an Ohio corporation

5.   Ultrak Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom private limited liability company

6.   Groupe Bisset, S.A., a French corporation

7.   Ultrak Asia, Pty Ltd., an Australian corporation

8.   VideV GmbH, a German corporation

9.   Monitor Dynamics, Inc., a California corporation

10.  Intervision Express Limited, a United Kingdom private limited liability 
     company

11.  Security Procurement, B.V., a Dutch corporation

12.  Philtech Electronic Services, a South African corporation

13.  Casarotto Security, SpA, an Italian company

14.  Videosys Ltd., a United Kingdom private limited liability company

15.  Ultrak Asia Ltd., a Singapore company

16.  Ultrak Europe, N.V., a Belgium company
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
“Report”), I, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:  August
13, 2010





/s/
      Anthony W. AdlerAnthony
      W. AdlerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
#### 1815.504 Award to successful offeror.

The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.504 on negotiated acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF 1447, or a letter contract when a definitized contract instrument is not available but the urgency of the requirement necessitates immediate performance. In this latter instance, the procedures for approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.

[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004]
Stalking Subcommittee 1/29/2014

CALL NOTES

Counting Stalking Incidents 

Counting

Question of how to count stalking given the definition of “continuous course of conduct”?

Review Stalking Scenario 1: is this multiple stalking incidents or one? Recommendation 

that it should be counted as one

- issues are that sometimes its hard to identify certain behavior as stalking until a 

sufficient pattern arises (victims many may not even realize first few behaviors 

at all)

o Given the difficulty of identification of stalking from initial behaviors 

there will be a high need for training of law enforcement officials

- scenario raised the question of whether there are two victims of stalking or only 

one given the perpetrator’s intention? 

o Recommended to count by victims as consistent with UCR and because 

purpose of perpetrator not necessary to defining crime of stalking for 

VAWA/Clery purposes

If count multiple behaviors as one stalking, than is there ever a time to count it again as a 

second crime?

- Example: stalking during victim’s sophomore year stops during the summer 

than resumes during victim’s junior year

- Possible separation between one stalking incident and another may be by time 

and space

o Strong suggestion that an intervention may separate one incident from 

another incident for counting purpose

 Need definition of intervention 

Geography

Suggestion that when there is a course of conduct off campus only one may need to occur 

within the Clery geography to count as one incident stalking 

- this may be preferable to the alternative of requiring more than one behavior 

within Clery geography to qualify as stalking incident

Discussion raised about whether the unique nature of the crime of stalking (the “course of 

conduct” language) justifies its detachment from the campus geographic for reporting 

requirements 

- Example: if multiple behaviors over time count as one stalking incident, than 

how do you determine where the single Clery crime is reported?

o Question for DOE: are we have the authority to step outside the campus 

geography reporting?

- Benefit is that it may better address electronic stalking behaviors
Stalking Subcommittee 1/29/2014

o Example: multiple texts sent by off campus perp while victim is off 

campus, but victim did not read them until on campus – how would that 

be counted if we keep the geography?

 If stuck with campus geography, the mobility of electronics may 

justify counting the harassment as on campus if it is moved onto 

campus

NEW ISSUE TO CONSIDER

Given that stalking has a significant correlation with homicide and other crimes of violence, 

how would the hierarchical rule apply? 

Threshold question though is whether the hierarchical rule should apply at all
Appeal No. 74-226.

#### Thomas R. Merlino *et al. v.*Tax Assessors for the Town of North Providence.

*Norman L. Grant,*for appellants. *Robert S. Ciresi, Louis Baruch Rubinstein,*for appellees.

Motion of appellants to supplement their brief is granted.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:_______SE02972________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# GA Volume 

# Quarterly

# Historical
MEMORANDUM

TO:Molly Petersen

FROM:The Secretary

# SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority 

## I.DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by sections 202 and 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3412 and §3472, I hereby delegate to you the authority to perform the functions and duties vested by law and other delegations in the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

## II.RESERVATIONS 

None.

## III.REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

## IV.CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2017, upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer.  This delegation shall remain in effect until an appointee is sworn into the position, an individual is designated “Acting”, or a subsequent personal delegation to perform the functions and duties of the position is issued, whichever occurs first. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.  

_____________/s____________

John B. King, Jr.

OGC Clearance:  Tracey Sasser (1/17/17)

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  Jim Clemmens (1/19/17)

Control Number:  EA/EJ/41
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-768]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 15, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 15, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA 
                        **Federal Register**
                         Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 11, 2020, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., 100 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, Newark, Delaware 19702-2461, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class of controlled substance: Controlled substance
Drug
                             code
ScheduleEcgonine
9180
II
 The company plans to produce the listed controlled substance in bulk to be used in the manufacture of DEA exempt products. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-00648 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00554

- CR

KRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 179th District Court of Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1639285

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 26, 2021
#### DIAMOND SODA WATER MFG. CO., Respondent, v. J. N. HEGEMAN & CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by the Diamond Soda Water Manufacturing Company against J. N. Hegeman & Co. J. E. Judge, for appellant. E. Jacobus, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Diamond Soda Water Mfg. Co. v. Hegeman, 74 App. Div. 430, 77 N. Y. Supp. 417.
#### Lewis S. Rosenstiel, Respondent, v. Susan L. Rosenstiel, Appellant.

— Order, entered on May 24, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Motion for an order permitting defendant to take deposition of witness denied. See disposition of decision decided simultaneously herein. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 connection with the Annual Report of NT Media Corporation of California,
Inc., (the "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ali Moussavi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss..1350, as adopted pursuant to ss..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 and 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 Registrant.



Date: April 15, 2008

By: /s/ Ali Moussavi
    ----------------
Ali Moussavi,
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
Submitted by Jeff Arthur

Capping student debt does not affect a typical program’s median debt:

· Capping student debt will only lower the median debt if more than 50% of the borrowers accumulate more than 100% of the tuition/fees/supplies. In most cases, this does not happen.

· If you line 99 graduates up in order from lowest debt to highest, the median graduate is the 50th. In a typical higher education program, capping student debt to the total tuition does not affect this median. The chart below shows this example graphically. 

· In both cases below, the median debt is still $18,000.

# image1.png
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 969 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 

the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 

who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KAINE, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to expand the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent who serves in 

the reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Children 

5 of the National Guard and Reserve Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 969 IS

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL STATE REPORT CARD. 

2 Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Elementary and Sec3 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

4 6311(h)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘on active duty 

5 (as defined in section 101(d)(5) of such title)’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1632.170 Recurring premium payments to carriers. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Recurring payments to carriers of community-rated plans.* OPM will pay to carriers of community-rated plans the premium payments received for the plan less the amounts credited to the contingency and administrative reserves, amounts assessed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and amounts due for other contractual obligations. Premium payments will be due and payable not later than 30 days after receipt by the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Fund.
( 2 ) The difference between one percent and the performance based percentage of the contract price described at 1615.404-4 will be multiplied by the carrier's subscription income for the year of performance and the resulting amount (performance adjustment) will be withheld from the net-to-carrier premium disbursement during the first quarter of the following contract period unless an alternative payment arrangement is made with the carrier's Contracting Officer. Amounts withheld from a community rated plan's premium disbursement will be deposited into the plan's Contingency Reserve.
( 3 ) Any subsidization penalty levied against a community rated plan as outlined in 48 CFR 1615.402(c)(3)(ii)(B) must be paid within 60 days from notification. If payment is not received within the 60 day period, OPM will withhold from the community rated carriers the periodic premium payment payable until fully recovered. OPM will deposit the withheld funds in the subsidization penalty reserve described in 5 CFR 890.503(c)(6).
( b ) ( 1 ) *Recurring payments to carriers of experience-rated plans.* OPM will make payments on a letter of credit (LOC) basis. Premium payments received for the plan, less the amounts credited to the contingency and administrative reserves and amounts for other obligations due under the contract, will be made available for carrier drawdown not later than 30 days after receipt by the FEHB Fund.
( 2 ) Withdrawals from the LOC account will be made on a checks-presented basis. Under a checks-presented basis, drawdown on the LOC is delayed until the checks issued for FEHB Program disbursements are presented to the carrier's bank for payment.
( 3 ) OPM may grant a waiver of the restriction of LOC disbursements to a checks-presented basis if the carrier requests the waiver in writing and demonstrates to OPM's satisfaction that the checks-presented basis of LOC disbursements will result in significantly increased liability under the contract, or that the checks-presented basis of LOC disbursements is otherwise clearly and significantly detrimental to the operation of the plan. Payments to carriers that have been granted a waiver may be made by an alternative payment methodology, subject to OPM approval.
[57 FR 14360, Apr. 20, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 55338, Oct. 15, 1998; 64 FR 36272, July 6, 1999; 65 FR 36386, June 8, 2000; 70 FR 31382, June 1, 2005; 76 FR 38286, June 29, 2011; 80 FR 37180, June 30, 2015]
329 A.2d 189.

#### Ernest Joseph Gingras *vs.*Alvin G. Richmond *et al.*

DECEMBER 16, 1974.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.

*116Joslin, J.

This action of trespass1 for false arrest and assault and battery was tried to a jury in the Superior Court. After both sides had rested, the trial justice granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the assault and battery count, and the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict as to liability on the false arrest count. The case was then submitted to the jury on the question of damages for false arrest. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

There are only two errors assigned, and both are to portions of the trial justice’s instructions to the jury. The first is to that part of the charge instructing the jurors to return a verdict for defendants unless satisfied that plaintiff had established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained some actual damage. The plaintiff claims that this was error, and in support argues that once he established his right to get to the jury he was entitled to an award of at least nominal damages. We agree. It is widely recognized that the action for false arrest was derived from common law trespass, and like actions for trespass to real and personal property, its success is not contingent on proof of actual damage. Whenever one’s rights to be free from intentional trespass have been abridged, these rights must be vindicated at least by an award for nominal damages. Prosser, *Torts*§12 at 54-56 (3d ed. 1964). *See Ahern*v. *Lynch,*109 R. I. 218, 283 A.2d 263 (1971); *Tessier*v. *LaNois,*98 R. I. 333, 201 A.2d 927 (1964); *Tessier*v. *LaNois,*97 R. I. 414, 198 A.2d 142 (1964).

The plaintiff also assigns as error the instruction that an award for punitive damages was precluded unless the *117jury found him entitled to compensatory damages. This alleged error is not properly before us because the plaintiff failed to request a particular charge on that issue, or to object, stating the grounds therefor, to the instruction given. *Halpert*v. *Rosenthal,*107 R. I. 406, 418, 267 A.2d 730, 736 (1970); *Paquin*v. *Providence Washington Ins. Co.,*106 R. I. 267, 268, 259 A.2d 115, 116 (1969); Super. R. Civ. P. 51(b).

*Berberian & Tanenbaum, Aram K. Berberian,*for plaintiff.

*Louis A. Mascia,*City Solicitor, *V. Paul McGinn,*Asst. City Solicitor, for defendants.

In the circumstances it is apparent that the judgment for the defendants cannot be allowed to stand and that the plaintiff’s appeal must be sustained. Accordingly, the parties may appear in this court on Thursday, December 19, 1974, to show cause, if any they have, why the case should not be remitted to the Superior Court with direction to enter a directed verdict for the plaintiff on the false arrest count for nominal damages only.

1

This action, although commenced when common law forms of action were used, was tried after they had been replaced by the new rules of civil procedure provided for by Super. R. Civ. P.
#### 212.271 Limitation on acquisition of right-hand drive passenger sedans.

10 U.S.C. 2253(a)(2) limits the authority to purchase right-hand drive passenger sedans to a cost of not more than $45,000 per vehicle.

[77 FR 19128, Mar. 30, 2012, as amended at 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020]
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL