alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fiscal Year 2006 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2006 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

4300030 PUERTO RICO 451,344,832 90,268,966 1,127.76

4399998 Undistributed 0 0 0.00

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2006 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6538

JAMES R. FINCHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-00-55) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Fincham, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Dawn Foster, Assistant Attorney General, Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James R. Fincham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Fincham v. Painter , No. CA00-55 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 27, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
#### 16.202 Firm-fixed-price contracts.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 23, 2018

No. 04-18-00031-CR

Tammie Len JOLLIFF,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-2211-CR-A

Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

ORDER

A Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal 

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” We, therefore, ORDER the trial court clerk to file a 

clerk’s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the following documents:

1. All pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and 

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendants plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post-judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk 

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court 

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Quran Bryant, Stephen A. Barfield, and 

Grace Everett, Appellants

No. 06-14-00007-CV v.

Dennis J. Cady, Ind. and as Trustee of the 

Dennis J. Cady Living Trust d/b/a Cady 

Enterprises, Appellee

Appeal from the 30th District Court of 

Wichita County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

178,120-A). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We further order that the appellee, Dennis J. Cady, Ind. and as Trustee of the Dennis J. 

Cady Living Trust d/b/a Cady Enterprises, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip J. Hawk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ PHILIP J.
HAWK                  
|Philip J. Hawk                      
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2009
# 2019 PB  

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET &11(in thousands of dollars)	February 12, 2018

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

# 2017 OMB Request_Div Directors

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

# 2017 OMB REQUEST_OriginalMaster

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

# Sheet1
#### 1552.229-70 [Reserved]
#### 19.705-3 Preparing the solicitation.

The contracting officer shall provide the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) a reasonable period of time to review any solicitation requiring submission of a subcontracting plan and to submit advisory findings before the solicitation is issued.

[71 FR 36926, June 28, 2006]
#### 1450.101 General.
### §494. Rules and regulations; cooperation with States, etc., officers and employees; expenditures

The Secretary of Agriculture may make such rules and regulations as he may deem advisable to carry out the provisions of this chapter and may cooperate with any department or agency of the Government, any State, Territory, District, or possession, or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or any person; and may call upon any Federal department, board, or commission for assistance in carrying out the purposes of this chapter; and shall have the power to appoint, remove, and fix the compensation of such officers and employees not in conflict with existing law and make such expenditure for rent, outside the District of Columbia, printing, telegrams, telephones, books of reference, books of law, periodicals, newspapers, furniture, stationery, office equipment, travel, and other supplies and expenses as shall be deemed necessary to the administration of this chapter in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 309, §3, 44 Stat. 1355.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section constitutes part of section 3 of act Mar. 3, 1927. Remainder of section 3 is classified to sections 495 and 496 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Patrick Galuppi, Respondent, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Motion of respondent to dismiss appeal denied. Case added to the November 1960 Term Calendar and directed to be placed at foot of Day Calendar for argument on December 6, 1960.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

JOSEPH KENNEDY,

Appellant, V. SKAGIT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO.1, Respondent. No. 76625-2-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED:January 22,2018 

### TRICKEY,J.— Joseph Kennedyappealsthetrial court'sdenial ofhis General Rule (GR)34 motion for a waiver ofcivil filing fees and surcharges. The trial court denied Kennedy's motion because his case is a civil matter. Because the trial courtfound that Kennedy is indigent and GR 34 requires waiver of the filing fees
or surcharges in a civil case following a finding of indigency, we reverse and remand. FACTS Kennedy sued Skagit County Hospital District No. 1 seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and disclosure ofdocuments under the Public RecordsAct, chapter 42.56 RCW. Kennedy concurrently filed a motion for waiver of civil fees pursuant to GR 34. The trial courtfound that Kennedy was indigent by reason ofNo.76625-2-1 /2

having "household income ator below 125% ofthefederal poverty guideline."1 But the trial courtdenied Kennedy's motion "because this is a civil matter."2 Kennedy appeals.3 ANALYSIS Kennedy argues that the trial court erred when it denied his GR 34 motion for waiver offiling fees and surcharges because he is indigent. We agree. "Any individual, on the basis of indigent status as defined herein,may seek
a waiver offiling fees or surcharges the paymentofwhich is a condition precedent to a litigant's ability to secure access to judicial relief from a judicial officer in the applicable trial court." GR 34(a). "[A]litigant. . .whose household income is at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline is automatically deemed indigent." Jafar v. Webb, 177 Wn.2d 520, 526, 303 P.3d 1042 (2013)(citing GR 34(a)(3)(A),(B)). GR 34 is a rule ofgeneral application,and the text ofthe rule does not limit its scope to criminal matters. See GR 34. The Washington Supreme Court has held in a civil case that "GR 34 provides a uniform standard for determining whether an individual is indigent and further requires the court to waive all fees and costs for individuals who meetthis standard." Jafar, 177 Wn.2d at 523. A trial court's application of GR 34 is an interpretation ofa court rule and is therefore reviewed de novo. Jafar, 177Wn.2d at 526.

' Clerk's Papers (CP)at 2. 2 CP at 3. 3 Skagit County Hospital District No. 1 did not file a responsive brief or otherwise participate in this appeal. 2No.76625-2-1/ 3 Here, the trial court determined that Kennedy is indigent because his household income is at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline. Therefore, the trial court was required to grant an order of indigency and waive Kennedy's civil filing fees or surcharges under GR 34. We conclude that the trial court erred when it failed to do so, and reverse and remand for a waiver of Kennedy's filing fees or surcharges consistent with GR 34. Because we reverse underGR 34,wedeclineto reach Kennedy'sargument that the trial court demonstrated bias against him and violated the appearance of fairness doctrine when it denied his motion. Reversed and remanded.

WE CONCUR:

3
# June 2022 FOIA Log
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Quran Bryant, Stephen A. Barfield, and Grace Everett, Appellant s

No. 06

- 14

- 00007

- CV v.

Dennis J. Cady, Ind. and as Trustee of the Dennis J. Cady Living Trust d/b/a Cady Enterprises, Appelle e Appeal from the 30th District Court of Wichita County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 178,120

- A ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible err or in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion

. We further order that the appell ee , Dennis J. Cady, Ind. and as Trustee of the Dennis J.

Cady Living Trust d/b/a Cady Enterprises , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### 1509.407-3 Procedures.

The procedures prescribed in 1509.406-3(a) shall be followed under conditions which appear to warrant suspension of a Contractor.
#### 208.7401 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Enterprise software agreement* means an agreement or a contract that is used to acquire designated commercial software or related commercial software services such as software maintenance.

*Enterprise Software Initiative* means an initiative led by the DoD Chief Information Officer to develop processes for DoD-wide software asset management.

*Software maintenance* means services normally provided by a software company as standard services at established catalog or market prices, *e.g.,* the right to receive and use upgraded versions of software, updates, and revisions.

[67 FR 65511, Oct. 25, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006; 88 FR 6581, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### 1325.105 Determining reasonableness of cost.

The designee authorized to make a written determination that the use of higher evaluation factors than those in FAR 25.105(b) is appropriate is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Document Headings

                    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 the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

      ( print page 4178)    

*OFAC:*                         Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://www.treas.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action(s)

On January 11, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
      ( print page 4179)          ( print page 4180)    

Dated: January 11, 2021.

Andrea M. Gacki,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C

[FR Doc. 2021-00767 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
#### (A) In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Bella Ditchick, Deceased. Ceille D. Ornstein, Appellant; Estelle Boyarsky, Respondent. (B) In the Matter of Philip Cataldo, et al., Respondents, v. Town of Hempstead, Appellant. (C) Elizabeth Kamen, Respondent, v. Samuel E. Kamen, Defendant, and Robert R. Kaufman, Appellant. (D) Stanley Schwarzbart et al., Respondents, v. Henley Development Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (E) Sophie Ulman et al., Appellants, v. Burton Duke, Respondent.

[In each appeal] Motion by respondent [s] to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant [s] argue or submit the appeal at the December Term, beginning November 28, 1960. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’] brief must be served and filed on or before November 14, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(a)




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated February 9, 2000 with respect to the financial
statements of Separate Account VA-1 of The American Franklin Life Insurance
Company and our report dated February 18, 2000, with respect to the financial
statements of The American Franklin Life Insurance Company, in this Post-
Effective Amendment No. 5 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4
(No. 333-10489) under the Securities Act of 1933 and Registration Statement
(No. 811-7781) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and related Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information of Separate Account VA-1 of The American
Franklin Life Insurance Company


                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
April 24, 2000