alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Violence Against Women Act Negotiated Rulemaking Committee**

**Meeting Summary**

**February 24-25, 2014**

**Welcome**

Jamienne Studley, Acting Under Secretary of the Department, welcomed the members of the Committee back for the second set of meetings and thanked them for their work to assist the Department in developing regulations to implement provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 

**Review and Adopt Meeting Summary**

The Committee members reviewed and approved, with minor changes, the draft meeting summary for their initial session in January. 

**Review of Issues**

The Committee members discussed in detail the draft regulation for changes to the Clery Act by VAWA that the Department circulated to members prior to the meeting session.  Jessica Finkel, Jim Moore, and Brian Siegel of the Department also participated in portions of the Committee discussions.

# Next Meeting

# The next Committee session will be held on March 31 and April 1, 2014 at the U.S. Department of Education in the 8th Floor Conference Center located at 1990 K Street, N.W. in Washington, D.C.  Sessions will begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m. each day.

**Next Steps**

During the initial Committee sessions in January, the Committee established two subgroups to meet by telephone; these were the Stalking Subcommittee headed by Laura Dunn and the Prevention/Training Subcommittee headed by Nancy Chi Cantalupo.  Each group held multiple calls and their leaders reported back to the full Committee at the start of the February sessions. The Prevention/Training Subcommittee and a new Counting Subcommittee were asked to meet by telephone prior to the third set of Committee meetings to seek to develop advice and possible draft regulatory text for the full Committee and the Department to consider.

# Public Comment

# Opportunities were provided each day for the members of the public to provide comments.  Comments from the public were received at the end of each day.

**Members Present**

Non-federal Members:

Stephanie Atella 

Rick Amweg

Connie Best

Jerry Blakemore

Nancy Chi Cantalupo

S. Daniel Carter

Paul Denton

Jill Dunlap

Laura Dunn

Deana Echols 

Lisa Erwin

Caroline Fultz- Carver

Christine Gordon

Fatima Goss Graves

Dennis Gregory 

Bridgette Harwood

Michael Heidingsfield 

John Kelly

Alison Kiss

Denice Labertew

Jessica Ladd-Webert

Gary Lyle

Julie Poorman

Holly Rider-Milkovich 

Cat Riley

Dana Scaduto

Anthony Walker

Michael Webster

U.S. Department of Education:

Gail McLarnon
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0141

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM024AD

53-41, R5 --- 1/25/90

53-41, R4 --- 7/27/73

53-41, R3 --- 7/6/70

53-41, R2 --- 12/16/68

53-41, R1 --- 6/11/68

53-41 --- 3/8/68

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### 211.500 Scope.

This subpart and FAR subpart 11.5 do not apply to liquidated damages for comprehensive subcontracting plans under the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans. See 219.702-70 for coverage of liquidated damages for comprehensive subcontracting plans.

[83 FR 15998, Apr. 13, 2018]
#### Erie County Board of Social Welfare, Respondent, v. David Donnelly, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Children’s Court, adjudging defendant to be the father of the infant child of complainant and directing him to contribute to its support.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 219.202 Specific policies.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Larry E. Finger, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                                                                     
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | /s/ Larry E. Finger                                                                                 
|November 6, 2006 |  | Larry E. Finger, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
215.407-1 Defective certified cost or pricing data. ( c ) ( i ) When a contractor voluntarily discloses defective pricing after contract award, the contracting officer shall discuss the disclosure with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). This discussion will assist in the contracting officer determining the involvement of DCAA, which could be a limited-scope audit (*e.g.,* limited to the affected cost elements of the defective pricing disclosure), a full-scope audit, or technical assistance as appropriate for the circumstances (*e.g.,* nature or dollar amount of the defective pricing disclosure). At a minimum, the contracting officer shall discuss with DCAA the following: ( A ) Completeness of the contractor's voluntary disclosure on the affected contract.
( B ) Accuracy of the contractor's cost impact calculation for the affected contract.
( C ) Potential impact on existing contracts, task or deliver orders, or other proposals the contractor has submitted to the Government.
( ii ) Voluntary disclosure of defective pricing is not a voluntary refund as defined in 242.7100 and does not waive the Government entitlement to the recovery of any overpayment plus interest on the overpayments in accordance with FAR 15.407-1(b)(7).
( iii ) Voluntary disclosure of defective pricing does not waive the Government's rights to pursue defective pricing claims on the affected contract or any other Government contract.
[83 FR 19647, May 4, 2018]
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.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

October 1, 2020 

Honorable Jon J.P. Fernandez 

Superintendent of Education 

Guam Department of Education 

500 Mariner Avenue 

Barrigada, Guam 96913 

jonfernandez@gdoe.net

Dear Superintendent Fernandez: 

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

for grant award H181A180008. 

The Department received your September 21, 2020 request on behalf of the Guam Department of 

Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part C 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, Charles Kniseley 

at Charles.Kniseley@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: Part C Coordinator
#### 2104.7001 Designation of authorized personnel.

The contractor shall notify the contracting officer in writing of the name(s), title(s), and address(es) of the individual(s) authorized to act on behalf of the contractor regarding a LIFAR Program contract. The notice shall include any restriction(s) upon the authority of the individual(s). Any change to the notice must also be provided to the contracting officer in writing.
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47-3 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1391
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47-3 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1392
#### M. Lowell Harman, Suing as Director and Stockholder of and on Behalf of Lincoln Printing Company, Respondent, v. Samuel Grabowetsky et al., Individually and as Partners Doing Business under the Name of Pearl Bindery, et al., Appellants, and Lincoln Engraving and Printing Corporation et al., Respondents.

Orders, entered May 20, 1964, denying the motions of defendants-appellants to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. In this January, 1961 director’s derivative action seeking recovery for the nominal corporate defendant, a printing company, of alleged excessive payments for bindery services from 1954 through 1960, plaintiff submits a eonclusory affidavit of merits containing little evidentiary matter. No significant evidence of excessive payments or reduced profits is shown even though plaintiff has the co-operation of the nominal defendant printing company and an expert in binding charges. Moreover, plaintiff’s excuse that pretrial proceedings are pending is insufficient. He has had the co-operation of the printing company since September, 1962, and the importance of additional discovery proceedings is not shown. It is significant that plaintiff neglected *863for 21 months to perfect his appeal from an order denying examination before trial of the individual defendants, and then he did so only after noticing of these motions for failure to prosecute. (See *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xon. John Y. Baker 

couat? Auditar 

Eg c%g: 

, 

mar sirr 

..- -- 
Sonoreble Jo&n s. x&m, paga 2 

fn atmter to your fir& @.l6rtfon fti fm our opfnfon 

under the fealm rtat& tb8t all of tht Dsputg ShtdX~a of 

Lamar Count? mwt be paid on a alara baeio fuxl thet mm 

of salA &put~e.es OM be paid b&ally m a ecm!nit~Lon, fee, 

or any ather bus18 than upon the salary basl.8 uml5r the 

ofrioeru ’ hlaar7 IAl?. see authoritle8 oited in inion x0. 

O-1565 of thte 6egmt?tment, aoopy of whloh 2.8 8ztO “p wed hereah r0r JOW ittr0m~tf0a. 

Your reoon6 gueetlon 18 un%wt?red in that asgative 

by Umltsd Conferonae 0-$nniox~ 100. O-3551 of this 6epUtunt. 

Thea oplnlon holdr t&t euch pcrtlon of the twnty-Sive 

oenta retalm6 by th8 “deaiguEt66 agentw am ir not Feetonably nmesrarg for pying eaptmtelr inclaent to ttm httfaient 

pecformbutce of the clutlee of a uch egent, mw t bs forttarded 

ta the stat5 xighway x38purtmullt XOF d6p0alt ia the state 

liA&nray Fond, a%ong vith the twenty-,tive cents Somqrded, 

on collectfos, k, l ucla EepcrSme5t, arrd that cwh bcrtance or 

rurpluu war nme*rary eq.nmfeu Is not a *see or cc4tul8mlan, m 

tobe ptU.6 into tlb9 Offl.cems Salary Fund;, or to be aaaouated 

tar am roes of orrias ltmler exl.8- fee etat leer. we enoloecbQ*erithao~.ait;hlropinionfcrrgour~~~. 

i . . . Tke aunmfsmlmer8~ aowt haa na 

authoritjr .to berm mom3y by mmtIttl OS warrento& 

th%u ‘IyL0.b dew aal b7 the irmeixrg of bondm~ 

* . . 
wuld nuthorixe the 0ountT to %88Csl, interoe bear&rig van-ant8 or 

rorlp ori the Gan8ral Fun6 of the oount~ nor rot&l the7 autbooire the oounty to borrw mnc7 bathe+ lerganoe of intscemt 

bearing Varrutta or rorlp. 

APPBGv&LI 

OPItlmx c-m 

By /m/ B.W.B., C2taWwu
<PAGE>

[LOGO]                                   AM Communications
                                         100 Commerce Drive
                                         Quakertown, PA 18951
                                         (215) 538-8700    fax (215) 538-8779


Memo: AM Warrants issued to NeST for amounts due from AM related to Development
Services


Period of Services - Nov 1998 to April 3, 1999

Summary of hours incurred and cost based on contract per attached summary sheet.
The parties agree that such summary represents the total amount owed to NeST for
all services performed through April 3, 1999.

AM has chosen to pay for services valued at $670,000 by issuing warrants with an
exercise price of $.01 per share. Using the average AM stock price per month
when services were performed yields a total number of warrants to be issued of
4,170,806.

Terms of Warrant: As defined in the NeST/AM development Agreement

This agreement shall serve as the official document for the issuance of the
warrants.


Agreed:

AM Communications                            NeST

By: /s/ Keith Schneck                        By: /s/ Jay Hassan
   ------------------                            ---------------------

Date: 6/24/99                                Date: 6/28/99
     ----------------                             --------------------
#### In the Matter of Scott Bisiani, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 72]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered November 23, 2005, which denied petitioner police officer’s application to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ determination denying petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner claims that his disabling trip and fall was caused by a crack in the station house floor and a broken wooden bannister that gave way when he grabbed hold of it in an attempt to break the fall. Where, as here, the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits is the result of a tie vote by the Board of Trustees, such denial can be annulled only if the applicant is entitled to accidental disability benefits as a matter of law *(Matter of McCambridge v McGuire,*62 NY2d 563, 568 [1984]). Given the various accounts of the incident that do not unvaryingly mention a crack in the floor, the absence of any evidence as to the exact size and location of the crack, and the absence of any work or repair order for the floor, it cannot be said as a matter of law that petitioner’s trip and fall was caused by a crack in the floor rather than his own misstep *(see Matter of Starnella v Bratton,*92 NY2d 836, 839 [1998]; *Matter of Doyle v Kelly,*8 AD3d 125 [2004]). Nor can it be said as a matter of law that a broken bannister contributed to petitioner’s fall. The Board was entitled to credit contemporaneous accounts that did not mention a defective bannister as a factor in petitioner’s fall and discredit the subsequent affidavits that did *(see Matter of Gray v Kerik,*15 AD3d 275 [2005]). Certainly, the subsequent statements are not, as a matter of law, more reliable than the earlier ones *(see Matter of Morgan v Kerik,*305 AD2d 288 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 507 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 757 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 757

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to facilitate communication 
   between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and border ranchers in 
        Arizona and other border States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2017

   Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to facilitate communication 
   between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and border ranchers in 
        Arizona and other border States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Border Landowner and Lessee 
Consultation Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH BORDER RANCHERS.

    (a) Requirement To Consult.--Section 411(c) of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 211(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (17), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(19) consult with any person who owns or leases real 
        property where the United States Border Patrol operates and 
        receive input from such persons related to U.S. Customs and 
        Border Protection operations that affect such real property.''.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than six months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue 
final regulations to carry out section 411(c)(19) of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a).

SEC. 3. PRIVATE LANDOWNER OMBUDSMAN.

    Section 411(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
211(d)) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``; Private 
        Landowner Ombudsman'' after ``Deputy Commissioner'';
            (2) by striking ``There shall be'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) Deputy commissioner.--There shall be''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Private landowner ombudsman.--There shall be in U.S. 
        Customs and Border Protection a Private Landowner Ombudsman, 
        who shall assist persons who own real property along the 
        international border between the United States and Mexico in 
        communicating to the Commissioner the needs and interests of 
        such persons related to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
        operations that affect such real property.''.
                                 <all>
```
### Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income

      - **ABOUT**
      - **RESOURCES**

# ABOUT

## PROMISE Program (ALN 84.418) Page.

Go to the ED's PROMISE program site page for more information on grants, funding and contacts.

----

# RESOURCES

### **PROMISE Technical Assistance Center**

The Association of University Centers on Disabilities' (AUCD) PROMISE Technical Assistance Center provides assistance to the six model demonstration projects (MDPs), provide information about interventions and supports for SSI eligible youth and their families, and links the MDPs in order to create the best possible outcomes for youth and their families.
#### Evelyn S. Faulk, Plaintiff, v. John H. Faulk, Respondent. Alfredo Castaneda, Appellant.

Order, entered August 17, 1964, denying appellant’s motion to vacate a notice to take his deposition as a witness and to quash a subpmna unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion and the motion granted, without costs. In the action by a wife for separation, the husband pleaded the alleged adultery of plaintiff as a defense and counterclaimed for a separation on the ground of adultery and cruelty. Defendant served a notice to take the deposition of the appellant, named as the corespondent, as a witness. We have held that in matrimonial actions examinations before trial will not be permitted except upon a showing of special circumstances. *(Mook*v. *Mook,*13 A D 2d 465; see, also, *Nomako*v. *Ashton,*20 A D 2d 331.) In the instant ease there was no such showing of special circumstances as to warrant a deviation from the general rule. Appellant resides in New York City and is employed here. The case presents the usual situation involved in a charge of adultery where the corespondent is named. The policy underlying restriction of examinations before trial in matrimonial actions is particularly applicable in a case such as this where the examination can be misused for purposes of harrassment and embarrassment. (See *Simons*V. *Simons,*182 Mise. 860.) Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the notice of examination and subpmna. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente

and McNally, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy Isaac Griffin, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered June 5, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of selling narcotic drugs, as a felony, and of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted. No questions of fact have been considered. The oral motion to suppress evidence, made at the commencement of the trial and denied after a hearing before the court in the absence of the jury, is granted. [No formal order of denial was made.] Defendant was arrested in his own apartment after the police broke in. Prior to their breaking in the police had knocked once, and received no response; they knocked a second time, announced their office and demanded that the apartment door be opened; again they received no response. They then broke into the apartment. The hearing minutes reveal no testimony which in any way suggests that the police, prior to the breaking, attempted to satisfy the statutory requirement of giving “notice” of their “purpose” (Code Crim. Pro., § 178). In his brief the District Attorney concedes that this requirement of section 178 was not observed. He seeks to excuse the lapse in statutory procedure on the ground of exigent circumstances. In our opinion, no such exigent circumstances have been established. There is no support in the record for the District Attorney’s argument that the impending arrest was about to be frustrated and that vital evidence was about to be destroyed. Accordingly, here we do not and need not reach the question whether, in certain situations, exigent circumstances may excuse noneompliance with any requirement of the statute (Code Crim. Pro., § 178). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.