alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 686 – Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program, Subpart A:

Proposed regulations

Add to 686.2(d) Definitions:

High-Quality Teacher Preparation Program:  A teacher preparation program that is determined by the State to be an [effective or] exceptional teacher preparation program based on that State’s analysis of the criteria in §612.5 and that is reported as [effective or] exceptional in the State report card under §612.4.

**Amend the following definitions:**

TEACH Grant-eligible institution: An eligible institution as defined in 34 CFR part 600 that meets financial responsibility standards established in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, or that qualifies under an alternative standard in 34 CFR 668.175 and--

(1) Provides at least one high-quality teacher preparation program at the baccalaureate or master's degree level that

also provides supervision and support services to teachers, or assists in the provision of services to teachers, such as--

(A) Identifying and making available information on effective teaching skills or strategies;

(B) Identifying and making available information on effective practices in the supervision and coaching of novice teachers; and

(C) Mentoring focused on developing effective teaching skills and strategies;

(2) Provides a two-year program that is acceptable for full credit in a TEACH Grant-eligible program offered by an institution described in paragraph (1) of this definition, as demonstrated by the institutions; or

(3) Provides a post-baccalaureate program of study.

TEACH Grant-eligible program: An eligible program, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, that is a high-quality teacher preparation program that is designed to prepare an individual to teach as a highly-qualified teacher in a high-need field and leads to a baccalaureate or master's degree, or is a post-baccalaureate program of study. A two-year program of study that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high-quality teacher preparation program is considered to be a program of study that leads to a baccalaureate degree.

Teacher preparation program: A State-approved course of study, the completion of which signifies that an enrollee has met all the State's educational or training requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in the State's elementary or secondary schools. A teacher preparation program may be a traditional program or an alternative route to certification, as defined by the State. For purposes of a TEACH Grant, the program must be provided by an institution of higher education.

**Grandfathering language:**

Add §686.3(c) to read as follows:

§  686.3 Duration of student eligibility.

* * * * *

(c)  An otherwise eligible student who received a TEACH Grant for enrollment in a TEACH Grant-eligible program before [July 1 of effective date year] is eligible to receive additional TEACH Grants to complete that program, even if that program is no longer considered a TEACH Grant-eligible program, not to exceed four Scheduled Awards for an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate student and up to two Scheduled Awards for a graduate student.

1
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |

|                              |
|------------------------------|
|                              |  |  |
|                         |   |   |
| Date:  November 7, 2018 | By: | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 971 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

include in each regulatory impact analysis for a proposed or final rule 

an analysis that does not include any other proposed or unimplemented 

rule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to include in each regulatory impact analysis 

for a proposed or final rule an analysis that does not 

include any other proposed or unimplemented rule. 

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 ‘‘Real EPA Impact Re5 views Act’’ or the ‘‘REPAIR Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ8 ing regulations), including Executive Order 13563 (76 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 971 IS

1 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 21, 2011)), Executive Order 

2 12866 (58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (October 4, 1993)), and the 

3 document of the Office of Management and Budget enti4 tled ‘‘OMB Circular A–4’’, in promulgating any rule the 

5 cost of which is projected to be greater than $1,000,000, 

6 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agen7 cy shall include in each of the regulatory impact analyses 

8 for the proposed and final rule at least 1 analysis that 

9 does not include— 

10 (1) any other proposed rule; or 

11 (2) any other rule that, as of the date of the 

12 analysis— 

13 (A) has been finalized by the Adminis14 trator; but 

15 (B) has not been implemented. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
M. P. No. 75-61.

#### Donald Brandt *v.*James W. Mullen, *Warden.*

*William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Peter DiBiase,*Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *William G. Brody,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The order entered on March 10, 1975, granting a stay of the Superior Court’s decision is vacated as of March 17, 1975, at 4:30 p.m.
#### WOLFMANN v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Lena Wolfmann against the city of New York.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
#### 1652.204-70 Contractor records retention.

As prescribed in 1604.705 the following clause will be inserted in all FEHB Program contracts.

# Contractor Records Retention (JUL 2005)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.7 (FAR 52.215-2(f)) “Audit and Records—Negotiation” the carrier will retain and make available all records applicable to a contract term that support the annual statement of operations and, for contracts that equal or exceed the threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1), the rate submission for that contract term for a period of six years after the end of the contract term to which the records relate. This includes all records of Large Provider Agreements and subcontracts that equal or exceed the threshold requirements. In addition, individual enrollee and/or patient claim records will be maintained for six years after the end of the contract term to which the claim records relate. This clause is effective prospectively as of the 2005 contract year.

(End of clause)

[70 FR 31382, June 1, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 3016, Jan. 19, 2006]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



TYPE                                                    27
DESCRIPTION                        FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
ARTICLE                                                  5
LEGEND
RESTATED
CIK
NAME
MULTIPLIER
CURRENCY
FISCAL-YEAR-END                             March 31, 2001
PERIOD-START                                 April 2, 2000
PERIOD-END                                  March 31, 2001
PERIOD-TYPE                                       52 weeks
EXCHANGE-RATE
CASH                                               350,000
SECURITIES
RECEIVABLES                                      2,654,000
ALLOWANCES                                         209,000
INVENTORY                                        2,935,000
CURRENT-ASSETS                                   6,093,000
PP&E                                             4,179,000
DEPRECIATION                                     3,912,000
TOTAL-ASSETS                                     6,373,000
CURRENT -LIABILITIES                             4,192,000
BONDS                                                  ---
COMMON                                           4,315,000
PREFERRED-MANDATORY                              1,983,000
PREFERRED                                              ---
OTHER-SE                                        33,087,000
TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY                       6,373,000
SALES                                           15,894,000
TOTAL-REVENUES                                  15,894,000
CGS                                              7,836,000
TOTAL-COSTS                                     14,582,000
OTHER-EXPENSES                                     (4,000)
LOSS-PROVISION                                         ---
INTEREST-EXPENSE                                   140,000
INCOME-PRETAX                                    1,176,000
INCOME-TAX                                          12,000
INCOME-CONTINUING                                1,164,000
DISCONTINUED                                           ---
EXTRAORDINARY                                          ---
CHANGES                                                ---
NET-INCOME                                       1,164,000
EPS-PRIMARY                                           0.03
EPS-DILUTED                                           0.02


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Rodriguez, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on November 22, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on appeal. Concur — Lane, J. P., Markewich, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
#### Robert C. Percy v. Mary J. Percy, Also Known as Mary J. Bulck, et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied on the merits, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### William Squillante et al., Appellants, v. Los Cab Corp., et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on June 5, 1963, denying preference under rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion for a preference granted, with $10 costs. Trial Term in denying the preference relied on an opinion of a medical panel doctor that the accident did not cause the injuries. So long as there was an issue as to that opinion, a preference should not have been denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
| (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/ Anthony W. Adler          |   |   |        |
| Anthony              W. Adler |   |   |        |
| Principal Financial Officer   |   |   |        |

----
Sydor Aerial Photography Llc.

Anthony Sydor CEO

Sydor Aerial Photography wishes to amend its cur rent FAA section 333 exemptions

.

Sydor Aerial Photography would like to add an additional aircraft. The add ition aircraft will be known as Hycopter 1 UAS. Description of the Hycopter 1 UAS is as follows. 1) The Hycopter 1 UAS frame is a quadcopter configuration measuring 170cm x 170cm with propellers installed. Power source is incorporated into the airframe and is composed of a 3L composite H2 storage vessel , a 500W ultra

- light fuel cell and a 175g HES pressure reducer. Additionally, a lithium polymer battery is also used for peak power needs and serves as a safety backup. Take

- off weight without payload is 5.2KG. Payload capacity is at or less than 1KG. The Hycopter 1 integrated energy platform is manufactured by HUS Unmanned Systems

. www. hus.sg 2) Flight controller: DJI A2. 3) Tuned Propulsion System: E1200 Pro. 4) Transmitters: Futaba FASST series and DJI DESST series.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUL-01-1996
<CASH>                                         238,465                 102,223
<SECURITIES>                                     3,732<F1>               4,923<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,870                  61,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,823                 221,866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               307,890                 307,890
<PP&E>                                       1,459,017               1,495,134
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,007,792)               (968,315)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,110,940               1,196,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        (421,235)               (345,229)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                   (5,632,158)             (5,626,758)
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,127,453<F2>           4,775,138<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                      (316,162)               (334,578)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (383,951)               (448,574)
<CGS>                                           37,016                  53,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  736,266                 770,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               699,250                 717,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (352,315)               (322,325)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (352,315)               (322,325)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)                   (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
<FN>
<F1>Prepaid Expense
<F2>Retained Earnings Deficit
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Cecil A. Benjamin, Appellant, v Frank J. Macchiarola, as Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review respondents’ determination dated July 18, 1978, which denied the petitioner tenure as a principal in a day vocational high school, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 11, 1978, which denied his petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term correctly denied the petitioner’s application. He has not availed himself of his remedy under the by-laws of the board of education and his collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, he has raised allegations unsupported in the record. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Rose M. Eisner, Appellant, v. Wesley J. Farrington, as Commissioner of Building of the City of White Plains, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Rose M. Eisner, Appellant, v. Herbert K. Morrell et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of White Plains, et al., Respondents.

In two consolidated proceedings under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review determinations by respondent Commissioner of Building and respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of White Plains, which in substance approved, under stated conditions, the construction of an addition to the residence of respondents Evans, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 28, 1960, dismissing both proceedings on the merits. Order affirmed, with one bill of costs. The building addition, containing several rooms, was designed for use by respondent Alvin Evans as an office for the practice of his profession as a doctor of veterinary medicine. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of White Plains permits, as an accessory use, a “ Professional office * * * in principal building” restricted to residence use. Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals found, in effect, that the alteration made as directed by it, would constitute an integral unit with the principal building, which would consist of the residence and a professional office therein. That finding, supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious and may not be disturbed by the court (cf. *Matter of Reed*v. *Board of Standards & Appeals,*255 N. Y. 126, 136; *People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Valley Title & Mtge. Co.*v. *Walker,*282 N. Y. 400, 405). It is conceded that the practice of veterinary medicine is a profession and we find nothing in the zoning ordinance which prohibits the practice of that profession in an office in the doctor’s residence. If a veterinary hospital is established on the premises, in violation of the zoning ordinance, petitioner will not be without remedy. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Sullivan, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

On the court’s own motion, decision dated April 2, 1962, dismissing the appeal, *662is vacated; and the appeal is ordered on the calendar for the May Term, beginning April 23, 1962, peremptorily against respondent. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, J J., concur. Hopkins, J., not voting.
Appeal No. 74-243.

#### Guido Tortolano *et ux. v.*Albert DiPhilippo, Jr. *v.*The City of Providence *et al.*

*Morriss*cfe *Vacca, Anthony Vacca,*for appellees. *Bevilacqua & Cicilline, Stephen E. Cicilline,*for appellant Albert DiPhilippo, Jr.

Motion of appellees to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court under Rule 16(g), as amended, is denied.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 20

- 00205

- CV

__________________

OBERHEIDEN LAW GROUP, PLLC, NICK OBERHEIDEN,

OBERHEIDEN, P.C., AND OBERHEIDEN & MCMURREY, LP , Appellant s

V.

CORROSION RESISTANT SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL

. , Appellee s

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A

- 202,825

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The record for this appeal includes a reporter’s record of an August 12, 2020

hearing. In connection with the hearing, t he parties submitted to the trial court

documents marked as c onfidential exhibits. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 34.6(g), t he trial court shall forward the following exhibits to the Court of

Appeals on or before September 28, 2020 :

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A: E mail dated January 27, 2017 ;2 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B: E mail dated March 27, 2017 with attached letter;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D: E mail dated April 13, 2017 with an attached letter

enclosing agreement;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E: D ocument relating to pharmacy services agreement

including email;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F: E mail communica tions concerning draft agreement ;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G: E mail dated July 10, 2017 with draft a greement ;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H: E mail dated September 12, 2017 with form notice;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I: E mail , statement of compliance

, and a greement ;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J : Documents Bates

- stamped OLG002337

- OLG2338, and

OLG1801;

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit K : E mail ;

Defendants’ Exhibit A: D rafts , contracts and email correspondence rega rding

contracts ;

Defendants’ Exhibit B: Documents and emails regarding employment

a greement;

Defendants’ Exhibit C: Emails from Defendants regarding attorney

- client

relationship;

Defendants’ Exhibit D: Emails regarding p harmacist c ontract;

Defendants’ Exhibit E: Emails regarding a nesthesia c ontract;

Defendants’ Exhibit F: Emails and documents regarding t ermination of l ease;

and

Defendants’ Exhibit G: Contract a ddendum, documents and emails regarding

c ompliance work.3 The exhibits will be returned to the trial court when our mandate issues

.

ORDER ENTERED September 1 7 , 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
#### 209.105-2-70 Inclusion of determination of contractor fault in Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

If the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts and the DoD appointing official that requested a DoD investigation makes a final determination that a contractor's or subcontractor's gross negligence or reckless disregard for the safety of civilian or military personnel of the Government caused serious bodily injury or death of such personnel, the contracting officer shall enter in FAPIIS the appropriate information regarding such determination within three days of receiving notice of the determination, pursuant to section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383). Information posted in FAPIIS regarding such determinations will be publicly available.

[76 FR 57677, Sept. 16, 2011]
#### York Research Corporation *v.*Harrell Corporation

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute its appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford *679•with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

No appearance by counsel for either party.

Decided December 3, 1974
#### DRESSER, Respondent, v. TRAVIS, et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Catharine M. Dresser against Martin V. B. Travis and others.

C. P. Anderson, for appellants. W. M. Powell, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 79 N. Y. Supp. 924.