alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | **FOIA Reading Rooms**Making a Request | FAQs | Contacts | Links

## FOIA e-Reading Room

### Other Documents

                - ED's Records Disposition Schedules 
                - ED's Privacy Act Issuances
                - Government Information Locator System (GILS), which identifies major information systems at ED and throughout the federal government
                - Inventory of ED Major Information Systems
                - Grant Information
                - Handbook for the Discretionary Grant ProcessText of the Freedom of Information Act
Text of the Privacy Act
   Printable view  Last Modified: 11/10/2021How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity

 
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
- vote.gov
Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 221 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:4575
Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 221 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:4576
Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 221 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:4577
6/5/15

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Review of Ready Biodegradability Study for CASRN 119-61-9, Benzophenone

FROM: David G. Lynch

Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division

TO: John Schaeffer 

Chemical Control Division

THRU: Nhan T. Nguyen

Chief, Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division

The study titled Benzophenone: Ready Biodegradability- CO2 in Sealed Vessels (Headspace Test)

conducted by Wildlife International (Wildlife International Project Number 264E-104) for the 

American Chemistry Council completed March 10, 2015 has been reviewed. 

The study was submitted to fulfill Ready Biodegradability testing requirements under the TSCA 

section 4 test rule. 

The study was conducted in compliance with USEPA and OECD GLP standards. The 

biodegradation method was based on OECD Guideline 310, Ready Biodegradability- CO2 in

Sealed Vessels (Headspace Test).

The criteria for validity, i.e., reference compound biodegradation, acceptable differences 

between extremes of replicate values, and total inorganic carbon in blank controls at the end of 

the test were met. The test is considered valid and the study is acceptable to meet the 

requirements for Ready Biodegradability testing.

The results indicate that the test substance biodegraded an average of 65% over the 28 day test 

period and satisfied the 10-day window criteria where 60% biodegradation must be observed 

within 10 days of biodegradation exceeding 10%. Thus the test substance can be classified as 

readily biodegradable.

Please contact me at 564-8532 if you have any questions.
209.270-4 Procedures. ( a ) The head of the design control activity shall— ( 1 ) Identify items that meet the criteria for designation as aviation or ship critical safety items. See additional information at PGI 209.270-4;
( 2 ) Approve qualification requirements in accordance with procedures established by the design control activity; and
( 3 ) Qualify and identify aviation and ship critical safety item suppliers and products.
( b ) The contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Ensure that the head of the design control activity has determined that a prospective contractor or its product meets or can meet the established qualification standards before the date specified for award of the contract;
( 2 ) Refer any offers received from an unapproved source to the head of the design control activity for approval. The head of the design control activity will determine whether the offeror or its product meets or can meet the established qualification standards before the date specified for award of the contract; and
( 3 ) Refer any requests for qualification to the design control activity.
( c ) See 246.407 (S-70) and 246.504 for quality assurance requirements.
[69 FR 55988, Sept. 17, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 57190, Sept. 30, 2005; 73 FR 1827, Jan. 10, 2008]
child custody matters, and we will not disturb the district court's custody

determinations absent a clear abuse of discretion." 

### Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). This court will not set aside district court factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. 

### Id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The district court found that appellant alienated the child from respondent, failed to correct past behavioral problems, demonstrated continued poor judgment, and failed to adhere to court orders. Contrary to appellant's assertions, these findings are supported by substantial evidence, specifically, testimony that was presented at the evidentiary hearing on the matter. 

### See id. Moreover, there is no indication that these findings demonstrate district court bias or an improper acquiescence to the recommendation of the parenting coordinator. 

### See NRCP 53 (providing that a court may appoint a special master who will prepare a report regarding the matters submitted to them). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the child's best interest would be served by granting respondent primary physical custody and limiting appellant's legal custody rights. 

### See NRS 125.510(2);

### Rivero, 125 Nev. at 421, 216 P.3d at 221 (providing that parents need not have equal decision-making power in a joint legal custody situation); 

### Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241.

Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it found that appellant had not complied with the terms of the prior stipulated order that had conditionally granted the parties joint custody provided that appellant begin counseling for herself and the child. The district court relied on this finding only as an alternative reason, other than changed circumstances, to entertain respondent's motion to modify custody. Thus, even if appellant had fully complied with the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A ce

### J.

stipulation's terms and had joint custody, the district court's principal reason for modifying custody—that doing so served the child's best interest—would remain unaffected.

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

CLAS Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division Steinberg Law Group Fine Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A
28 June 2013

Richard Payton

8P-AR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202-1129

Dear Richard:

Enclosed is the Exceptional Event report for the high wind/blowing dust episode that occurred on April 28 to 

April 29, 2010 in Alamosa, Pagosa Springs and Durango, Colorado. Data for this event are flagged on AQS, as 

required. This report, and the analysis and data contained within it, clearly shows that this exceptional event 

passed the four required tests under 40 CFR 50.14 (3)(iv).

This report was made available for public comment on our website from May 28 through June 27, 2013, and 

was also distributed to potentially interested parties. Some minor non-substantiative external comments were 

received and corrections have been made to the report. Some non-substantiative and formatting changes were 

also made to the report by the Air Pollution Control Division. The Division commits to submitting an 

Addendum further detailing Local Particulate Matter Dust Control Measures: Windblown Dust from Disturbed 

Soils for potential areas surrounding the Alamosa Municipal Building PM10 monitor.

We respectfully request a review of this exceptional event report and concurrence by EPA on this natural high 

wind/blowing dust event.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gordon E. Pierce

Program Manager

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

cc. Deirdre Rothery, EPA

Lisa Clarke, APCD

Kaitlin Stabrava, APCD

Pat McGraw, APCD

Pat Reddy, APCD

Terry Furuli, APCD
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Messina, Appellant.

Appeal by' defendant from a judgment of the County *944Court, Kings County, rendered January 21, 1957 after a jury trial, convicting him (on two counts) of a violation of the Public Health Law (Penal Law, § 1751) with respect to the possession and sale of narcotic drugs, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the request, made in the jury’s presence, to permit the exhibits to be sent to the jury room. This claim is not supported by the record. The record clearly indicates: (1) that the remarks of the court referred to a stipulation which had already been entered into between the counsel for the defendant and the prosecutor, which permitted the exhibits to be sent into the jury room; and (2) that at no time did defendant object to the court’s inquiry concerning such stipulation. Defendant also claims that the court committed reversible error in its charge. We find no error in the charge. The charge, read in the context of the proof, makes it quite clear that, with respect to the first count, the defendant was being tried for selling the narcotics, and not for delivering them as an agent. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### 201.602 Contracting officers.
Order filed March 4 , 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00981

- CV

____________ O.C.T.G., L.L.P AND SOJOURN PARTNERS, L. L.C. , Appellant s
V.

LAGUNA TUBULAR PRODU CTS CORPORATION AND LTP REAL ESTATE, LLC F/K/A LT D REAL ESTATE, INC. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 44749



### ORDER
On January 9, 2013, t his appeal was abated for the trial court to hear evidence and grant appropriate relief
, or make findings and recommendations and report them to this court
, on the proceeding to enforce the temporary injunction signed October 15, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.4. The trial court’s findings and
recommendations were filed. The trial court re commended its order be enforced
and appellants ordered to comply with its order of October 15, 2013.Appell ees filed a motion with this court for entry of an order adopting the

trial court’s findings and enforcing the temporary injunction against appell ant s

. Appel lants filed a response, to which appell ee s responded. We grant appellees’ motion to enforce the trial court’s order of October 15,
2013 , a nd we order OCTG to comply with the trial court’s order immediately. Appellants’ motion to stay enforcement for 45 days is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, and Willard Holbert et al., Respondents.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Brink at Special Term. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ. [39 Misc 2d 782, 786, 788.]
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Mario Gugino. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Vincent Zagarrigo.

(David C. Berg, Esq.) (David Yellen, Esq.) [In each action] Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, typewritten briefs, and counsel assigned.
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 6 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:42
Salt Lake Community College Miller Campus 

Directional Map & Campus Directory 

9750 South 300 West 

Sandy, Utah 

(801) 957-5200 

Driving from The North: 

Take I-15 South to Exit 295 (9000 South). Exit right (west) onto 

9000 South and proceed to 450 west (1st light). Turn left 

(south), go to 9120 South & turn left (east), go to 300 West 

(frontage road) & turn right (south). Proceed 6 blocks south 

along frontage road. 

Driving from the South: 

Take I-15 North to Exit 293 (10600 South) after exiting, turn 

left (west) and proceed to Jordan Gateway. Turn right (north), 

go to light at 10000 South (Sego Lily Dr) in Sandy. Turn right 

(East), go over the railroad tracks & turn left (north) on 300 

West (frontage road). Proceed 2 blocks north along frontage 

road. 

10600 S 

10000 S 

9000 S 

State Street 

300 W 

9120 S 

Sego Lily Dr 

Jordan

Gateway

Miller 

Campus 450 W 

Sandy Parkway

500 W 

Miller Campus Directory 

*CART Culinary Arts Center 

 Cafeteria/Food Services 

 Banquet Rooms 

*DPS Department of Public Safety 

 Classrooms 

 Dorms 

 Firing Range 

KGMC Karen Gail Miller Conference Center 

 Conference Center 

MATC Miller Automotive Training Center 

Automotive 

SLCC Institute of Public Safety 

MCPC Miller Corporate Partnership Center 

Continuing & Community Education 

Miller Business Innovation Center 

 PacifiCorp 

 Utah Small Business Development Center 

MFEC Miller Free Enterprise Center 

ACT Testing Center 

 Auditorium 

 Corporate Training 

 Faculty/Student Support Office 

 Program & Course Development 

 Supported Employment 

 UHP/Emissions 

MPDC Miller Professional Development Center 

Finance Office 

 Conferencing Services 

 Distance Education 

 Enrollment Services 

* Not Official Names

I-15
#### Melvin G. Hazard, Respondent, v. Board of Education, Horseheads Central School District No. 1, Horseheads, Appellant.

Motion to allow the New York State School Boards Association, Inc., to file a brief *amicus curies*granted.
#### Comstock Foods, Inc., Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 35088.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal by claimant from a judgment of the Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for appropriation of realty by State.) Present —■ Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ. [18 Misc 2d 519.]
Exhibit 10-Q(iii)

                             THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
     PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF PRIORITY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND AFFILIATES

WHEREAS, Priority Healthcare Corporation (the "Company") established the Profit
Sharing Plan of Priority Healthcare Corporation and Affiliates (the "Plan")
effective on January 1, 1999, in the Key Trust Company PRISM(R) Non Standardized
Prototype Retirement Plan and Trust, as provided by the Trustee; and,

WHEREAS, the Company, effective as of April 1, 2000, desires to modify the
minimum eligibility age requirement, in the Adoption Agreement, from age 21 to
age 18.

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company, effective as of April 1, 2000, amends
provisions of Item B.6.b. of the Adoption Agreement to provide as follows:

B. BASIC PLAN PROVISIONS:

     6.  ELIGIBILITY:

         An Employee covered by the Plan may become a Participant upon
         completion of the following eligibility requirements:

         b.  AGE:

                 i  There shall be no minimum age requirement for an Employee to
                    become a Participant.

              X ii  The Employee must attain age 18 (not more than 21) to be a
                    Participant in the Plan.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that except as AMENDED herein, all other provisions
of the Profit Sharing Plan of Priority Healthcare Corporation and Affiliates
shall remain effective as set forth in the Adoption Agreement.

PLAN SPONSOR: PRIORITY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

BY: /s/ Barbara J. Luttrell                DATED: 3-16-00
    -----------------------                       --------------


TRUSTEE: KEYTRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


BY: /s/ George Newsham                     DATED: 3/23/2000
    -----------------------                       --------------


                                   EXHIBIT A
#### Antonio A. Jimenez, Respondent, v. Seickel & Sons, Appellant.

Order entered May 14, 1964, granting plaintiff’s motion to amend and increase the *ad damnum*clause from $100,000 to $500,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion denied. To permit the substantial increase of the *ad damnum*clause sought by plaintiff requires a prima facie showing of the inadequacy of the demand in the complaint supported by a physician’s affidavit demonstrating with some degree of specificity the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries, their prospective consequences, the resulting disabilities and the causal relationship between such disabilities and the original injuries sustained. *(Ferrari*v. *Paramount Plumbing & Heating Co.,*20 A D 2d 878.) The medical affidavit submitted in support of the application is fatally defective since it is conelusory in nature and lacks specific findings. Moreover, the affidavit of merits is defective. It is necessary that “on an application of this nature there should be submitted plaintiff’s affidavit of merits showing the merits of the case, the reasons for the delay and the fact that the increase is warranted by reason of facts which have recently come to the attention of the plaintiff and excusing the failure or negligence necessitating the amendment so far as these facte are within the knowledge of the plaintiff”. *(Koi*v. P. *S. & M. Catering Corp.,*15 A D 2d 775.) Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to meet these requirements. (See, generally, *Gerard*v. *331 Madison Ave. Corp.,*20 A D 2d 776; *Cox*v. *New York Tel. Co.,*10 A D 2d 565; and cases cited in dissenting opinion in *Teplitsky*v. *Kamensky,*9 A D 2d 671.) Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the original demand is more than sufficient to provide adequate compensation to this plaintiff if he prevails in the litigation. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
1816.405-272 Award fee evaluation periods. ( a ) Award fee evaluation periods, including those for interim evaluations, should be at least 6 months in length. When appropriate, the procurement officer may authorize shorter evaluation periods after ensuring that the additional administrative costs associated with the shorter periods are offset by benefits accruing to the Government. Where practicable, such as developmental contracts with defined performance milestones (e.g., Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, initial system test), establishing evaluation periods at conclusion of the milestones rather than calendar dates, or in combination with calendar dates should be considered. In no case shall an evaluation period be longer than 12 months.
( b ) A portion of the total available award fee contract shall be allocated to each of the evaluation periods. This allocation may result in an equal or unequal distribution of fee among the periods. The contracting officer shall consider the nature of each contract and the incentive effects of fee distribution in determining the appropriate allocation structure.
[62 FR 3478, Jan. 23, 1997. Redesignated at 62 FR 36706, July 9, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 13133, Mar. 18, 1998; 80 FR 12937, Mar. 12, 2015]
On November 27, 2012, OCR closed a complaint against North Carolina State University alleging that the University’s consideration of race and national origin as factors in admissions in its undergraduate classes violates Title VI. Under Title VI, strict scrutiny review is applied to the use of an individual’s race in admissions in federally assisted programs. Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, the recipient must have a compelling interest for using race and its use of race must be narrowly tailored to that interest. OCR stated that the University has a compelling interest in achieving the educational benefits of diversity, as recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice in the Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Education.  OCR also found that the admissions process met the second requirement of strict scrutiny: narrow tailoring. As part of its narrow tailoring analysis, OCR stated that under Title VI, a recipient has academic discretion to decide on admissions criteria, including how test scores will be used. SAT scores are not a decisive admissions factor in the University’s process, and the gaps in and of themselves do not establish that race is the predominant factor.    
***Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF

Top
#### 16.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.

A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of (1) a base amount fixed at inception of the contract, if applicable and at the discretion of the contracting officer, and (2) an award amount that the contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance and that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in the areas of cost, schedule, and technical performance. See 16.401(e) for the requirements relative to utilizing this contract type.

[74 FR 52859, Oct. 14, 2009]
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-03670 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, February 9, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to 
February 9, 2021, 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20892 which was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2020, 
85 FR 85652.
    This notice is being amended to change the start and end times of 
the closed session from 11:00 a.m.-12:45 p.m. to 10:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. 
on February 9, 2021. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01709 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P