alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.51
                                     Agreed to November 27, 2018        

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to amend the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use 
of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.''.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




    

We hereby consent to the use, in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 33-70984) of our report dated February 23, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules of Protective Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries, which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the use in this registration statement of our report dated
March 20, 2000 on our audits of the financial statements of the Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to our Firm
under the heading "Experts."






/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP






Birmingham, Alabama

April 19, 2000
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 16, 2018. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 899) entitled 

‘‘An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure 

that the requirements that new Federal employees who are 

veterans with service-connected disabilities are provided leave 

for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disabilities apply to certain employees of the Veterans Health 

Administration, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the 

following 

AMENDMENTS: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Providing 

3 Healthcare Transition Improvement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DISABLED VETERAN LEAVE FOR HEALTH-CARE PRO5 FESSIONALS IN VETERANS HEALTH ADMINIS6 TRATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6329(d)(1) of title 5, 

8 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(1) the term ‘employee’ has the meaning given 

10 such term in section 2105, and includes— 
2 

•S 899 EAH 

1 ‘‘(A) an officer or employee of the United 

2 States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory 

3 Commission; and 

4 ‘‘(B) notwithstanding subsection (a) of sec5 tion 7421 of title 38, an individual occupying a 

6 position listed in subsection (b) of such section;’’. 

7 (b) APPLICABILITY.—With respect to a position listed 

8 in section 7421(b) of title 38, United States Code, the 

9 amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any indi10 vidual appointed to such a position on or after the date 

11 of enactment of this Act. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to amend 

title 5, United States Code, to ensure that the requirements that new Federal employees who are veterans with 

service-connected disabilities are provided leave for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disabilities apply to certain employees of the Veterans Health 

Administration.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 899 

AMENDMENTS
§694.6 Who may provide GEAR UP services to students attending private 

schools? 

Paragraph (b) Options 

Option 1: 

(b) In providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, 

association, agency, or organization must be independent of the private school that the students attend, 

and of any reli9io1,1s other organization affiliated with the school, and that employment or contract must be 

under the control and supervision of the public agency. 

Option 2: 

In providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, 

association, agency, or organization must be independent of the private school that the students attend, 

and of any other or:ganization affiliated with the school, and that employment or contract must be under 

the control and supervision of the public agency. 

Option 3 

(b) In providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, 

association, agency, or organization cannot be simultaneously employed by must be independent of the 

private school that the students attend, aAG-Or of any religious organization affiliated with the school..(!Q 

perform the GEAR UP services). and that employment or contract must be under the control and 

supervision of the public agency. 

Option 4 

(b) Whenlff providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, 

association, agency, or organization must be employed or contracted independentjy of the private school 

that the students attend, and of any religious organization affiliated with the school, and that employment 

or contract must be under the control and supervision of the public agency. 

Option 5 

(b) When IR-providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, 

association, agency, or organization must be employed or contracted independentjy of the private school 

that the students attend, and of any religio1,1s or:ganization affiliated with the school, and that employment 

or contract must be under the control and supervision of the public agency.
1209.405-1 Continuation of current contracts. ( a ) Notwithstanding the suspension, proposed debarment, or debarment of a contractor, contracting officers may continue contracts or subcontracts in existence at the time the contractor was suspended, proposed for debarment, or debarred, if authorized by the SDO and the SDO makes a written determination, consistent with the procedures described in FAR 9.405-1(a) setting forth the compelling reasons for continuing such contract(s) and placing order(s).
( b ) The SDO is delegated the authority on behalf of the Secretary of DOT to make the written determination required under FAR 9.405-1(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT &
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Sép /@)
WESTERN DIVISION ? 2
me 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) See :
) No. 11 CR 50083-3 Miicy
vs. ) oe
) Judge Frederick J. Kapala
ANTHONY TAYLOR ) (Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney)

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Upon the agreed motion of the United States for a protective order, it is hereby
ordered as follows:

1. All materials produced by the government in preparation for or in
conjunction with any stage of the proceedings in this case, including but not limited to grand
jury transcripts, agency reports, witness statements, memoranda of interview, and any
documents provided by the government, excluding trial exhibits, remain the property of the
United States. Not less than 180 days after the later of sentencing, conclusion of an appeal,
or an earlier final resolution of charge(s) against the defendant, all such materials and all
copies made thereof shall be returned to the United States without further order of Court.

2. All materials provided by the United States may be utilized by defendant
and his counsel solely in connection with the defense of this case and for no other purpose
and in connection with no other proceeding. The materials and their contents shall not be
disclosed either directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than defendant, defendant's
counsel, persons employed to assist in the defense, or such other persons as to whom the
Court may authorize disclosure. Any notes or records of any kind that defense counsel or any

other recipient may make relating to the contents of materials provided by the government



Case: 3:11-cr-50083 Document #: 29-1 Filed: 09/08/12 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:47

shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the defendant, defense counsel, and persons
employed to assist in the defense, or such other person as to whom the Court may authorize
disclosure, and all such notes and records shall not be disclosed except as provided by this
Order.

3. The materials shall not be copied or reproduced by defense counsel or
any other recipient, except as necessary to provide copies of the materials for use by defense
counsel, defendant and such persons as are employed by them to assist in the defense. Such
copies and reproductions shall be treated in the same manner as the original matter.

4. Prior to providing or disclosing any of the materials to any recipient,
defense counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to each recipient and shall advise each
recipient that at the conclusion of this case, the materials must be returned to defense
counsel. All individuals and entities receiving these materials from defense counsel shall be
subject to this Order and shall not further disclose the materials or their contents except as
permitted by this Order or any further order of this Court. Defense counsel shall maintain
a copy of this Order that has been signed and dated by each recipient who received any
materials subject to this Order.

5. Violation of this Order may result in the imposition of civil and criminal

sanctions.

P. errors MAHONEY
UNITED STATES ONE RATE JUDGE
- 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

In order to ensure questions coming into the Department of Education about the Program Integrity Regulations are consolidated and easily accessible to interested parties, we have created this Web site containing questions and answers. We will update this list on a regular basis, therefore be sure to check back for any new information. You will also find links to various resources with additional guidance pertaining to the Program Integrity Issues.
                - High School Diploma
                - State Authorization
                - Retaking Coursework
                - Credit Hour
                - Ability-to-Benefit
                - Incentive Compensation
                - Misrepresentation
                - Return of Title IV Funds
                Return of Title IV Funds – Archived Guidance 

                - Satisfactory Academic Progress
                - Gainful Employment
                - Verification
                Verification - Archived Guidance

Program Integrity Home | Negotiated Rulemaking 2009-10 | OPE Policy Page   Printable view  Last Modified: 08/20/2021How 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
#### 217.7103-1 Content and format of master agreements.

Follow the procedures at PGI 217.7103-1 for preparation of master agreements.

[71 FR 27642, May 12, 2006]
### Login Guidance for External Users

The guides below are designed to help Department of Education users who must use Login.gov's services to log into Department applications. These guides will walk you through how to create an account, what to do if you already have a Login.gov account for a different federal agency, and how to set up verification methods if you don't already have them registered for your Login.gov account. Please note that your application will tell you if you need a Self-Asserted Identity and Authentication Account or Verified Identity and Authentication Account set up. Your application may have requirements not covered in the documentation provided below. You should check your application's webpage for additional guidelines for your Login.gov account.

- External User Login.gov Guidance – Self-Asserted Identity and Authentication Account  (PDF, 1.6MB)
- External User Login.gov Guidance – Verified Identity and Authentication Account  (PDF, 1.4MB)
#### HOLLOWAY *v.*BIRDSONG.

Where by a petition to the ordinary a party complains of obstructions to a private way and seeks to have them removed, the petition should show that the way is such a way as is contemplated in §§ 808, 824, and 825 of the Civil Code of 1910; otherwise, the petition is demurrable on the ground that the ordinary has no jurisdiction of the proceeding.

January 22, 1913.

Certiorari. Before Judge Felton. Bibb superior court. January 9, 1912.

*C. II. Ball Jr.,*for plaintiff.

Beck, J.

Mrs. Rosa E. I-Iollowáy filed with the ordinary of Bibb county her petition against Mrs. M. Birdsong and J. E. Wilson, to remove certain obstructions from a private way. She alleged, that she was the owner of certain improved real estate in the City of Macon; that appurtenant to this property so owned *317by her there was a twenty-foot private way, and also another private way leading from the twenty-foot private way; that for seven years or more before the filing of her petition she had been in continuous, constant, and uninterrupted possession and use of these private waj^s, and that during this time no legal steps had been taken to abolish them; that Mrs. Birdsong and Wilson had obstructed these private ways. Mrs. Birdsong filed a demurrer to the petition, questioning the jurisdiction of the “court of ordinary” to try the issues, which was sustained. A petition for a writ of certiorari being sued out by the plaintiff, the judge of the superior court overruled and denied the same.

The act of 1872, codified in §§ 824, 825, 826, and 827 of the Civil Code, giving the ordinary jurisdiction to try summarily the question of removing obstructions to private waj^s, is confined to cases of private ways which arise by prescriptive right acquired by seven years or longer, of possession or user of the same. *Brown*v. *Marshall,*63 *Ga.*657. In the present case the plaintiff is endeavoring to have obstructions removed from an alleged private way, under the provision of that part of the act of 1872 which is codified in § 825 of the Code. In order to give the ordinary jurisdiction of proceedings under the code section last referred to, the petition should have shown that the alleged private way from which it was sought to remove the obstruction complained of was not over fifteen feet in width, as well as the fact that it had been kept open and in repair for the period prescribed in the statute. This the petition failed to do, and' the absence of this necessary avérment from the petition left the petition open to a demurrer on the ground that jurisdiction to hear the complaint was wanting. *Woolbright*v. *Cureton,*76 *Ga.*107; *Collier*v. *Farr,*81 *Ga.*749 (7 S. E. 860). There is nothing in the case of *Kirkland*v. *Pitman,*122 *Ga.*256 (50 S. E. 117), which modifies the rulings made in the other cases cited on the point under consideration. It follows that the ordinary did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer, and that the writ of certiorari was properly refused by the judge of the superior court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
219.201 General policy. ( c ) For the defense agencies, the director of the Office of Small Business Programs must be appointed by, be responsible to, and report directly to the director or deputy director of the defense agency. ( 8 ) The responsibility for assigning small business technical advisors is delegated to the head of the contracting activity.
( 10 ) Contracting activity small business specialists perform this function by— ( A ) Reviewing and making recommendations for all acquisitions (including orders placed against Federal Supply Schedule contracts) over the micro-purchase threshold (see FAR 19.502-2(a)), except those under the simplified acquisition threshold that are totally set aside for small business concerns in accordance with FAR 19.502-2. Follow the procedures at PGI 219.201(c)(10) regarding such reviews.
( B ) Making the review before issuance of the solicitation or contract modification and documenting it on DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record (see PGI 253.219-70 for instructions on completing the form); and
( C ) Referring recommendations that have been rejected by the contracting officer to the Small Business Administration (SBA) procurement center representative. If an SBA procurement center representative is not assigned, see FAR 19.402(a).
( 11 ) Also conduct annual reviews to assess— ( A ) The extent of consolidation of contract requirements that has occurred (see FAR 7.107); and
( B ) The impact of those consolidations on the availability of small business concerns to participate in procurements as both contractors and subcontractors.
( d ) For information on the appointment and functions of small business specialists, see PGI 219.201(d).
[56 FR 36353, July 31, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 41973, Aug. 6, 1998; 64 FR 2598, Jan. 15, 1999; 65 FR 39705, June 27, 2000; 65 FR 50149, Aug. 17, 2000; 65 FR 63807, Oct. 25, 2000; 69 FR 55987, Sept. 17, 2004; 71 FR 44927, Aug. 8, 2006; 73 FR 46813, Aug. 12, 2008; 75 FR 45074, Aug. 2, 2010; 79 FR 61582, Oct. 14, 2014; 79 FR 67356, Nov. 13, 2014; 79 FR 68635, Nov. 18, 2014; 80 FR 56930, Sept. 21, 2015; 83 FR 15996, Apr. 13, 2018; 87 FR 31962, May 26, 2022]
#### In the Matter of Charles J. Hynes, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles E. Sigety, Doing Business as Florence Nightingale Nursing Home, Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 8, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by McQuillan, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Fein and Lupiano, JJ.

Kupferman, J.,

concurs on constraint of *Matter of Hynes v Sigety*(60 AD2d 808).
#### Marcia Ben Ami Michel v. Yitshaq Ben Ami.

Motion for leave to reargue Motion Number 87 of January 17, 1961 granted and upon such reargument the motion is granted to the extent of extending the time of the appellant to file the minutes of the omitted hearings to and including February 15, 1961, and the time of the respondent to serve and file his typewritten respondent’s points is extended to and including February 24, 1961. The order of this court, entered on January 23, 1961, is modified accordingly. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the 
  members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of 
           Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, provides that the 
        location of a commemorative work in Area I, as depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs'', numbered 
        869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall be deemed to be authorized 
        only if a recommendation for the location is approved by law not later 
        than 150 calendar days after the date on which Congress is notified of 
        the recommendation;
Whereas section 3093 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; 
        Public Law 113-291) authorized the National Desert Storm Memorial 
        Association to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of 
        Columbia, to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on active 
        duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield; 
        and
Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of the determination 
        of the Secretary of the Interior that the memorial should be located in 
        Area I: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the location of a 
commemorative work to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed 
Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm 
or Operation Desert Shield authorized by section 3093 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 113-291), within Area 
I, as depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC 
and Environs'', numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, is 
approved.

            Passed the Senate March 8, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              S. J. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

   Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the 
  members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of 
           Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.
```
#### In the Matter of Anthony Venturo et al., Petitioners, v Nathaniel T. Helman et al., Respondents. Josephine Delli Paoli, Respondent, v Anthony Venturo et al., Appellants.

— Application in the nature of a writ of prohibition pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously denied and the petition dismissed. Respondents shall recover of petitioners one bill of $75 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. The order of this court entered on January 18, 1979 [67 AD2d 835] is vacated. No opinion. Concur — Lupiano, J.P., Silverman, Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.