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

NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-5: Seasonal Changes in the Intertidal and Subtidal Macrobenthic Invertebrate Community Structure in Baker Bay, Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Table 1. Monthly (1980-81) water column temperatures (�C) at Station 11 (subtidal channel site) in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary.

* Temperatures not taken because of reduced water depth.

Table 2. Monthly (1980-81) water column salinities (ppt) at Station 11 (subtidal channel site) in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary.

* Salinities not taken because of reduced water depth.

Table 3. Monthly (1980-81) salinities (ppt) of interstitial waters in intertidal (stations 1-20) and subtidal (Station 11) sediments collected in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary.

* Salinity not determined.

Table 4. Invertebrate taxa found in an intertidal-subtidal area in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, November 1980 through October 1981.

Phylum Platyhelminthes

Phylum Nemertea

Phylum Aschelminthes

Phylum Annelida

Phylum Arthropoda

Phylum Mollusca

Table 5. Vertical distributions of benthic animals on a tidal flat in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, in October 1981.

a number/m�b weight (g)/m�c + = weight less than 0.020 g

Table 6. List of benthic invertebrates and distributional areas on intertidal-subtidal sediments in the Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary (1980-81). Dotted lines show distribution of nominally freshwater species (commonly found in salinity of 0.0 ppt), estuarine species (commonly found in salinity ranging from 0.0 to 25.0 ppt), and marine species (commonly found at salinities greater than 25.0 ppt).

Table 7. The mean number of benthic invertebrates per m� at two upper intertidal stations (Stations 1 and 2) in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, during February (no agal mat) and August (with agal mat) 1981.

Table 8. Influence of a tide pool and agal mat on the abundance of intertidal invertebrates at a high intertidal flat (Station 2) in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, September 1981.

Table 9. The abundance of major macrobenthic invertebrate species on a tidal flat with and without eelgrass in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, August 1981.

a Mean number contained in two 506 cm� samples (Samples A and B, See Appendix Table).b Number contained in one 506 cm� sample (Sample C).c Includes all species collected.* Significant difference: Mann-Whitney, P < 0.05.** Highly significant difference: Chi-square, P < 0.001.

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Return to Table of Contents
#### Roberto Cruz, Respondent, v Regent Leasing Limited Partnership, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 163]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered November 14, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff, a janitor in the employ of a management company, was not directly employed by defendant building owner, and the record does not contain evidence that, at the time of the alleged accident, plaintiff was acting as defendant’s special employee so as to entitle defendant to rely on the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; *and see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]). Indeed there is no indication, nor does defendant building owner claim, that it directed or controlled the manner in which plaintiff performed his job *(see Navarrete v A & V Pasta Prods., Inc.,*32 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]). Rather, it is clear that the management company exclusively controlled and directed the manner, details and ultimate result of plaintiffs work. In the absence of evidence that an actual employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant, or that plaintiff was performing duties on behalf of and under the direction of defendant at the time of the accident, or that defendant was, for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, an alter ego of the managing agent *(see Gonzalez v 310 W. 38th, L.L.C.,*14 AD3d 464 [2005]), defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on its Workers’ Compensation Law defense, was properly denied *(see Gonzalez v Lovett Assoc.,*228 AD2d 342 [1996]; *Granieri v*
      *397
      *500 Fifth Ave. Assoc.,*223 AD2d 450, 451 [1996]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ. *[See*14 Misc 3d 307 (2006).]
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |                                                                                                                                                  |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |                                                                                                                                                  |  |
| ******Home             Page****Mission****History**
**Habitats**
**Refuge Comprehensive Conservation                Plan****Documents for Public Comment****Education****Things           To Do****Maps****Regulations****Fees****Staff****Volunteers****Photos****Links****What's           New** **Current           Weather** | Trail Maps

 

November 1 - March 31

The West Dike is Closed until 2008Impoundment survey in process.

 

 

April 1- October 31 |
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-QSB of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2006 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|/s/ Larry Edwards       |  |  |  | /s/ James M. Harwell          
|Larry Edwards           |  |  |  | James M. Harwell              
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Acting Chief Financial Officer
|August 18, 2006         |  |  |  | August 18, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ARISTEO MELGAREJO LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00330-JAB) Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Freedman, CRUMPLER FREEDMAN PARKER & WITT, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aristeo Melgarejo Lopez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the issue of whether his sentence was reasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.This court reviews the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see United States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treat the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Pauley , 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-Guidelines sentence).3 Here, the district court followed the appropriate procedures and sentenced Lopez within the middle of his advisory sentencing range. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of the 144-month sentence, and therefore find that Lopez’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Did your program meet the D/E

benchmark?

Did your program meet the repayment rate

benchmark?

No additional

actions, no

notifications

No additional

actions, no

notifications

The institution must inform students through

the notification process.

Does the program meets the standards for

economically disadvantaged appeals in 34 CFR

668.213 or the standards appeals in 34 CFR

668.216 for programs with thirty-or-fewer

borrowers?

Does the program have fewer than 10

borrowers?

Require institutions to get special

approval to add programs or locations

Schedule a full program review

Are there multiple administrative capability

issues for the institution, multiple failing

programs, or one failing program and other

administrative capability issues?

Yes

Yes

Limit expansion of enrollment in

applicable programs to no more

than 10%

Yes No

No

No

No

No

Limit expansion of enrollment in

program to no more than 10%
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 16, 2020 

Honorable Pender Makin 

Commissioner of Education 

Maine Department of Education 

23 State House Station 

Augusta, Maine 04333 

Pender.Makin@maine.gov 

Dear Commissioner Makin: 

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

for grant awards H027A180109 and H173A180115. 

The Department received your June 22, 2020 request on behalf of the Maine Department of

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

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

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B 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, Gbenimah 

Slopadoe, at Gbenimah.Slopadoe@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: State Director 

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.
#### In the Matter of Skill Realty, Inc., Appellant, v Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, which *714sustained a decision of the borough superintendent revoking petitioner’s certificate of occupancy, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 2, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Our review of the record indicates that the determination was supported by substantial evidence and was not made in violation of lawful procedure (see *Matter of Sun Oil of Pa. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Harrison,*57 AD2d 627, affd 44 NY2d 995). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<CAPTION>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         462
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    130133
<OTHER-SE>                                 (129671)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            595850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (595850)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.04)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul A. Pfeffer, Appellant.

Motion by appellant: (1) to vacate an order of this court entered September 15, 1958, dismissing his appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered December 9, 1955, convicting him after trial of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, assault in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to serve stated terms of imprisonment; and (2) for other relief. Motion granted; said order dismissing appeal and order, entered September 24, 1956 denying appellant’s motion to dispense with printing and for other relief, vacated. On reconsideration, motion to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel, granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre St., New York, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Shirley Diamond, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Industrial Commissioner, the Referee, and the Appeal Board have all held that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. Claimant’s only employment history is that of a stock clerk. After being out of the labor market for 16 years she became employed on a five-day week basis from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at $1.25 per hour. She worked for a year and eight months and was laid off because she refused to work one night a week. The Referee has found that claimant confined her job efforts to stores in her own neighborhood in Brooklyn or to downtown Brooklyn, and insisted on the same hours mentioned above because she is married, has two children and must be .home before they arrive from school. The Referee has also found that the hours for part-time employment in claimant’s occupation are customarily from 12 noon to 5:00 p.m., or from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with one full day or one late night per week, and that “ Opportunities for obtaining part time employment during the hours desired by claimant are virtually non-existent.” It was further found that “Here, by reason of her restrictions, claimant effectively eliminated herself from the labor market.” The evidence sustains such factual findings. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present—Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
On June 23, 2015, OCR issued a letter announcing the resolution of its compliance review at the Arlington Independent School District (District).  The review examined whether the District  discriminates against African American and Hispanic students on the basis of race or national origin with respect to providing equal access to and equal opportunity to participate in college and career preparatory programs and courses, including the District's Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs and other high-level and career-building learning opportunities; and whether discrimination occurred regarding access to foundation  courses that are essential to prepare students to take rigorous courses in high school and to provide them with the skills necessary for success in college and their careers.  Prior to the completion of the investigation, the District agreed to enter into a resolution agreement and to take specific steps to ensure all students have an equal opportunity to access and participate in the District’s higher level learning opportunities.  Specifically, the District agreed to: (1) assess  and develop, in consultation with an expect, a comprehensive District-wide plan for ensuring equal opportunity to enroll in college and career preparatory  courses, including AP, IB, dual credit and other higher level learning opportunities, any other advanced academics activities, courses and programs  (including G/T services), and foundation courses; (2) review and address potential  barriers to increased student participation in college and career preparatory courses, advanced academics activities, courses and programs, and foundation courses at the elementary and junior high schools, including communication and outreach to parents and guardians about these programs; (3) consider revision and/or  expansion of eligibility and selection criteria for higher level learning  opportunities as necessary to increase participation; (4) review and revise, as necessary, District outreach activities for parent/guardians or elementary,  junior high and high school students regarding higher level learning courses and programs available at each school in the district; (5) review and revise, as  necessary, current academic counseling services at the junior high and high school levels to inform students of the availability of higher level learning activities,  courses and programs and to encourage student enrollment in programs or courses  that prepare students for later enrollment in college and career preparatory  courses and higher education; (6) conduct training for staff at elementary,  junior high and high school staff regarding District course offerings, enrollment demographics, and best practices to encourage maximum African American and Hispanic participation and retention in higher level learning opportunities;  and (7) collect and evaluate data on an ongoing, annual basis to assess whether the District is implementing its course enrollment policies, practices, and procedures in a nondiscriminatory manner.
2115.404-70 Profit. ( a ) *Risk charge.* ( 1 ) Section 8711(d) of title 5, United States Code, provides for payment of a risk charge to FEGLI Program contractors as compensation for the risk assumed under the FEGLI Program. It is appropriate to pay such a charge when substantial risk is borne by the contractor; that is, when the balance in the Employees' Life Insurance Fund is no larger than five times annual claims.
( 2 ) The risk charge is determined by agreement between the contractor and OPM. The amount of risk charge shall be specified in the contract.
( b ) *Waiver of the risk charge.* ( 1 ) When the Fund balance is greater than five times annual claims, OPM and the contractor may agree that the contractor will relinquish the risk charge in favor of a profit opportunity in the form of a service charge for the contractor. The service charge so determined shall be the total service charge that may be negotiated for the contract and shall encompass any service charge (whether entitled service charge, profit, fee, contribution to surpluses, etc.) that may have been negotiated by the prime contractor with any subcontractor. At no time may both a risk charge and a service charge be paid for the same portion of a policy year.
( 2 ) Once agreement to relinquish the risk charge is made, the agreement may not be cancelled unless OPM and the Contractor mutually agree to reinstitute payment of a risk charge; or unless the Fund balance falls below the level defined in 2115.404-70(a) and 30 days' notice of cancellation is provided; or unless the Contractor or OPM provides notice of cancellation for any reason 1 year prior to the date cancellation is sought.
( c ) Any profit prenegotiation objective (service charge) will be determined on the basis of a weighted guidelines structured approach.
[58 FR 40375, July 28, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 41151, July 18, 2005]