alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C A M P H E R O R D

S O U N D V IE W R D

¬«27

C A M P H E R O R D

O L D

M O N TA U K H W Y

C A M P H E R O R D

S O U N D V IE W R D

¬«27

C A M P H E R O R D

O L D

M O N TA U K H W Y

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

Money

Pond

Montauk

Shoal

Great Eastern Rock

Phelps

Ledge

Endeavor

Shoals

False

Point

Montauk

Point

Blackfish

Rock

50

07'

45

45

63

50'

45

580

30"

45

000 FEET

45

52'

55

45

000m

47' 63 67 2

52'

FEET

45

2

2'

52

000m

2

45

N

45

2

68

43

71°

2 000m

61

64

54

30"

00'

45

2'

65

43

2

000 FEET

45'

66

45

2 30"

48

2

07'

45

N

2 66 67

45

320

2

000

45

1

45

53

71° 47'

59

2

30"

2

56

49

45

45

41°

45

41° 2

45

59

55

46

45

60

5'

56

30"

64

00'

30"

49

45

2

50

71°

000

71°

30"

FEET

48

E 2

65

350

51

2

44

5'

60

E

45

600

53

51

46

47

62

44

2

45

45

45

45

45

000m

1

50'

41 41° °

30"

45'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

MONTAUK POINT OE E, NY

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

MONTAUK POINT OE E QUADRANGLE

NEW YORK

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Zone 19T

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, May 2008

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2004

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New York Coordinate System of 1983

(Long Island zone)

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 51 ́

33 MILS

14° 19 ́

254 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

19T

BF

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Montauk

Point

Montauk

Point

OE E

NEW YORK
#### 237.7302 General.

Generally, agencies will acquire services of students at institutions of higher learning by contract between a nonprofit organization employing the student and the Government. When it is in the best interest of the Government, contracts may be made directly with students. These services are not subject to the requirements of FAR part 19, FAR 13.003(b)(1), or DFARS part 219. Award authority for these contracts is 10 U.S.C. 3204(a) and 10 U.S.C. 4143.

[56 FR 36424, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 29500, June 5, 1995; 64 FR 2598, Jan. 15, 1999; 87 FR 76995, Dec. 16, 2022]
### Issue 2

**Proposed Regulatory Language**

**Team II – School-based Loan Issues**

**Origin:**HEOA section 493(e)****

**Issue:**PPA:  Code of Conduct

**Statutory cites:**HEA section****487(a)(25) and (e)

#### Regulatory cites:New §668.14(b)(27)

**DCL GEN-08-12 cite:**Page 69

**Status:**Tentative agreement reached

##### Regulatory language:

##### § 668.14   Program participation agreement.

(a)(1) An institution may participate in any Title IV, HEA program, other than the LEAP and ~~NEISP~~**GAP**programs, only if the institution enters into a written program participation agreement with the Secretary, on a form approved by the Secretary. A program participation agreement conditions the initial and continued participation of an eligible institution in any Title IV, HEA program upon compliance with the provisions of this part, the individual program regulations, and any additional conditions specified in the program participation agreement that the Secretary requires the institution to meet.

* * * * *

 (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that—

* * * * *

**(27)  In the case of an institution participating in a Title IV, HEA loan program, the institution--**

**(i)   Will develop, publish, administer, and enforce a code of conduct with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs in accordance with 34 CFR 601.~~22~~ 21; and**

**(ii)  Must inform its officers, employees, and agents with responsibilities with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs annually of the provisions of the code required under paragraph (b)(27) of this section.**

**Issue 2**

**Amendatory Language**

**Team II – School-based Loan Issues**

## PART 668–-STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS

x.  The authority citation for part 668 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: ****20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1070g, 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, and 1099c–1, unless otherwise noted.

x.  Section 668.14 is amended by:

A.  In paragraph (a)(1), removing the acronym “NEISP” and adding the acronym “GAP” in its place.

B.  In paragraph (b), adding new paragraphs (27), (28) and (29).

***[NOTE to negotiators:  At this point, paragraph (28) is included with Issue 7 and paragraph (29) is included with Issue 4.]***

The additions read as follows:

§668.14  Program participation agreement.

* * * * *

     (b) * * *

(27)  In the case of an institution participating in a Title IV, HEA loan program, the institution--

(i)  Will develop, publish, administer, and enforce a code of conduct with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan ******programs in accordance with 34 CFR 601.21; and  

(ii)  Must inform its officers, employees, and agents with responsibilities with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs annually of the provisions of the code required under paragraph (b)(27) of this section.

4

DRAFT for discussion at 3rd meeting

5/14/2009
The International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office  of the U.S. Department of Education publishes a quarterly e-newsletter to share  information that may be of interest to current and former IFLE grantees,  interested applicants, and the general international community. IFLE also sends occasional news blasts to announce program competitions and other special events.

If you would like to send comments, questions, or suggestions  for our future newsletter issues, please send an e-mail to carolyn.collins@ed.gov. **Click here to** subscribe  to our newsletters/listserv here.

**2024**

- March 2024 –  Volume 10, Issue 1
- March 2024 –  IFLE News Blast: FY 2024 Faculty Research Abroad Fellowships Competition
- February 2024 –  IFLE News Blast: FY 2024 American Overseas Research Centers Program Competition 
- February 2024 –  IFLE News Blast: FY 2024 Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships Competition
- February 2024 –  IFLE News Blast: FY 2024 Group Projects Abroad Program Competition
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DAVID RUSSELL FOLEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10055

D.C. No. 5:09-cr-00670-EJD-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DAVID RUSSELL FOLEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10056

D.C. No. 5:11-cr-00554-EJD-1

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

APR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted March 10, 2015** 

San Francisco California

Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

David Russell Foley appeals his sentence imposed after he pled guilty to

conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343,

and 1349. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States

v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 949–50 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We dismiss

the appeal because Foley waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that waiver is

valid and enforceable. 

Foley knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waived

his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Spear, 753 F.3d 964, 967 (9th

Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

Foley argues that the waiver is invalid because (1) the sentence does not comport

with the terms of the plea agreement; and (2) the sentence is illegal. See United

States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2011). Both arguments fail. 

First, the sentence Foley received was below the calculated sentencing

guidelines range as determined by the district court and squarely within the specific

sentencing terms of the plea agreement. See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2
478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991). Second, the sentence was not illegal, because it was

below the statutory maximum of 20 years, did not violate the Constitution, and was

supported by the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Fowler, 794 F.2d

1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, Foley’s appeal is DISMISSED.

3
208.602-70 Acquisition of items for which FPI has a significant market share. ( a ) *Scope.* This section implements 10 U.S.C. 3905.
( b ) *Definition. Item for which FPI has a significant market share* , as used in this subsection, means an item for which FPI's share of the DoD market for the federal supply class including that item is greater than 5 percent, as determined by DoD in consultation with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. A list of the federal supply classes of items for which FPI has a significant market share is maintained at *https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/other-policy-areas.html#fpi .*
( c ) *Policy.* ( 1 ) When acquiring an item for which FPI has a significant market share— ( i ) Acquire the item using— ( A ) Competitive procedures (e.g., the procedures in FAR 6.102, the set-aside procedures in FAR Subpart 19.5, or competition conducted in accordance with FAR Part 13); or
( B ) The fair opportunity procedures in FAR 16.505, if placing an order under a multiple award delivery-order contract; and
( ii ) Include FPI in the solicitation process, consider a timely offer from FPI, and make an award in accordance with the policy at FAR 8.602(a)(4)(ii) through (v).
( 2 ) When acquiring an item for which FPI does not have a significant market share, acquire the item in accordance with the policy at FAR 8.602.
[73 FR 46817, Aug. 12, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 15817, Mar. 18, 2022; 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022]
Order entered May 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01049-CR

No. 05-12-01050-CR

No. 05-12-01051-CR

No. 05-12-01052-CR

No. 05-12-01053-CR

No. 05-12-01054-CR

No. 05-12-01055-CR

LORENSO DEMON HICKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-24069-Q, F09-24070-Q, F09-24081-Q, F09-24091-Q,

F09-40606-Q, F09-40635-Q, F10-63192-Q

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s May 6, 2013 motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file the brief within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this 

order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Max G. Rogers, Respondent, v. Martin M. Pomerantz, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for injury to person and property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 1, 1963, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution *“*with leave to renew in the event application for a general preference * * * is not filed on or before March 11, 1963, or in the event such general preference is denied.” Order reversed, without costs; motion granted unconditionally; and complaint dismissed, without costs. The record fails to show any adequate excuse for the delay of more than three years in the prosecution of this action. Beldoek, P, J,, Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### 225.7023-2 Restriction.

Except as provided in 225.7023-3, do not acquire a covered item from a covered country in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4875.

[88 FR 46905, July 20, 2023]
1832.705-270 NASA clauses for limitation of cost or funds. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.232-77, Limitation of Funds (Fixed-Price Contract), in solicitations and contracts for fixed-price, incrementally-funded contracts or task orders.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.232-81, Contract Funding, in Section B of solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds. Insert the amounts of funds available for payment, the items covered, and the applicable period of performance. The amount obligated for fee in paragraph (b) of the clause should always be sufficient to pay fee anticipated to be earned for the work funded by the amount in paragraph (a) of the clause.
[61 FR 55768, Oct. 29, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 12944, Mar. 12, 2015]
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00454-CR

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN GILLETTE

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

362nd District Court of Denton County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-2011-0668-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 26, 2014
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



I, Dennis M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the accompanying Yearly Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                  |  |                          |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  |  | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 12, 2004 |  |  |  | By:              |  | /s/    DENNIS M. MCGRATH
|                      |  |  |  |                  |  |                          | 
|                      |  |  |  |                  |  |                          |  | Dennis M. McGrath      
|                      |  |  |  |                  |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 6, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00116-CV CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, JR., Appellant V. TACORIA MAYS, Appellee On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-18453 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated February 5, 2016, we notified appella nt the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal . Also by postcard dated February 5, 2016, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not b een filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. By le tter dated May 23, 2016, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appella nt had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide ve rification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documentation that he had been found entitl ed to proceed without–2– payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further noti ce. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required docum entation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

160116F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER BUTLER , JR., Appellant
No. 05-16-00116-CV V. TACORIA MAYS, Appellee On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-18453. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee TACORIA MAYS recove r her costs of this appeal from appellant CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, JR..
Judgment entered June 6, 2016.
#### Joan Brooks et al., by Harold Brooks, Their Guardian ad Litem, Respondents, v. New York State Thruway Authority, Appellant.

(Claim No. 35953.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants in an automobile negligence action.) Present—'Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000016804
<NAME>                             Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                         Canadian Dollars
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    0.7222
<CASH>                             2,684,169
<SECURITIES>                       2,629,603
<RECEIVABLES>                      801,936
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   6,351,260
<PP&E>                             11,766,652
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     20,187,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              823,072
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           13,956,540
<OTHER-SE>                         5,190,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       20,187,761
<SALES>                            482,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   587,898
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      943,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (356,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (356,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (356,054)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Indiana Department of EducationSouth Tower, Suite 600115 W. Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-2795Phone: (317) 232-6610Fax: (317) 232-6610Website: http://www.doe.in.gov

### State Higher Education Agency

Indiana Commission for Higher Education101 West Ohio Street, Suite 300Indianapolis, IN 46204-1984Phone: (317) 464-4400Fax: (317) 464-4410Website: https://www.in.gov/che/

### Special Education Agency

Indiana Department of EducationOffice of Special EducationSouth Tower Suite 600115 W. Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204Phone: (317) 232-0570Toll-Free: (877) 851-4106Fax: (317) 232-0589Website: https://www.in.gov/doe/students/special-education/

### State Adult Education Agency

Department of Workforce Development 10 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (866) 220-6675Website: http://www.in.gov/dwd/adulted.htm

Back to state map
225.870-3 Submission of offers. ( a ) As indicated in 225.870-4, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is the prime contractor. To indicate acceptance of offers by individual Canadian companies, the Canadian Commercial Corporation issues a letter supporting the Canadian offer and containing the following information: ( 1 ) Name of the Canadian offeror.
( 2 ) Confirmation and endorsement of the offer in the name of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
( 3 ) A statement that the Corporation shall subcontract 100 percent with the offeror.
( b ) When a Canadian offer cannot be processed through the Canadian Commercial Corporation in time to meet the date for receipt of offers, the Corporation may permit Canadian firms to submit offers directly. However, the contracting officer shall receive the Canadian Commercial Corporation's endorsement before contract award.
( c ) The Canadian Commercial Corporation will submit all sealed bids in terms of U.S. currency. Do not adjust contracts awarded under sealed bidding for losses or gains from fluctuation in exchange rates.
( d ) Except for sealed bids, the Canadian Commercial Corporation normally will submit offers and quotations in terms of Canadian currency. The Corporation may, at the time of submitting an offer, elect to quote and receive payment in terms of U.S. currency, in which case the contract— ( 1 ) Shall provide for payment in U.S. currency; and
( 2 ) Shall not be adjusted for losses or gains from fluctuation in exchange rates.