alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Proposal from Robyn Smith on the Department’s state authorization proposed compromise language

March 6, 2024

On top of Carolyn Fast’s proposal, I propose the following additional language regarding the ability of 

states to charge fees necessary for them to be able to handle complaints and investigations regarding 

the violations of general purpose laws. Most state oversight agencies are funded by fees from licensed 

institutions, so if a reciprocity agreement prohibits them from charging any fees (other than application 

fees) states will either not have the capacity to deal with general purpose violations or other institutions 

that are not approved through a reciprocity agreement will have to subsidize that work. The current 

SARA agreement prohibits member states (other than home states) from charging SARA-approved 

schools any fees.

The new text is highlighted in green and bolded.

§ 600.9 State authorization.

* * *

(d) If an institution is authorized to offer distance education in another State under a State authorization 

reciprocity agreement, as defined in § 600.2:

(1) It may be exempted from initial State authorization or licensure requirements in that State.

(12) Such agreement must:

(i) Provide for a State-led process through which participating States can propose and 

collectively adopt, modify, or eliminate substantive policies of the agreement, including policies 

on State and institutional participation and the scope of reciprocity. Such a process, and such 

State-adopted or modified policies, cannot be overruled by any external entities that administer 

the agreement;

(iii) Allow any member State of the agreement to enforce its own applicable general purpose 

general-purpose State laws and regulations to institutions approved pursuant to the agreement, 

including conditioning or revoking authorization under the reciprocity agreement based on 

violations of such State laws and regulations, and allow states to charge fees necessary to fund 

their enforcement of applicable general purpose State laws and regulations with respect to 

institutions approved pursuant to the agreement. outside of the initial approval for State 

authorization of distance education except for authorization or application fees and processes; 

[Moved from 600.2]

* * *
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00333

- CR NO. 02

- 11

- 00334

- CR NO. 02

- 11

- 00335

- CR

EX PARTE KENT ALTONI O ROGERS

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Kent Al tonio Rogers attempts to appeal from the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals’s denial of his application for wri t of habeas corpus. On August

15, 2011 , we notified Rogers of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over these

appeals because this court has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the court of

criminal appeals

, 2 and we informed him that these appeal s w ere subject to

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West Supp. 2010) (stating that “[a]fter final conviction in any felony case, the writ must be made2

dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to conti nue these

appeal s filed a respo nse with this court by August 25, 2011, showing grounds for
continuing the appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Rogers filed a response, but
it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal s . Accordingly, we dismiss
these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App . P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: September 22 , 2011

returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas”); accord Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (providing that court of criminal appeals has f inal appellate jurisdiction on all questions of law in criminal matters).

3 To the extent that Rogers’s response may be construed as a motion, it is denied.
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5
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

- CO 2 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 stan dards. The

biodegradation metho d was based on OECD Guideline 310

, Ready Biodegradability

- CO 2 in

Sealed Vessels (Headspace Test)

.

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

between ext r emes of replicate valu es, 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 substanc e can be classified as

readily biodegradable.

Please contact me at 564

- 8532 if you have any questions.
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3053

___________

Linda Cummings, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

C.O. 1 Robert Alderman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 31, 1996

 Filed: June 6, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Linda Cummings appeals the adverse grant of summary

judgment by the District Court in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Renz 1

Correctional Officer, Robert Alderman. After de novo review of the record

and the parties' briefs, we conclude the District Court's grant of summary

judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We deny appellant's motion for reconsideration of our prior order

denying her motion to consolidate.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CDX 

Central Data Exchange

CEDRI

Compliance and 

Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface

Air Emission 

Reports, e.g. 

Excess Emission 

Reports

(fillable form)

Source Tests 

(ERT upload)

Compliance 

Status Reports

(pdf)

WebFIRE 

Database

Public Access

Up to 60 

Days

Review by 

Regulatory 

Authority
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR
PRIMA ENERGY CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      18,883,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,949,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,329,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (45,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    837,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,941,000
<PP&E>                                      85,654,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (41,187,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,665,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,534,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,775,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,665,000
<SALES>                                     22,962,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,841,000
<CGS>                                       12,071,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,448,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,062,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,035,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,027,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,027,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03


</TABLE>
#### Way *et al. vs.*Myers.

Where a contract of rent provided that if the tenant be in any way ousted from the possession of certain rooms, the tenancy and rent should cease, the fact that the landlord entered and used, or allowed others to enter and use temporarily, on one or more occasions, the room during the absence of the tenant, does not constitute such an ouster as to relieve the latter from the payment of rent.

Landlord and tenant. Ouster. Before Judge Fleming. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, L879.

To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add the following: Way, the tenant, claimed that he had been ousted, because during his absence intrusions had been made upon him ; that his rooms had been entered and used on several occasions by the landlord’s family or guests, and without his knowledge and consent. There seems to be no doubt that intrusions and temporary use were made, but whether the landlord knew of them or assented to them the evidence was conflicting.

A. P. & S. B. Adams, for plaintiffs in error.

George A. Mercer, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff on a written contract for the rent of certain described rooms in a tenement house in the city of Savannah. The defendants pleaded the general issue. On the trial of the case, the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $300.00, with interest from the 1st of November. 1877. A motion for a new trial was made on various grounds, which was overruled, and the defendants excepted.

It appears from the evidence in the record that the lease contract sued on contained the following clause: “It is *761further agreed that if the said Charlton H. Way, be in any way ousted from the possession of said rooms, that then and from thenceforth the tenancy of said rooms and the rent therefor shall cease, the said Charlton H. Way paying proportionately therefor up to the time of such cessation.”

The court charged the jury amongst other things, as follows : “ I charge you that an ouster is a continuous act of exclusion ; the party must take possession and with intention to hold it against the tenant. A temporary taking possession is a mere trespass or intrusion, and will not terminate the tenancy or give the tenant the right to abandon the premises.” The evidence as to the temporary occupation of the rented rooms by the landlord’s consent or knowledge, was conflicting; but, assuming all of the evidence of the defendants contained in the record to be true, it was not sufficient to constitute an ouster of the defendants’ pos session of the .rented rooms to discharge them from the payment of the rent due therefor, according to the terms of the special rent contract. 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 266; Taylor’s Landlord and Tenant, section 389. Whether the charge of the court complained of was right or wrong, the verdict was right, under the evidence and the law applicable thereto, and should not be disturbed.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
1803.903 Policy. ( a ) *Policy.* 10 U.S.C. 4701 prohibits contractors or subcontractors from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee as a reprisal for disclosing, to any of the entities listed at paragraph (b) of this section, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a NASA contract, a gross waste of NASA funds, an abuse of authority relating to a NASA contract, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a NASA contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract). Such reprisal is prohibited even if it is undertaken at the request of an executive branch official, unless the request takes the form of a non-discretionary directive and is within the authority of the executive branch official making the request.
( b ) Entities to whom disclosure may be made: ( 1 ) A Member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress.
( 2 ) The NASA Inspector General or any other Inspector General that has oversight over contracts awarded by or on behalf of NASA.
( 3 ) The Government Accountability Office.
( 4 ) A NASA employee responsible for contract oversight or management.
( 5 ) An authorized official of the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency.
( 6 ) A court or grand jury.
( 7 ) A management official or other employee of the contractor or subcontractor who has the responsibility to investigate, discover, or address misconduct.
( c ) *Disclosure clarified.* An employee who initiates or provides evidence of contractor or subcontractor misconduct in any judicial or administrative proceeding relating to waste, fraud, or abuse on a NASA contract shall be deemed to have made a disclosure.
( d ) *Contracting officer actions.* A contracting officer who receives a complaint of reprisal of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section shall forward it to legal counsel and to the NASA Inspector General.
[79 FR 43959, July 29, 2014, as amended at 88 FR 47807, July 25, 2023]
#### 1852.232-70 NASA modification of FAR 52.232-12.

As prescribed at 1832.412-70, make the following modifications:

# NASA Modification of FAR 52.232-12, (MAR 1998)

(a) *Basic clause.* (1) In paragraph (e), Maximum Payment, in the sentence that begins “When the sum of,” change the word “When” to lower case and insert before it: “Unliquidated advance payments shall not exceed $____ at any time outstanding. In addition. * * *.”

(2) In paragraph (m)(1), delete “in the form prescribed by the administering office” and substitute “and Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report.”

(b) Alternate II (if incorporated in the contract). In paragraph (e), Maximum Payment, in the sentence that begins “When the sum of,” change the word “When” to lower case and insert before it: “Unliquidated advance payments shall not exceed $____ at any time outstanding. In addition. * * *.”

(c) Alternate V (if incorporated in the contract). (1) Substitute the following for paragraph (b): “(b) Use of funds. The Contractor may use advance payment funds only to pay for properly allocable, allowable, and reasonable costs for direct materials, direct labor, indirect costs, or such other costs approved in writing by the administering contracting office. Payments are subject to any restrictions in other clauses of this contract. Determinations of whether costs are properly allocable, allowable, and reasonable shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, subject to any applicable subparts of part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, other applicable regulations referenced in part 31, or subpart 1831.2.”

(2) In paragraph (d), Maximum Payment, in the sentence that begins “When the sum of,” change the word “When” to lower case and insert before it: “Unliquidated advance payments shall not exceed $____ at any time outstanding. In addition. * * *.”

(3) In paragraph (j)(1), insert between “statements,” and “and” “together with Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report”.

(4) If this is a Phase I contract awarded under the SBIR or STTR programs, delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following: “(a) Requirements for payment. Advance payments will be made under this contract upon receipt of invoices from the Contractor. Invoices should be clearly marked “Small Business Innovation Research Contract” or “Small Business Technology Transfer Contract,” as appropriate, to expedite payment processing. One-third of the total contract price will be available to be advanced to the contractor immediately after award, another one-third will be advanced three months after award, and the final one-third will be paid upon acceptance by NASA of the Contractor's final report. By law, full payment must be made no later than 12 months after the date that contract requirements are completed. The Contractor shall flow down the terms of this clause to any subcontractor requiring advance payments.”

(End of clause)

[63 FR 14040, Mar. 24, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 12953, Mar. 12, 2015]
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The
      Board
      of Directors


Fushi
      Copperweld, Inc








We
      consent to the use of our report dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the
      consolidated balance sheets of Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
      December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated statements of income and other
      comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years
      in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007, which is incorporated in this
      Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007










/s/
      Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP





Walnut,
      California


March
      17,
      2008
1535.007 Solicitations. ( a ) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-73, Access to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Confidential Business Information, in all solicitations when the contracting officer has determined that EPA may furnish the contractor with confidential business information which EPA had obtained from third parties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.*).
( b ) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-75, Access to Toxic Substances Control Act Confidential Business Information, in all solicitations when the contracting officer has determined that EPA may furnish the contractor with confidential business information which EPA had obtained from third parties under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 *et seq.*).
( c ) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-81, Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern-Representation, when notified in the Advance Procurement Plan (APP) or by an EPA funding/requesting office, in accordance with the Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (iDURC) EPA Order 1000.19, Policy and Procedures for Managing Dual Use Research of Concern, in solicitations that will result in a contract under which EPA funding will be used by the recipient to conduct or sponsor “life sciences research”.
[82 FR 33021, July 19, 2017]
#### Morrison *et al. v.*Cureton.

January 21, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. September 13, 1911.

. *Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Foust, Payne & Tatum,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. There was no error in charging the jury in accordance with admissions of the parties, made in open court on the trial of the case.

*(a)*The omission to charge that in arriving at a verdict the jury could consider certain enumerated facts and circumstances furnishes no ground for reversal. If such a charge would have been proper, an appropriate request therefor should have been duly made.

2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Jtistices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1305 JUDY MARIE MCCREARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VAUGHN & BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN D. BASSETT, III, President/CEO, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cv-00413-WWD) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Marie McCreary, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Helen Roane, OLGETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Judy Marie McCreary appeals the magistrate judge’s order dismissing her discrimination and retaliation action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny McCreary’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. SeeMcCreary v. Vaughn & Bassett Furniture Co. , No. 1:05-cv-00413- WWD (M.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2007). 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
#### Dan H. Elkind v. Guardian Life Insurance Company.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted insofar as to enlarge appellant’s time to perfect the appeal to the February 1961 Term of this court on condition that the appeal is argued or submitted during said term. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before January 27, 1961. The order of this court entered October 6, 1960 is modified accordingly. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
#### 216.506 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
exv4w1



 






Exhibit 4.1




			
	 	 	 
	COMMON SHARES
	 	COMMON SHARES





          4370






			
	THIS CERTIFIES THAT
	 	See reverse for certain
definitions

CUSIP 639208 10 7






is
the owner of




FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE CLASS A COMMON SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE EACH OF




NAVARRE CORPORATION



transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.




     WITNESS
the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


Dated: