alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
');
	document.write('

The Department has published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to establish one or more negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). This notice announces three public hearings at which interested parties may suggest issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees.  The Department will also be conducting roundtable discussions to inform policy in the areas of teacher preparation, college completion, and the proposed "First in the World" competition.

- Schedule for Public Hearings and Roundtable Discussions
- More Information on the Policy Roundtables
- Team I - Teacher Preparation Team
**Webinar - Thursday, April 12, 2012:**  The Teacher Preparation Team was scheduled a webinar for Thursday, April 12th from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. EST to continue discussion of the proposed regulations. As with all negotiated rulemaking sessions, this webinar was open to the public. Individuals interested in participating in a "listen-only" mode  contacted either Jessica Finkel or Nikki Harris for more information.

List of Negotiators: download filesMS Word (56K) | PDF (279K)**Session One:**  January 18-19, 2012**Session Two:** February 27-29, 2012**Session Three:** April 3-5, 2012
- Team II - Student Loans Team
List of Negotiators:  download filesMS Word (48K) | PDF (202K)**Session One:**  January 9-13, 2012**Session Two:** February 13-17, 2012**Session Three:** March 26-30, 2012

OPE Policy Page
On September 15, 2014, the Tupelo Public School District (District), entered into a voluntary Resolution Agreement (Agreement) to resolve a compliance review OCR initiated to assess whether the District discriminates against African-American students by disciplining them more frequently and more harshly than other similarly situated students on the basis of race.  The Agreement was obtained prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation.  Through the Agreement, the District commits to take specific actions to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to learn in school by implementing fair and equitable discipline policies and practices and creating an environment where all students feel safe and welcome. In addition, the District commits to provide teachers and administrators with the tools and training to support positive student behavior, thereby providing a range of options to prevent and address misconduct and ensure that the District’s disciplinary policies and practices are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. To ensure that these measures are effectively implemented within the District, the Agreement provides for expert consultation on research-based methods of preventing discrimination against African-American students; specialized professional development for administrators, teachers, and staff; and outreach to students, parents, and community stakeholders to ensure that they have an opportunity to participate in assessing and improving the District’s ability to provide a safe school environment and engage all students in its education program.

***Read the Press Release | Read the Resolution Letter PDF**(536K)**| Read the Resolution Agreement PDF**(260K)*

  

Top
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Earl L. Yager, as Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that:(1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;(4) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e)and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) paragraph omitted;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: September 14, 2007 /s/ Earl L. Yager   Earl L. Yager   Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
24.104 Contract clauses. When the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals is required to accomplish an agency function, the contracting officer shall insert the following clauses in solicitations and contracts: ( a ) The clause at 52.224-1, Privacy Act Notification.
( b ) The clause at 52.224-2, Privacy Act.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cagle’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 1, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Mark M. Ham IV, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   Mark M. Ham IV                                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark   M. Ham IV                                       |   |
| Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal   Accounting Officer)                       |   |
| Date:  February 10, 2011                     |   |

 

1

----
(March 7, 1979)

#### In the Matter of George A. Daniels, Petitioner, v Albany County Court et al., Respondents.

Application denied and petition dated January 25, 1979 dismissed, without costs. By this article *78*proceeding, petitioner seeks a judgment restraining respondents from proceeding in the criminal prosecution of petitioner unless respondents abide by a previously agreed to plea bargain. Under the circumstances presented herein, we are of the opinion that since the issue presented may be reviewed by appeal (e.g., *People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227) or by other application, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie *(Matter of State of New York v King,*36 NY2d 59, 62). Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### 22.1011 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 52 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 406
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 52

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
         Commission relating to ``Restoring Internet Freedom''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2018

  Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
 Schatz, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Gillibrand, 
 Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
 Stabenow, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kaine, Ms. 
   Warren, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
  Cardin, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
  Udall, Mr. Booker, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. 
 Murray, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Mr. King, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. 
    Feinstein, Mr. Warner, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Ms. 
 Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. Jones) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                              May 9, 2018

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
         Commission relating to ``Restoring Internet Freedom''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 
``Restoring Internet Freedom'' (83 Fed. Reg. 7852 (February 22, 2018)), 
and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 406

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 52

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
         Commission relating to ``Restoring Internet Freedom''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 9, 2018

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```
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, Justice 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 appellant 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 been 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 letter dated May 23, 2016, we informed appellant the 

clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We 

directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record or to provide written documentation that he had been found entitled 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 notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the 

docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the 

Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 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 recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellant CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, JR.. 

Judgment entered June 6, 2016.
# Table 1

# Table 2
207.171-3 Policy. DoD policy is to break out components of weapons systems or other major end items under certain circumstances. ( a ) When it is anticipated that a prime contract will be awarded without adequate price competition, and the prime contractor is expected to acquire any component without adequate price competition, the agency shall break out that component if— ( 1 ) Substantial net cost savings probably will be achieved; and
( 2 ) Breakout action will not jeopardize the quality, reliability, performance, or timely delivery of the end item.
( b ) Even when either or both the prime contract and the component will be acquired with adequate price competition, the agency shall consider breakout of the component if substantial net cost savings will result from— ( 1 ) Greater quantity acquisitions; or
( 2 ) Such factors as improved logistics support (through reduction in varieties of spare parts) and economies in operations and training (through standardization of design).
( c ) Breakout normally is not justified for a component that is not expected to exceed $1 million for the current year's requirement.
[71 FR 14102, Mar. 21, 2006]
25.1103 Other provisions and clauses. ( a ) *Restrictions on certain foreign purchases.* Insert the clause at 52.225-13, Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases, in solicitations and contracts, unless an exception applies.
( b ) *Translations.* Insert the clause at 52.225-14, Inconsistency Between English Version and Translation of Contract, in solicitations and contracts if anticipating translation into another language.
( c ) *Foreign currency offers.* Insert the provision at 52.225-17, Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers, in solicitations that permit the use of other than a specified currency. Insert in the provision the source of the rate to be used in the evaluation of offers.
( d ) The contracting officer shall include in each solicitation for the acquisition of other than commercial products or commercial services the provision at 52.225-20, Prohibition on Conducting Restricted Business Operations in Sudan—Certification.
( e ) The contracting officer shall include in all solicitations the provision at 52.225-25, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Engaging in Certain Activities or Transactions Relating to Iran—Representation and Certifications.
[64 FR 72419, Dec. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 36026, 36028, June 6, 2000; 67 FR 21538, Apr. 30, 2002; 67 FR 56122, 56124, Aug. 30, 2002; 68 FR 4051, Jan. 27, 2003; 68 FR 56686, Oct. 1, 2003; 69 FR 1055, Jan. 7, 2004; 69 FR 8315, Feb. 23, 2004; 71 FR 866, Jan. 5, 2006; 71 FR 20306, Apr. 19, 2006; 71 FR 57368, Sept. 28, 2006; 73 FR 33639, June 12, 2008; 75 FR 60257, Sept. 29, 2010; 76 FR 68031, Nov. 2, 2011; 77 FR 73518, Dec. 10, 2012; 86 FR 61028, Nov. 4, 2021]
Functional Statements > Institute of Education Sciences

- Introduction
- Immediate Office 
- National Center for Education Research
- National Center for Education Statistics
- National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
- National Center for Special Education Evaluation Research (NCSER)
- National Board of Education Sciences
- IES Organization Chart    Word

IES Delegations of  Authority may be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/delegations/ies.html
#### William Payton, as Administrator of the Estate of Ernestine Payton, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Brooklyn Hospital, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action by an administrator, based on breach of warranty, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate which allegedly resulted from a transfusion of contaminated blood furnished by the defendant Brooklyn Hospital, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 19, 1963 in favor of said defendant upon the dismissal of the complaint after the opening statement to the jury by plaintiff’s counsel. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Hill, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In his opening statement, plaintiff’s counsel told the jury he would prove; (1) that a physician employed by the defendant hospital advised plaintiff that the condition of his wife, then a hospital patient, warranted a blood transfusion; (2) that “the husband inquired of the physician as to whether such blood transfusion was a dangerous one in view of her pregnant condition, and in view of her other condition” [sickle cell anemia]; and (3) that “the husband was assured by said physician that there was no danger to either the unborn child or the mother.” Plaintiff’s counsel further said he would prove: (4) that plaintiff consented to his wife’s receiving a transfusion of blood obtained from the defendant hospital’s blood bank; (5) that she was given a transfusion of such blood which was in fact contaminated with serum hepatitis virus; and (6) that she thereby contracted homologous serum hepatitis which caused her death some five months later. Interpreting this opening statement liberally, as we must *(Katz*v. *City of New York,*162 App. App. 132, 134), we are of the opinion that plaintiff offered to prove an *express*warranty by defendant’s physician-employee that the transfusion he recommended would involve no danger at all to plaintiff’s wife. Such a warranty, if made, is demonstrably unfounded on fact (see *Perlmutter*v. *Beth David Hosp.,*309 N. Y. 100, 106-107). Whether plaintiff can succeed in proving by a fair prepondenanee of the credible evidence; (a) that the alleged express warranty was in fact made; (b) that he was induced thereby to consent to the transfusion and to the use of blood from defendant’s blood bank rather than from private donors; and (c) that his wife’s death resulted from the breach thereof, are matters on which we express no opinion other than to note that the question of express warranty was not passed upon in *Perlmutter*v. *Beth David Hosp.*(308 N. Y. 100, *supra).*We merely observe that plaintiff should have been allowed to present his proof to the jury (see *Hoffman House*v. *Foote,*172 N. Y. 348, 350-351; *Runkel*v. *City of New York,*282 App. Div. 173, 175).
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Presidential Documents 6835 

Executive Order 13983 of January 19, 2021 

Revocation of Executive Order 13770 

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including section 

301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 

5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13770 of January 28, 2017, ‘‘Ethics 

Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees,’’ is hereby revoked, effective 

at noon January 20, 2021. Employees and former employees subject to the 

commitments in Executive Order 13770 will not be subject to those commitments after noon January 20, 2021. 

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed 

to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and 

subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, 

employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

January 19, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01713 

Filed 1–22–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F1–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with EXECORD1Trump.EPS</GPH>
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 63 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, 

Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 28, 2018 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. 

TESTER, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. JONES, Mr. CARPER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, 

Ms. STABENOW, Mr. COONS, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. LEAHY, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. NELSON, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. 

CASEY, Mr. BOOKER, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. SCHATZ, 

Mr. REED, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. HASSAN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. PETERS, Mr. MURPHY, and Mr. KING) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and 

Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to 

‘‘Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Secretary 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 63 IS 

1 of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Short-Term, 

2 Limited Duration Insurance’’ (83 Fed. Reg. 38212 (Au3 gust 3, 2018)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### 217.7005 Solicitation provision.

Use the provision at 252.217-7002, Offering Property for Exchange, when offering nonexcess personal property for exchange. Allow a minimum of 14 calendar days for the inspection period in paragraph (b) of the clause if the exchange property is in the contiguous United States. Allow at least 21 calendar days outside the contiguous United States.

[70 FR 35544, June 21, 2005]