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

The FY 2024 GPA program competition is **closed**. The below information regarding the FY 2024 competition is for reference only.

## Federal Register Notice

- Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for FY 2023 for the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program -- Short-Term Projects and Long-Term Projects   dated January 18, 2024

## Current Application

Applications for the FY 2024 GPA competition were submitted online through Grants.gov. The deadline to apply was March 18, 2024.

**Funding Opportunity Number:**

- Short-Term Projects:  ED-GRANTS-011824-001 
- Long-Term Projects:  ED-GRANTS-011824-002 

## Tips and Assistance

Group Projects Abroad Press Kit -   PDF (15.3M)

IFLE held two technical assistance webinars to help institutions and nonprofit educational entities learn more about the 2024 GPA Program (short-term and long-term awards) and the application process. The webinars provided guidance about the competition priorities, budget, impact and evaluation criteria, and the Performance Measures Form, in addition to other application components. Watch the 2024 webinars on YouTube at the following links: 

- FY 2024 SHORT-TERM Group Projects Abroad Application Technical Assistance:  https://youtu.be/xCyg3F0oP1c
- FY 2024 LONG-TERM Group Projects Abroad Application Technical Assistance:  https://youtu.be/fsJRANYIWjo

Other helpful resources:

- Group Projects Abroad Grantee Showcase
- Go Global ED Podcast Group Projects Abroad Podcast

## Application Contact

GPA@ed.govU.S. Department of EducationInternational and Foreign Language EducationFulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program400 Maryland Avenue S.W.Washington, DC 20202Main Telephone: (202) 704-3437
#### 252.247-7003 Pass-Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Adjustment To The Cost Bearer.

As prescribed in 247.207, use the following clause:

# Pass-Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Adjustment to the Cost Bearer (JAN 2023)

(a) This clause implements section 884 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417).

(b) Unless an exception is authorized by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall pass through any motor carrier fuel-related surcharge adjustments to the person, corporation, or entity that directly bears the cost of fuel for shipment(s) transported under this contract.

(c) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial products or commercial services, with motor carriers, brokers, or freight forwarders.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 59105, Sept. 27, 2010, as amended at 78 FR 37991, June 25, 2013; 88 FR 6596, Jan. 31, 2023]
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

June 25, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Description of the UA and Pre-flight Checklist for Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. (Docket FAA2015-1055).

Dear Sir or Madam:

A description of Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc.’s UA and Pre-flight Checklist has been 

confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov.

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

United States of America )

) Case No: 12 CR 540

v. )

) Chief Judge Ruben Castillo

Byron Wilson and )

Darnell Wright )

ORDER

Voir Dire begun. Jury selection concluded. Jury trial held on 5/11/2015 and continued to

5/12/2015 at 9:45 a.m.

Date: May 11, 2015 /s/ Chief Judge Ruben Castillo

Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 203 Filed: 05/11/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1678
#### 2052.209-71 Contractor organizational conflicts of interest (representation).

As prescribed in 2009.570-4(b) and 2009.570-8, the contracting officer must insert the following provision in applicable solicitations and in contracts resulting from unsolicited proposals. The contracting officer must also include the following in task orders and contract modifications for new work.

# Contractor Organizational Conflicts of Interest Representation (OCT 1999)

I represent to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

The award to ________________ of a contract or the modification of an existing contract does / / does not / / involve situations or relationships of the type set forth in 48 CFR 2009.570-3(b).

(a) If the representation, as completed, indicates that situations or relationships of the type set forth in 48 CFR 2009.570-3(b) are involved, or the contracting officer otherwise determines that potential organizational conflicts of interest exist, the offeror shall provide a statement in writing that describes in a concise manner all relevant factors bearing on his representation to the contracting officer. If the contracting officer determines that organizational conflicts exist, the following actions may be taken:

(1) Impose appropriate conditions which avoid such conflicts;

(2) Disqualify the offeror; or

(3) Determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to seek award of the contract under the waiver provisions of 48 CFR 2009-570-9.

(b) The refusal to provide the representation required by 48 CFR 2009.570-4(b), or upon request of the contracting officer, the facts required by 48 CFR 2009.570-3(b), must result in disqualification of the offeror for award.

(End of provision)
# C_2017218EN.01001801.xml

| 7.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/18

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 July 2017

(2017/C 218/09)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1385 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4369 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88013 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6310 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0975 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5298 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,147 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,37 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2478 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5933 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1367 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5008 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4728 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8918 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5697 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5749 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 317,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,3470 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7443 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4055 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 242,24 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8938 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,733 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,4881 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,800 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7639 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9250 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,7325 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1385

JPY

Japanese yen

129,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4369

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88013

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6310

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0975

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5298

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,147

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,37

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2478

RON

Romanian leu

4,5933

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1367

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5008

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4728

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8918

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5697

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5749

KRW

South Korean won

1 317,44

ZAR

South African rand

15,3470

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7443

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4055

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 242,24

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8938

PHP

Philippine peso

57,733

RUB

Russian rouble

68,4881

THB

Thai baht

38,800

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7639

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9250

INR

Indian rupee

73,7325

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Dennis Buckley, Jr., by Guardian, etc., Respondent, *v.*The Gutta Percha and Rubber Manufacturing Company, Appellant.

(Submitted June 19, 1883;

decided June 26, 1883.)

*Pelton & Pelton*for appellant.

*James Troy*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsNOAA Tech Memo NMFS NWFSC-8: Contaminant Exposure in Juvenile Salmon (cont): Figure 12
Table of Contents
3.909-2 Representation by the offeror. ( a ) In order to be eligible for contract award, an offeror must represent that it will not require its employees or subcontractors to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or subcontractors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse related to the performance of a Government contract to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information (*e.g.,* agency Office of the Inspector General). Any offeror that does not so represent is ineligible for award of a contract.
( b ) The contracting officer may rely on an offeror's representation unless the contracting officer has reason to question the representation.
[82 FR 4721, Jan. 13, 2017]
lbcretirementltrrevised.htm


    
      
 

      


       

      


      


      
         

        
          	Textron
      Inc.	Tel:
      (401) 421-2800
	40
      Westminster Street   	 
	Providence,
      RI  02903-2525	 


        

         

         

      

    

    
                                  September 30,
2009

    
 

    Mr. Lewis
B. Campbell

    40
Westminster Street

    Providence,
Rhode Island 02903

    


    


    Re:        Clarification to Retirement
Letter

    


    Dear
Lewis:

     

    This
letter amends and clarifies the Retirement letter executed by you and Textron
Inc. on September 22, 2009 (the “Retirement
Letter”).  For the avoidance of doubt, the parties hereby agree
that the reference to “restricted stock units” in paragraph 2(2) of the
Retirement Letter includes shares of restricted stock.  As clarified,
the terms and conditions of the Retirement Letter remain in full force and
effect.

    
       

      
        
          
            	Very truly
      yours,	 
	 	 	 
	Textron
    Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:  	 /s/Lord Powell
      of Bayswater KCMG	 
	 	 Lord Powell of
      Bayswater KCMG	 
	 	 Chairman,
      Compensation	 
	 	 Committee of
      the Board of	 
	 	 Directors	 


          

           

        

      

                                                                              

                     


      


      


      Accepted
as of the above date by:

      


       

      
         

        
          	 /s/Lewis B.
      Campbell
	 Lewis B.
      Campbell
Order entered November 3, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01416-CR

ALEXANDER ROBERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-58374-H

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s “response” to this Court’s letter informing appellant 

that his brief is overdue. We will treat it as a motion to extend time to file his brief. In the 

motion, counsel states that on July 24, 2014, this Court ordered the court reporter to file a 

supplemental record containing two missing exhibits and that counsel has been checking the 

website and has not seen that the exhibits were filed. The exhibits that were ordered on July 24, 

2014 are State’s Exhibit nos. 1 and 10. Those exhibits were filed on July 24, 2014 and are 

identified on the Court’s case management system as “Exhibits filed.” 

We GRANT appellant’s October 20, 2014 extension request and ORDER appellant to 

file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO VENDOR AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the Vendor Agreement dated October 14,
2009 by and among GE Commercial Distribution Finance Corporation, Arctic Cat
Sales Inc. and Arctic Cat Inc. (the Vendor Agreement”), is entered into as of
this 20th day of October, 2009. 
Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 1
shall have the same meaning as in the Vendor Agreement.


 


(1)           Recital (b) of the Vendor
Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the clause “the later of (i) the
effective date of the termination of such agreement with Textron and (ii)”.


 


(2)           Except as set forth in this Amendment
No. 1, the Vendor Agreement remains in full force and effect, without
change or modification.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered
into this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first written above.


 


 


	
  Arctic Cat Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  TIMOTHY C. DELMORE

  	
   

  
	
  Print
  Name:

  	
  Timothy
  C. Delmore

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Chief
  Financial Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Arctic Cat Sales Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  TIMOTHY C. DELMORE

  	
   

  
	
  Print
  Name:

  	
  Timothy
  C. Delmore

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Chief
  Financial Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  GE
  COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION FINANCE CORPORATION

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  PETER K. LANNAN

  	
   

  
	
  Print
  Name:

  	
  Peter
  K. Lannon

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Managing
  Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS H. STUP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-2426 MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1803-A) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Douglas H. Stup, Appellant Pro Se. Marc R. Hillson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Douglas H. Stup appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his employment discrimination and retaliation action. Stup's action was based on the Defendant's alleged improper charge against Stup of leave without pay for a twenty-four hour period. The Defendant's action was taken followingStup's undocumented absence in excess of six working days, in violation of applicable provisions of the United States Postal Service Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which provisions were known to Stup, and institutional practices. Our review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses that this appeal is without merit. Stup failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory retaliation. See Huang v. Board of Governors , 902 F.2d 1134, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc. , 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, even assuming that Stup had established a prima facie case of retaliation, we agree withthe district court that he failed to prove that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason Defendant proffered to support its determinationthat Stup should not be paid for the relevant time period was pretextual. See McNairn v. Sullivan , 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir. 1991); Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. , 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
#### Louis Aronson, Appellant, v. May Fasolo, Respondent.

Order, entered April 8, 1960, as denies plaintiff’s motion for an open commission to examine William A. Fasolo, a nonresident, as a witness unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for issuance of an open commission in New Jersey to examine William A. Fasolo as a witness is granted, with $10 costs. In this action to recover brokerage commissions, jurisdiction of the defendant, May Fasolo, was obtained by service outside the State after a warrant of attachment had issued. However, the plaintiff was unable to obtain jurisdiction or serve the other named defendant, William A. Fasolo, who resides in New Jersey and is the son of May Fasolo. Therefore, the plaintiff obtained an order discontinuing the action against him. The application before us now seeks to examine the said William A. Fasolo as a. witness to determine whether the acts of the defendant alleged in the complaint were in fact done by him acting as his mother’s agent. The specific denial by the defendant of the critical issue of any authorization to William A. Fasolo, the letters from the said Fasolo, the nature of the action, and circumstances of the ease as revealed by the record, establish that the information sought is material and necessary, and that such special circumstances exist as warrant granting of the relief sought pursuant to article 29 of the Civil Practice Act. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 10.(b)


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


 


We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
on Form N-4  (File Nos. 333-145621 and
811-8108) of our report dated March 30, 2009 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in Protective Life Insurance
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 and is included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to the Registration
Statement on Form N-4 (File Nos. 333-145621 and 811-8108).  We also consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 of our report dated April 24,
2009, relating to the financial statements of The Protective Variable Annuity
Separate Account, which is included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to
the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File Nos. 333-145621 and 811-8108).


 


	
  

  	
   

  
	
  PricewaterhouseCoopers
  LLP

  	
   

  
	
  Birmingham, AL

  	
   

  
	
  October 28,
  2009
#### 252.239-7012 Title to telecommunication facilities and equipment.

As prescribed in 239.7411(b), use the following clause:

# Title to Telecommunication Facilities and Equipment (DEC 1991)

(a) Title to all Contractor furnished facilities and equipment used under this agreement/contract shall remain with the Contractor even if the Government paid the costs of constructing the facilities or equipment. A mutually accepted communications service authorization may provide for exceptions.

(b) The Contractor shall operate and maintain all telecommunication facilities and equipment used under this agreement/contract whether the Government or the Contractor has title.

(End of clause)
p. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 105)IV-C-7 1 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:56

AM Sheet 105of 232r" .ytos** ^ p,g_ 

### JZ.-C

- 7 ) * J > 

### * mm '< i 

# W UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C
. 2046 0 

### *<•-—/ FE B I 6

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Joh

n D . Rockefelle r Unite d State s Senat e Washington , D . C . 2051 0 Dea r Senato r Rockefeller : Thi s i n respons e t o you r February5 , 1988 , lette r relaying the concern s o f Mr . Charli e Blackbur n regarding EPA' s regulatory proposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne wvehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . The Augus t 19 , 1987 , Federa l Register , Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposing onboar d controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f the Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , Ann Arbor , M I 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Thank yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e the lette r fro m Mr . Blackbur n in ou r publi c docke t an d full yconside r hi s comment s i n the nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , ' L : : 'V- ) B

Y Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1P. 3

y r I r W 8 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENC Y \ *aWmi-iWASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0 % 

### ^ ^ FE B 

### I 6 198 8 

# ff-87-il

OFFIC E O F AIRAN D RADIATIO N
Honorabl e Charle s Ros e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Rose : Thank yo u fo r passing along the comment s o f you r constituent s concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n control s an d propose d gasolin e volatility regulations . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l b e considered i n th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . W e wil l als o b

e placing themin the publi c docket s fo r the rulemaking . Thank yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter . Sincerel yyours , '•.. '':'.C0 N Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-lll / Docke t A-85-2 1