alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.102-2 Administration. ( a ) Agencies shall cooperate with, and encourage contractors to use to the fullest extent practicable, the DOL Employment and Training Administration (DOLETA) at *http://www.doleta.gov ,* and its affiliated local offices in meeting contractors' labor requirements. These requirements may be to staff new or expanding plant facilities, including requirements for workers in all occupations and skills from local labor market areas or through the Federal-State employment clearance system.
( b ) Local State employment offices are operated throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to providing recruitment assistance to contractors, cooperation with the local State Employment Service offices will further the national program of maintaining continuous assessment of manpower requirements and resources on a national and local basis.
( c ) ( 1 ) The U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division is responsible for administration and enforcement of numerous wage and hour statutes including— ( i ) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction);
( ii ) 40 U.S.C. chapter 37, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards;
( iii ) The Copeland Act (18 U.S.C. 874 and 40 U.S.C. 3145);
( iv ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 65, Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment Exceeding $10,000;
( v ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards.
( 2 ) Contracting officers should contact the Wage and Hour Division's regional offices when required by the subparts relating to these statutes unless otherwise specified. Addresses for these offices may be found at Appendix B to 29 CFR Part 1.
[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 55374, Oct. 25, 1991; 68 FR 28082, May 22, 2003; 71 FR 36931, June 28, 2006; 79 FR 24203, Apr. 29, 2014; 80 FR 26427, May 7, 2015; 81 FR 58638, Aug. 25, 2016; 81 FR 91638, Dec. 16, 2016; 82 FR 51530, Nov. 6, 2017; 85 FR 27090, May 6, 2020]
**THE PRESIDENT'S EDUCATION AWARDS PROGRAMRECOGNIZING STUDENT EXCELLENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT SINCE 1983**

Founded in 1983, the President's Education Awards Program (PEAP) honors graduating elementary, middle and high school students for their achievement and hard work. The program has provided individual recognition from the President and the U.S. Secretary of Education to those students whose outstanding efforts have enabled them to meet challenging standards of excellence. Each year, thousands of elementary, middle, and high schools participate by recognizing deserving students.

### 2024 PEAP Digital Downloads will be available March 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1999
FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,394,446
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,423,082
<PP&E>                                     380,905,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (380,872,364)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,455,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,455,718
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,575,667
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               623,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,952,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,952,611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,952,611
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
#### 252.227-7030 Technical data—withholding of payment.

As prescribed at 227.7103-6(e)(2) or 227.7104(e)(4), use the following clause:

# Technical Data—Withholding of Payment (MAR 2000)

(a) If technical data specified to be delivered under this contract, is not delivered within the time specified by this contract or is deficient upon delivery (including having restrictive markings not identified in the list described in the clause at 252.227-7013(e)(2) or 252.227-7018(e)(2) of this contract), the Contracting Officer may until such data is accepted by the Government, withhold payment to the Contractor of ten percent (10%) of the total contract price or amount unless a lesser withholding is specified in the contract. Payments shall not be withheld nor any other action taken pursuant to this paragraph when the Contractor's failure to make timely delivery or to deliver such data without deficiencies arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.

(b) The withholding of any amount or subsequent payment to the Contractor shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights accruing to the Government under this contract.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 33505, June 28, 1995; 62 FR 34132, June 24, 1997; 65 FR 14398, Mar. 16, 2000]
# C_2016403EN.01000201.xml

| 1.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 403/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 403/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 October 2016

(2016/C 403/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0946 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4393 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90050 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0820 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0345 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,024 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,44 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3278 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5060 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3965 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4397 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4665 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4887 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5313 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5251 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 254,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8482 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4156 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5093 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 273,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5970 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,063 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,2498 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,327 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4836 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,7150 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,0940 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0946

JPY

Japanese yen

114,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4393

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90050

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0820

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0345

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,024

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,44

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3278

RON

Romanian leu

4,5060

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3965

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4397

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4665

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4887

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5313

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5251

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,89

ZAR

South African rand

14,8482

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4156

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5093

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 273,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5970

PHP

Philippine peso

53,063

RUB

Russian rouble

69,2498

THB

Thai baht

38,327

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4836

MXN

Mexican peso

20,7150

INR

Indian rupee

73,0940

---

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

1

Source

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles PYNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7466.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2008.

Decided: June 13, 2008.

*198Charles Pyne, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Pyne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pyne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
## NUMBER 13 - 2 2 - 0 0 5 77 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE ROBERT ALLEN SATTERFIELD

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Memorandum O pinion by Chief Justice Contreras 1

On December 1 , 2022, Robert Allen Satterfield filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to allow certain discovery , including testing and analysis of DNA samples and ballistics evidence

. In a criminal case, t o be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 harm. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fail s to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator ’ s burden to properly r equest and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding)

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus , the response filed by the State of Texas, and relator’s reply, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d at 388 ; State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, we lift the stay previo usly imposed in this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10 (b) (“ Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided. ” ). We deny the petition f or writ of mandamus. Given our disposition of this original proceeding, we dismiss as moot the State’s “Motion to Access Sealed Record or Alternative Motion to Strike Record” and “Motion to Suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to Expedite t his Proceeding.”

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b ). Delivered and filed on the 29th day of December , 202 2

.
#### 26.200 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5150), which provides a preference for local organizations, firms, and individuals when contracting for major disaster or emergency assistance activities.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131933(18) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 131933 COA: 271427 Allegan CC: 04-013757-FH DARIEL IRE HOUGH, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s November 29, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
## Timeline

Last Competition:  FY 2016Application availability date: January 13, 2021    Application deadline: March 1, 2021, Extended to March 15th 2021 for states affected by severe winter weather (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana)

## Federal Register Notice

 Educational Opportunity Center Reopening NoticePDF (309K)

## Current Application

On January 13, 2021, we published the notice inviting applications (NIA) for new awards for the FY 2021 Educational Opportunity Centers competition in the Federal Register (86 FR 2658).  Under the NIA, applications were due on March 1, 2021.

The Department is reopening this competition for eligible  applicants from affected areas in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, for which the  President has issued a disaster declaration, to allow those applicants more  time to prepare and submit applications. For applicants that meet the  eligibility criteria in the NIA published on March 4, 2021, we are reopening  the competition until March 15, 2021. In addition, the NIA, extends the  intergovernmental review deadline until May 25, 2021. Please review the *Federal Register* official notice of this reopening.

## Tips and Assistance

**FY  2021 Pre-Application Technical Assistance Webinars for the Educational  Opportunity Centers (EOC) Program:**

In preparation for the (FY) 2021 EOC Program competition,  the Student Service area will conduct 10 pre-application webinars this winter.  The dates and times of the pre-application webinars are:

| Monday, January 11, 2021,   | 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Washington DC’s time   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Tuesday, January 12, 2021   | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Washington DC’s time  |
| Wednesday, January 13, 2021 | 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Washington DC’s time   |
| Thursday, January 14, 2021  | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Washington DC’s time  |
|                             |                                                    |
| Friday, January 15, 2021    | 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.  Washington DC’s time  |
| Tuesday, January 19, 2021   | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Washington DC’s time  |
| Thursday, January 21, 2021  | 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.  Washington DC’s time  |
| Friday, January 22, 2021    | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Washington DC’s time  |
| Monday, January 25, 2021    | 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Washington DC’s time   |
| Tuesday, January 26, 2021   | 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Washington DC’s time  |

To **register for the workshops**, please go to: 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EOC2021

## Application Contact

Rachael Wiley, (202) 453-6078Federal TRIO ProgramsU. S. Department of Education, OPE400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202E-mail:  OPE_TRIO@ed.gov

TRIO Home
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         143,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,998,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,489,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,815,511
<PP&E>                                       5,966,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,057,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,442,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,867
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,383,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,057,153
<SALES>                                     42,308,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,308,497
<CGS>                                       35,342,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,342,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,039,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,717,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,790,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (769,328)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,021,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,021,505)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)


</TABLE>
#### H. Earl Bogert, Appellant, v. Philip R. Herrick et al., Respondents.

— Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Broome County Court which affirmed an order of the Binghamton City Court directing that plaintiff be examined before trial as an adverse party pursuant to section 288 of the Civil Practice Act and section 16 of the Binghamton City Court Act (L. 1950, eh. 370). The only issue is whether the Binghamton City Court has power to order the examination of a party before trial. Section 288 of the Civil Practice *682Act authorizes such an examination of “Any party to an action in a court of record Appellant contends that inasmuch as the Binghamton City Court is not a court of record the words “ in a court of record ” contained in section 288 render the section wholly inapplicable to the Binghamton City Court. However, other legislative enactment clearly makes section 288 applicable to the Binghamton City Court. Section 16 of the Binghamton City Court Act (L. 1950, ch. 370) provides, in part: “a. The provisions of the civil practice act and the rules of civil practice, notwithstanding express reference by name or classification therein to any other court, shall apply to the city court as far as the same can be made applicable and are not in conflict with the provisions of this act.” Section 16 of the Binghamton City Court Act was taken verbatim from section 23 of the proposed “ Uniform City Court Act ” recommended by the Judicial Council. The framers of section 23 of the Uniform City Court Act intended to make the provisions of the Civil Practice Act and the Rules of Civil Practice applicable to City Courts without the necessity of enumerating the provisions made applicable section by section. (See Eighth Annual Report of New York Judicial Council [1942], pp. 41-43, 265-321.) Thus it is clear from sources outside the statute itself that the intention of the framers was to make the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to City Courts, but the language of the statute itself is subject to no other interpretation. Section 16 of the Binghamton City Court Act makes the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to the Binghamton City Court “ notwithstanding express reference by name or classification therein to any other court ”. This language is crystal clear and renders the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to the Binghamton City Court, including section 288, notwithstanding the words “in a court of record” contained therein. Hence the Binghamton City Court had the power to order the examination of the plaintiff before trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ. [37 Misc 2d 907.]
# C_2016450EN.01000602.xml

| 2.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 450/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 450/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8183 — Avnet/Premier Farnell)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 450/03)

On 6 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---