alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Higher Education Act requires that the Secretary consult with federal agency heads in order to receive recommendations regarding areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions.

Areas of national need identified by the Secretary, consisting of priority languages that are less commonly taught and the world regions - Consultation with Federal Agencies on Areas of National Need

## Legislation

2008 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI: Section 604 (UISFL) (PDF)

Section 604(5)—on Supplemental Information to be collected from UISFL applicants:

- (E) a description of how the applicant will provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related areas;
- (F) an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, where applicable; and
- (G) a description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary.

(2) GRANTEES.—Of the total amount of grant funds awarded to a grantee under this section, the grantee may use not more than ten percent of such funds for the activity described in subsection (a)(2)(I).

Section 601(c)(1) — on Title VI consultation with other federal agencies on areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions (PDF)

1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI:  Section A 604 (a)(5)—on UISFL priority on foreign language requirements for institutions

- Title VI, Part A, Section 602(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended  
- 20 USC  Section 1124  and  Sections 1132-1137

## Regulations

- Program regulations can be found in 34 CFR  655   and 34 CFR  658 .
- Education Department General Administrative Regulations , Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 99

IFLE Home
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cascade Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert C. Warren, Jr., Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Robert C. Warren, Jr.  |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Robert C. Warren, Jr.      |   |
| *Chief Executive  Officer* |   |
| June 11, 2003              |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Cascade Corporation and will be retained by CascadeCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Home

# Justice Today Archives

BJA's *Justice Today* newsletter contains information about new publications, initiatives, funding opportunities, and more. View **more recent issues** or see archives below.

**Subscribe** to receive future issues of *Justice Today* and other email notifications.

**2016**
        - December 2016
        - October & November 2016
        - September 2016
        - August 2016
        - July 2016
        - June 2016
        - May 2016
        - April 2016
        - March 2016
        - February 2016
        - January 2016

**2015**
        - November & December 2015
        - October 2015
        - September 2015
        - August 2015
        - July 2015
        - June 2015
        - May 2015
        - April 2015
        - March 2015
        - February 2015
        - January 2015

**2014**
        - December 2014
        - November 2014
        - October 2014
        - September 2014
        - August 2014
        - July 2014
        - June 2014
        - May 2014
        - April 2014
        - March 2014
        - February 2014
        - January 2014

**2013**
        - December 2013
        - November 2013
        - October 2013
        - September 2013
        - August 2013
        - July 2013
        - June 2013
        - May 2013
        - April 2013
        - March 2013
        - February 2013
        - January 2013

**2012**
        - December 2012
        - November 2012
        - October 2012
        - September 2012
        - August 2012
        - July 2012
        - June 2012
        - May 2012
        - April 2012
        - March 2012
        - February 2012
        - January 2012

**2011**
        - December 2011
        - November 2011
        - October 2011
        - September 2011
        - August 2011
        - July 2011
        - June 2011
        - May 2011
        - April 2011
        - March 2011
        - February 2011
        - January 2011

**2010**
        - December 2010
        - November 2010
        - October 2010
        - September 2010
        - August 2010
        - July 2010
        - June 2010
        - May 2010
        - April 2010
        - February/March 2010
        - January 2010

**2009**
        - December 2009
        - November 2009
        - October 2009
        - September 2009
        - August 2009
        - July 2009
        - June 2009
        - May 2009
        - April 2009
        - March 2009
BD Data Sheet B

Consolidated Loans linked to BD Claims 	Office of Postsecondary Education	

January 2018	 U.S. Department of Education

The data presented here are consolidated loans associated with borrower defense claims, specifically, the proportion of these loans that is attributable to the claim itself.  The data were compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid (FSA).  Data are current as of December 15, 2017.

**Table B.1: Consolidated Loans associated with BD Claims**

Assumptions

· For approved claims, the value attributed to the claim is for the implicated program and school.

· For all claims, the value attributed to the claim is for the implicated school.  

· Consolidated loans were only considered if the SSN of the borrower was in the Borrower Defense Database and one of the loans in the consolidation was for the school implicated in the claim.

· Sums were rounded to the nearest tens digit.

DRT 1813.4	PUBLIC	1
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                             |                                   |                                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                              |                                         |
| Dated                this 23rd                day of March, 2006 | By:                          | /s/              Zong Yun              Zhou  |
|                                                             | Zong                Yun Zhou           |
|                                                             | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
**Exhibit      13**

----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of The BOC Group plc (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

          1.     The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

| Date: December 12, 2005 | /s/ Anthony Eric    Isaac                           |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Name:                                                                                                                                                                       | Anthony Eric Isaac        |
|                    | Title:                                                                                                                                                                                | Chief Executive |
|                    |                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |
|                    |                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |
| Date: December 12, 2005 | /s/ Alan Murray Ferguson                                                               |
|                    | Name:                                                                                                                                                                       | Alan Murray Ferguson |
|                    | Title:                                                                                                                                                                                | Group Finance Director |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33
                                                                   -------------

                            MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
                            ----------------------

     This modification agreement is dated this    day of August 1998.  The
undersigned parties constituting Employer (or "SkyLynx"), and Employee (or
"Jesson"), respectively agree as follows:

     Whereas, the parties executed an employment agreement dated July 20, 1998;
and

     Whereas, the parties desire to amend the said employment agreement by
extending the starting date, remuneration and legal relationship of the parties.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

Except as modified by this document, all provisions of the employment agreement
  dated July 20, 1998 shall remain in full force and effect.

The commencement date of the employment relationship between the parties is
  hereby extended to January 1, 1999.

Jesson shall serve as an independent contractor consultant between this date and
  December 31, 1998.

Jesson shall be paid a prepaid expense fee on September 1, 1998 in the amount of
  $4,000.00

Any travel, lodging, meal and entertainment expenses will require company
  approval and shall be due either in advance or immediately on being billed to
  SkyLynx.

The sum of $36,000.00 will be due and payable on January 2, 1999 representing
  four (4) months consulting fees.  In the event Jesson is unable or unwilling
  to provide these services for the time specified, said fees shall be prorated
  to the date of such inability or unwillingness to continue.

In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this
day of August 1998.

SkyLynx Communications, Inc.                 Steven Jesson

By:
   --------------------------                -------------------------------
      Gary L. Brown                          Employee
      As President for
      Employer
Exhibit
10.18


 


WEINMAN GEOSCIENCE, INC.


17103 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE
200


DALLAS, TEXAS 75248


 


May 5, 2009


 


Global Geophysical Services, Inc.


3535 Briarpark Drive, Suite 200


Houston, Texas 77042


 


Re:                             Subordinated
Promissory Note dated as of December 10, 2008 (as amended, supplemented or
otherwise modified, the “Note”), by and
among GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”), and WEINMAN GEOSCIENCE, INC., a Texas corporation (“Payee”)


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Note.  Terms that are defined in the Note and not
otherwise defined herein are used herein with the meanings given them in the
Note.


 


Maker has requested that Payee extend the
required payments of principal and accrued interest that are due and payable on
June 5, 2009.  Accordingly, Maker
and Payee hereby agree that the payment in respect of the Notes due and payable
on June 5, 2009 is hereby extended to June 15, 2009.


 


In order to induce Payee to enter into this
Letter, Maker represents and warrants to Payee that as of the date of this
Letter, no Blockage Default or Senior Indebtedness Acceleration has occurred
and is continuing and no Standstill Period is in effect.


 


The Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in
all respects.  Except as expressly set
forth above, the execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Letter shall not
operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of Maker or Payee under the
Note, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Note.


 


THIS LETTER AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE
PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.


 


This Letter may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an
original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.


 

















 


Please execute a counterpart of this Letter
in the place provided below to evidence your agreement to the foregoing and
your continuing ratification of the Note in consideration hereof, whereupon
this Letter shall become effective as of the date first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  Yours
  truly,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  WEINMAN GEOSCIENCE, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Accepted
  and agreed to as of the date first written above:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL
  SERVICES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:
  P. Matthew Verghese

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:
  Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

  



 


2
**Who May Apply: (by category)** State Education Agencies (SEAs)
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad Houtkin, President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: July 28, 2009 /s/ Brad Houtkin Brad Houtkin President
Eligible applicants include a state education agency (SEA) of one of the 50 states, the  District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or an outlying area  (United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of  the Northern Mariana Islands).
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANOPR)

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD):

Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

February 19, 2008

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 16.1
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc., and Lighting Research Center

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 16.1
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1551 Lower Tribunal No. 14-11093

________________ 

### Rosaida Cuellar and Evelio Carmona ,

Appellants,
vs. 

### Federal National Mortgage Association ,

Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge. Rosaida Cuellar, in proper person. Atlas | Solomon PLLC, and Adam G. Schwartz (Stuart); McGlinchey Stafford, and William L. Grimsley (Jacksonville), for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Handel v. Nevel, 147 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“We review a trial court's ruling on a rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion, and we will not disturb that ruling unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same decision”) (internal citation omitted); Lopez v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 302 So. 3d 953, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Any matter asserted in [appellants’] rule 1.540(b) motion that was before the trial court prior to the entry of the amended final judgment of foreclosure is improperly raised in a rule 1.540(b) motion. A rule 1.540(b) motion cannot be utilized ‘to overcome [a party's] failure to timely challenge the original final judgment.’ Baez v. Perez, 201 So. 3d 692, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Beal Bank, S.S.B., Inc. v. Sherwin, 829 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))”).
NewClick hereclick here

**Program Office:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education**CFDA Number:** 84.116W**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants**Also Known As:** RPED Program

Program Description

The purpose of the Rural Postsecondary & Economic Development Grant Program is to improve rates of postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion among rural students through development of high-quality career pathways aligned to high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand industry sectors and occupations in the region.

FIPSE Home
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Olga Aho, Deceased. Joseph A. Porcell, Appellant; Stella Crowley et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding for the issuance of preliminary letters testamentary, petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, dated August 30, 1978, which directed that preliminary letters testamentary be issued to The Bank of New York. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to The Bank of New York by the appellant personally. The Surrogate was empowered under the statute to grant preliminary letters testamentary to The Bank of New York and, in the exercise of his discretion, properly did so. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 18 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REINARD MARKUS SIMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORTHERN FARMS, INC., a

Missouri corporation; JULIE A.

ROBINSON, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge;

GARY R. GUILFORD; J. SCOTT

POHL; LINDA S. PARKS; W.K.

JENKINS; MICHAEL D. HILL,

Sedgwick County Sheriff; MARK J.

LASSO; GENE FRANCIS,

Auctioneer; NATIONAL CREDIT

UNION ADMINISTRATION;

RICHARD V. FOOTE; CHARLES H.

EHM; JOHN K. PEARSON, U.S.

Bankruptcy Judge; and BRUCE

FROST,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-3269

(D.C. No. 97-CV-1164)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appeals from a number of district court orders entered in this

action, which consolidated two cases alleging the violation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding involving plaintiff and

his wife as debtors. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s decision denying his

motions for default judgment, which we review only for an abuse of discretion,

see Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, N.A., 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995), and

his motions for summary judgment, which we review de novo, see United States

v. Simons, 129 F.3d 1386, 1388 (10th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), some with prejudice and some without prejudice. 

We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, accepting all well-pleaded

allegations as true. See Summum v. Callaghan, 130 F.3d 906, 913 (10th Cir.

1997). Lastly, plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of any supplemental state law

claims without prejudice, a determination left to the district court’s discretion. 
-3-

See Nwosun v. General Mills Restaurants, Inc., 124 F.3d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir.

1997). We liberally construe plaintiff’s pro se pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

Upon careful consideration of the record and the parties’ appellate

arguments, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s

“Memorandum and Order” entered August 26, 1997. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
2804.903-71 Special reporting exceptions. ( a ) The Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Public Law 100-647, amended 26 U.S.C. 6050M to allow exceptions to the reporting requirements for certain classified or confidential contracts.
( b ) The head of the agency has determined that the filing of information returns, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6050M, on confidential contracts, which involve law enforcement or foreign counterintelligence activities, would interfere with the effective conduct of those confidential law enforcement or foreign counterintelligence activities, and that the special reporting exceptions added to 26 U.S.C. 6050M by the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 apply to these types of contracts.