alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 3.202 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.203-3, Gratuities, in solicitations and contracts with a value exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, except those for personal services and those between military departments or defense agencies and foreign governments that do not obligate any funds appropriated to the Department of Defense.

[61 FR 39200, July 26, 1996]
**ESEA Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students**

Title  III of the Elementary and   Secondary Education Act

Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 34 CFR 76-99

|Last Modified: 01/24/2014
|-------------------------
**This information is for historical purposes only.**

Performance Guidance This document is intended to assist applicants and grantees in developing a framework for project goals, performance objectives, and activities.
2022 Performance Measures (PDF, 68K)

2021 Performance Measures (PDF, 90K)

 Performance Measures (MS WORD, 33K) This document describes GPRA measures applicable to the National Professional Development (NPD) program.

 2013 Performance Measures Report (MS WORD, 72K) This document reports actual performance data on NPD GPRA measures for 2011-2012.

 Grant Performance Report Form and Instructions (MS WORD, 194K) This document includes the customized grantee performance report form and instructions the NPD grantees use to report annual, complete data, and final performance reports.

Example of a Completed Annual Performance Report This document serves as a useful tool when completing the grantee annual performance report. 
PowerPoint on Grantee Performance Reporting (MS PP, 1.27M) This power point slide covers information on grantee reporting requirements.
Annual Performance Report Q&As (MS WORD, 27K) This document provides answers to commonly asked questions about grantee performance reporting.

GPRA Indicators and Contextual Summaries: Projects First Funded 2007: FY 2010-2011 Reporting This  is a draft report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)  Indicators for the 2007 cohort of National Professional Development (NPD)  program grantees.  It summarizes fourth-year  (FY 2010-11) reports provided by projects first funded in 2007 under the NPD  program. 
  Last Modified: 09/28/2022
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 CR 545 DATE 7/20/2012

CASE

TITLE

USA vs. MARCUS JOHNSON

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Initial appearance proceedings held. Defendant Marcus Johnson appears in response to arrest on 7/20/2012.

Defendant informed of her rights. Enter order appointing Daniel McLaughlin as counsel for defendant for

initial appearance only. Removal proceedings held. Defendant waives the identity hearing; the Court finds

that the defendant Marcus Johnson is the person named in the arrest warrant. Order defendant removed to the

Western District of Wisconsin. Order defendant removed in custody to the Western District of Wisconsin 

forthwith.

Docketing to mail notices.

00:25

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

JS

12CR545 USA vs. MARCUS JOHNSON Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cr-00545 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:7
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                  ------------


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation (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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
       period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
       Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the
       requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
       of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  May 1, 2006                             /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Marvin F. Romanow
                                               Executive Vice President
                                               and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rocco Rescigno, Appellant, v. Town of Eastchester et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Taylor, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing benefits under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law. Claimant was a self-employed carpenter and a member of a volunteer ambulance unit affiliated with the Eastchester Fire Department. On December 14, 1961 under a hiring by its owner he was engaged in shingling the exterior of a building situate some distance from the scene of his volunteer responsibilities. At about 3:00 p.M. on that day he left the work to respond to a call for ambulance service and returned to the firehouse at about 4:25 P.M. A response to a second signal summoning the apparatus detained him until 5:05 p.m. whereafter he returned to his carpentry and while climbing the ladder to retrieve tools and material from the roof of the building fell sustaining the injuries which gave rise to his claim for benefits afforded volunteer firemen. (Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, § 6.) In reversing the Referee and dismissing the claim the board basing its decision on section 5 (subd. 2, par. e) of the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law which excludes coverage for work or services rendered in the course of employment for a private employer found that claimant had not been injured “in the line of duty as a volunteer firemen”. Whether or not claimant’s work activity fell within the exclusion of the statute was one for evaluation by the board in a debatable field of statutory coverage. We cannot say as a matter of law that the fact-finder could not hold as it did. *(Matter of Sloper*v. *Village of Westport,*13 A D 2d 566.) Appellant’s principal argument is that section 5 (subd. 1, par. a) of the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law which provides for coverage of a fireman while he is necessarily engaged in traveling to, working at and returning from a fire or other emergency to which his fire department or any unit thereof has responded, including necessary travel during such work or incidental thereto, mandates a reversal and the reinstatement of the award. We agree that the provision relied on contemplates portal-to-portal coverage. *(Matter of Hofmann*v. *Town of Hurley,*17 A D 2d 181.) However, the fallacy inherent in appellant’s reasoning is that any travel which was incidental to the performance of claimant’s firemanie duties on the day of his injury had ceased when he reached the place of the performance of his private work and became engaged in a phase of a purely personal endeavor having no rational connection in time and space to his service as a volunteer fireman. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Hamm, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANDRE YOUNGBLOOD, a/k/a Michael S. Long, a/k/a Michael Johnson , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:15

- cr - 00308

- RMG

- 1 )

Submitted : April 26, 2022 Decided: June 2, 2022

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Senior Judge Floyd dissent s
. Andre Youngblood, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7658 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: In December 2020, th e district court denied Andre Youngblood’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We vacated that judgment and remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Youngblood , 858 F. App’x 96 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 20

- 7836). On re mand, the district court denied Youngblood’s motion again, concluding that he had failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release and that, in any event, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence redu ction. On appeal, Youngblood challenges only the district court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Youngblood’s informal brief does not challen ge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, Youngblood has forfeited appellate review of this dispositive ruling

. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 201 4) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7658 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 FLOYD, Senior Judge, dissenting: Upon review of the record and the informal brief, I respectfully dissent and would vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7658 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/02/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
246.710 Contract clauses. ( 1 ) Use a clause substantially the same as the basic or one of the alternates of the clause at 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data, in solicitations and contracts that include the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software, when there is a need for greater protection or period of liability than provided by the inspection and warranty clauses prescribed in FAR part 46. ( i ) Use the basic clause in solicitations and contracts that are not firm-fixed price or fixed-price incentive.
( ii ) Use alternate I in fixed-price-incentive solicitations and contracts.
( iii ) Use alternate II in firm-fixed-price solicitations and contracts.
( 2 ) Use the clause at 252.246-7002, Warranty of Construction (Germany), instead of the clause at FAR 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, in solicitations and contracts for construction when a fixed-price contract will be awarded and contract performance will be in Germany.
( 3 ) When the solicitation includes the clause at 252.211-7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation, which is prescribed in 211.274-6(a), and it is anticipated that the resulting contract will include a warranty for serialized items— ( i ) Use the provision at 252.246-7005, Notice of Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items, in the solicitation if the Government does not specify a warranty and offerors will be required to enter data with the offer;
( ii ) Use the clause at 252.246-7006, Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items, in the solicitation and contract; and
( iii ) Include the following warranty attachments, available at *https://www.pdrep.csd.disa.mil/pdrep_files/other/wsr.htm ,* in the solicitation and contract and see 246.710-70: ( A ) Warranty Tracking Information.
( B ) Source of Repair Instructions.
[56 FR 36460, July 31, 1991, as amended at 62 FR 34128, June 24, 1997; 64 FR 51077, Sept. 21, 1999; 71 FR 27647, May 12, 2006; 76 FR 33168, June 8, 2011; 78 FR 76072, Dec. 16, 2013; 79 FR 17449, Mar. 28, 2014; 79 FR 18654, Apr. 3, 2014; 81 FR 17043, Mar. 25, 2016; 86 FR 59871, Oct. 29, 2021]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

 

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER**

 

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Sun Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Robert J. McCormack, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert J. McCormack      |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | President & Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                    |
| Date:  | 3/12/04                                 |   |   |
|        |                                         |        |  |  |

 

----
#### 26.502 Authority.

41 U.S.C. chapter 81, Drug-Free Workplace.

[79 FR 24208, Apr. 29, 2014. Redesignated at 89 FR 30244, Apr. 22, 2024]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                               | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Vocational and Adult Education Home |
|                                               |

* Note: $9,975 was set aside from the initial                         allocation for this territory for competition for                         outlying areas per section 211 (e) of AEFLA. Please see                         note below.

** Note: Per Section 211 (e) of AEFLA: (1) $29,975 is                         being set aside for the competitive grant process for                         the outlying areas; and, (2) of the funds reserved for                         this competitive grant process, PREL will receive $1,499                         to make recommendations to the Secretary on these                         awards.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2987

)

Cannon et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM

One of the deliveries to this Court’s chambers late last

week was a summons directed to Judge Martin Ashman that bears a

May 11, 2012 Clerk’s Office Stamp and appears to reflect a May

14, 2012 date of service. Because of Judge Ashman’s very recent

death, that summons should have no further consequences, but this

memorandum is issued sua sponte in light of its very issuance.

With pro se plaintiff Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi

(“Anzaldi”) having paid the $350 filing fee at the outset, this

Court was not of course called upon in the first instance to

address any aspects of the case in the manner that would have

been appropriate if Anzaldi had sought in forma pauperis status. 

All the same, a number of troubling aspects of Anzaldi’s selfprepared Complaint led to this Court’s issuance of an April 26,

2012 memorandum (that was just a few days after suit was filed).

That was done in the hope that some of Anzaldi’s obvious

misapprehensions might be eliminated, on the premise that a word

to the wise is (or at least should be) sufficient.
But what the currently-received summons appears to reflect

is that it was served more than two weeks after issuance of the

April 26 memorandum, in which this Court expressly told Anzaldi

that Magistrate Judge Ashman and two cohorts whom she had also

named in her pro se Complaint were protected by the longestablished doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. In light of

that message, Anzaldi’s continuing pursuit of Judge Ashman (and

perhaps others) by seeking to serve him (and perhaps them)

signals an abuse of the litigation process. In the last

paragraph of the April 26 memorandum this Court cautioned Alzaldi

about the possible adverse consequences of any non-compliance

with court directives (whether covered by specific rules or by

judicial doctrine).

This action has previously been set for a status hearing at

9 a.m. on June 27, 2012. At that time this Court anticipates

inquiring of Anzaldi as to all aspects of the case, including the

subject of this memorandum.

________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: June 18, 2012 

2
# C_2017179EN.01000201.xml

| 7.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8477 — LGP/OMERS/OPE Caliber Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 179/03)

On 1 June 2017, 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 32017M8477. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8477. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Ro nA . McMaho n

Commissioner

n f Avintiot i 

### S I 0-100325-00 2

D i : P A Rr

M K N1 C: > 1 - AV1ATI O N Stephani e A . Miner , Mayo r Marc h 11,201 0

Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d 

### Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerseyAve , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Docke t OOT-OST-2010-m ^ Dea rMr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s Syracus e Hancoc k Internationa l Airport' s suppor t fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d prospose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo roneworl d t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliance . Thi s increase d interallianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhance th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skies policy-firs t b ysolidifyin g U.S.-Japa n ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a

s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n as i t woul d enabl e th e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l b yofferin g customers mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m havin g thre e competitiv e ai ralliance s t o choos e from . I urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . 

### mlerely , 

# A>k<H~ - ryA . McMaho n ommissione ro f Aviatio n Syracus e Hancoc k

Internationa l Airpor t 100 0 Col . Eilee n Collin s Blv d Syracuse , N Y1321 2

HANCOC KINTKRN.VnONAl-AlKl'OU l • S ^ KAC l Si; , N.' i . 1.(21 2 • (315 . J5 J ,^Ir. < • I \\ : (US ) .|? 4 KTS T. u »».vvral i |i>t i l.orv :
# C_2018110EN.01000201.xml

| 23.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 March 2018

(2018/C 110/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2316 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4484 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1200 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1671 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 122,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5308 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,399 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,66 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2217 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6675 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,8372 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5974 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5889 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6641 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7031 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6207 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 330,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5724 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8016 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4435 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 937,58 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8190 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,544 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,3200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,512 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0666 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,7765 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,1830 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2316

JPY

Japanese yen

129,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4484

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87200

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1200

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1671

ISK

Iceland króna

122,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5308

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,399

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,66

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2217

RON

Romanian leu

4,6675

TRY

Turkish lira

4,8372

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5974

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5889

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6641

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7031

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6207

KRW

South Korean won

1 330,52

ZAR

South African rand

14,5724

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8016

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4435

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 937,58

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8190

PHP

Philippine peso

64,544

RUB

Russian rouble

70,3200

THB

Thai baht

38,512

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0666

MXN

Mexican peso

22,7765

INR

Indian rupee

80,1830

---

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

1

Source

---