alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >

Cc: Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven

Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Laney, Michael N." < mnl@rti.org >, Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Beth Wittig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy

Blake/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/14/2012 11:02 AM

Subject: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cemen t Interagency Review response

Hello Cortney

Please find attached revisions to subject package. Sending you the redline version so you can track your

comments. Note we have added additional discussion on 1) soliciting comments on SS work practices

(page 91), and 2) oxygen correction factors for raw material dryers (page 119).

(See attached file: EO12866_NESHAP FOR Portland Cement S 2060 AQ93 06112012_version

_w_OMB_comments_MASTER Jun 14 2012 1100 am.docx)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Gr oup (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541

- 2825
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 364 

Congratulating the University of Central Missouri women’s soccer team for 

winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Women’s 

Soccer Championship at Swope Soccer Village in Kansas City, Missouri. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of Central Missouri women’s 

soccer team for winning the National Collegiate Athletic 

Association Division II Women’s Soccer Championship 

at Swope Soccer Village in Kansas City, Missouri. 

Whereas, on December 2, 2017, the University of Central 

Missouri won the National Collegiate Athletic Association 

Division II Women’s Soccer Championship at Swope Soccer Village in Kansas City, Missouri, which was the first 

national championship in the history of the University of 

Central Missouri women’s soccer program; 

Whereas the University of Central Missouri women’s soccer 

team completed an undefeated season with a record of 26 

wins and no losses or ties, setting a new Division II 

record for wins in a season; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 364 ATS 

Whereas the University of Central Missouri women’s soccer 

team tied a Division II single-season record with 21 shutouts; 

Whereas the University of Central Missouri women’s soccer 

team finished the season as the top-ranked team in the 

United Soccer Coaches Top 25 Division II postseason 

poll; 

Whereas 5 of the University of Central Missouri Jennies, Ana 

Dilkes, Jada Scott, Kayla Hamner, Baylie Edwards, and 

Abby Rhodes, were named to the Division II Conference 

Commissioners Association All-America Soccer Teams; 

and 

Whereas the University of Central Missouri is a leader in 

promoting soccer and the values of teamwork, commitment, and excellence: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the University of Central Mis3 souri women’s soccer team for winning a national 

4 title for the first time in the history of the Univer5 sity of Central Missouri women’s soccer program 

6 while maintaining an undefeated season; and 

7 (2) encourages the University of Central Mis8 souri to continue promoting the values of teamwork, 

9 commitment, and excellence through the soccer and 

10 other athletic programs of the University of Central 

11 Missouri. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo 12: Exposure to oil from the Exxon Valdez Figure 14. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in Chignik and Kashvik Bay (Katmai Area). Figure 15. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Ivanof Bay and Perryville.
C. A. No. 1964.

#### State *v.*Vito N. Russo.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *Vito N. Russo,*defendant, pro se.

Motion of defendant that court reinstate the appeal in *State*v. *Russo,*No. 1964 — C. A., is denied without prejudice to the right of defendant to renew said motion after the Superior Court decides the pending question of competency of counsel.
- 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 Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

                - Program Administration Manual for FY 2022-2025: PDF (2.63M)
                - FY 2022 Consultation on Areas of National Need with Federal Agencies: MS Word (103K)
                - Related Program - Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program (FLAS)
                - International Resource Information System (IRIS):  a performance reporting system and searchable database for 14 international education programs
                - OPE -  Applicant and Grantee Resources

**FY 2022-2025 NRC/FLAS Project Directors Meeting**
                - Contact List for FY 2022-2025 NRC and FLAS Programs (as of 20 Oct 2022):    Excel   (75K)
                - Engage with IFLE Flyer:    PDF   (137K)
                - Excerpts of Select Quotes from Remarks by Ambassador Lee Litzenberger, Retired:    PDF  (186K)
                - FLAS Funds Reminders for 2022 Project Directors Meeting:    PDF   (327K)
                - Google Map of FY 2022 IFLE Grantees
                - IFLE Peer Review Flyer:    PDF   (334K)
                - IFLE Programs of Particular Interest to NRC/FLAS:    PDF   (124K) Snapshots of FY 2022-2025 NRC and FLAS Grantees:  Excel (60K)   U.S. Government All Language Programs Website     IFLE Home                      Printable view  Last Modified: 03/09/2023
                  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* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
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
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 45 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should not 

encroach upon the States’ constitutional right to govern aspects of election law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2023 

Mr. SANTOS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should not encroach upon the States’ constitutional 

right to govern aspects of election law. 

Whereas article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the United 

States designates to the States the right to govern aspects of election law; and 

Whereas H.R. 1 of the 117th Congress amounts to Federal 

overreach: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This concurrent resolution may be cited as ‘‘The 

5 Hands Off Our Election Resolution of 2023’’. 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 45 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 It is the sense of Congress that Federal overreach 

3 into election law violates the States’ constitutional right 

4 to govern aspects of election law as prescribed by article 

5 1, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Douglas Siple, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 4019

)

AllianceOne Receivables Management, ) Judge Conlon

Inc., a Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Douglas Siple, having reached a settlement of his claims against the 

Defendant, hereby stipulates to the dismissal of this lawsuit, without prejudice.

Dated: July 2, 2012

/s/ David J. Philipps_______ 

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys 

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 South Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

Case: 1:12-cv-04019 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:29
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 2, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of 

Dismissal was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following 

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this 

filing through the Court’s system. 

Anna-Katrina S. Christakis kchristakis@gradypilgrim.com

Sulejman F. Dizdarevic sdizdarevic@gradypilgrim.com

Grady Pilgrim Christakis Bell LLP

53 West Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1515

Chicago, Illinois 60604

/s/ David J. Philipps__________

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 South Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04019 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:30
#### SCHLOTTERER, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN & N. Y. FERRY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Louisa Schlotterer, an infant, etc., against the Brooklyn & New York Ferry Company.

No opinion. Reargument ordered for Monday, November 23, 1903.
#### COBB et al. v. EDSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

October, 1903.)

1. Principal and Agent—Ratification.

A judgment creditor placed his claim, then in judgment, in the hands of a collection agency, which compromised it by an agreement, which the judgment debtor fully performed. About five years later the creditor, learning of the settlement, demanded of and received from the agency the sum in its hands derived solely from the settlement, and not otherwise accounted for by it. *Held*that, conceding the want of the agency to compromise the claim, the judgment creditor ratified its act.

2. Supplementary Proceedings—Satisfaction of Judgment—Dismissal.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2454, providing that, where it appears that a judgment has been satisfied, the judgment creditor’s supplementary proceedings may be dismissed, supplementary proceedings will be dismissed on motion of the judgment debtor, where there is nothing to collect under the judgment.

¶ 2. See Execution, vol. 21, Cent. Dig. § 1143.

*917Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Supplementary proceedings by Albert W. Cobb and another against David O. Edson. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendant in supplementary proceedings, he appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Charles E. Mahony, for appellant.

Henry L- Maxson, for respondents.

BISCHOFF, J.

Upon a practical concession of facts it appears that the judgment creditors placed the claim (then in judgment) in the hands of a collection agency; that the latter compromised it by agreement of settlement upon additional consideration (Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351, 11 L. R. A. 710), which agreement was fully performed by the debtor; and that some five years afterward the creditors, learning of the settlement, demanded of and received from the agency the sum in its hands derived solely from the settlement, and not otherwise accounted for as between the principal and agent. Granting that the agency to collect did not import an authority to compromise, there was here a distinct ratification within familiar principles. Hyatt v. Clark, 118 N. Y. 563, 23 N. E. 891; Bliven v. Lydecker, 130 N. Y. 102, 28 N. E. 625. There is nothing to collect under this judgment, and the authorities which hold that the invalidity of a judgment cannot be averred, as an original question, in supplementary proceedings, have no application. Satisfaction of the claim in judgment calls for the dismissal.of the proceedings. Code Civ. Proc. § 2454.

The appellant was entitled to the order which he sought, and the order appealed from is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
#### 3.406 Records.

For enforcement purposes, agencies shall preserve any specific evidence of one or more of the violations in 3.405(a), together with all other pertinent data, including a record of actions taken. Contracting offices shall not retire or destroy these records until it is certain that they are no longer needed for enforcement purposes. If the original record is maintained in a central file, a copy must be retained in the contract file.

[48 FR 42108, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 39188, July 26, 1996]
Schoolwide programs address the educational needs of children living in impoverished communities with comprehensive strategies for improving the whole school so every student achieves high levels of academic proficiency. Schoolwide programs have great latitude to determine how to organize their operations and allocate the multiple funding sources available to them. They do not have to identify particular children as eligible for services or separately track Federal dollars. Instead, schoolwide programs can use all allocated funds to increase the amount and quality of learning time. 

For additional information about schoolwide programs see:- Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidance   (March 2006)
-  Notice Authorizing Schoolwide Programs to Consolidate Federal Education Funds   and Exempting Them from Complying with Statutory or Regulatory Provisions of Those Programs (July 2, 2004)
- Legislation: Title I, Part A, Section 1114, Schoolwide Programs     Archived Information   -  Guidance on Schoolwide Programs 
-  Profiles of Successful Schoolwide Programs, December 1998  
- Re-energizing Schoolwide Programs, Speech at the Title I Conference     PPT  (5.5M)
-  Implementing Schoolwide Programs An Idea Book on Planning (October 1998)  
           Last Modified: 06/15/2017
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21149 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE A. FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-405-1

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Yolanda E. Jarmon, court-appointed appellate counsel for Jorge A. Fuentes, has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fuentes has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 23.2
            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
            --------------------------------------------------------





The Board of Directors
Farmers Capital Bank Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos.
333-63037 and 333-116801) on Form S-8 of Farmers Capital Bank Corporation of our
report dated January 17, 2003,  with respect to the  consolidated  statements of
income,  comprehensive  income,  changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year ended  December 31, 2002,  which report appears in the December 31,
2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Farmers Capital Bank Corporation.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Louisville, Kentucky
March 11, 2005
#### 2501.104 Issuance.
Case: 1:12-cv-05824 Document #: 54 Filed: 08/23/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:444
#### 252.217-7007 Payments.

As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the following clause:

# Payments (DEC 1991)

(a) *Progress payments,* as used in this clause, means payments made before completion of work in progress under a job order.

(b) Upon submission by the Contractor of invoices in the form and number of copies directed by the Contracting Officer, and as approved by the Contracting Officer, the Government will make progress payments as work progresses under the job order.

(1) Generally, the Contractor may submit invoices on a semi-monthly basis, unless expenditures justify a more frequent submission.

(2) The Government need not make progress payments for invoices aggregating less than $5,000.

(3) The Contracting Officer shall approve progress payments based on the value, computed on the price of the job order, of labor and materials incorporated in the work, materials suitably stored at the site of the work, and preparatory work completed, less the aggregate of any previous payments.

(4) Upon request, the Contractor will furnish the Contracting Officer any reports concerning expenditures on the work to date that the Contracting Officer may require.

(c) The Government will retain until final completion and acceptance of all work covered by the job order, an amount estimated or approved by the Contracting Officer under paragraph (b) of this clause. The amount retained will be in accordance with the rate authorized by Congress for Naval vessel repair contracts at the time of job order award.

(d) The Contracting Officer may direct that progress payments be based on the price of the job order as adjusted as a result of change orders under the Changes clause of the Master Agreement. If the Contracting Officer does not so direct—

(1) Payments of any increases shall be made from time to time after the amount of the increase is determined under the Changes clause of the Master Agreement; and

(2) Reductions resulting from decreases shall be made for the purposes of subsequent progress payments as soon as the amounts are determined under the Changes clause of the Master Agreement.

(e) Upon completion of the work under a job order and final inspection and acceptance, and upon submission of invoices in such form and with such copies as the Contracting Officer may prescribe, the Contractor shall be paid for the price of the job order, as adjusted pursuant to the Changes clause of the Master Agreement, less any performance reserves deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, and less the amount of any previous payments.

(f) All materials, equipment, or any other property or work in process covered by the progress payments made by the Government, upon the making of those progress payments, shall become the sole property of the Government, and are subject to the provisions of the Title clause of the Master Agreement.

(End of clause)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMEER MARSHALL, a/k/a Jermere Yohonn Marshall,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00060-nkm-2)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermeer Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jermeer Marshall appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. United States v. Marshall , No. 3:00-cr00060-nkm-2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED