alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3001.404 Class deviations. ( a ) Unless precluded by law, executive order, or other regulation, the CPO is authorized to approve FAR class deviations, except (FAR) 48 CFR 30.201-3, and 30.201-4 (the requirements of the Cost Accounting Standards Board); 48 CFR chapter 99 (FAR appendix); and part 50. Prior to authorizing a FAR class deviation, the CPO shall consult with the chairperson of the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAA Council), unless the CPO determines that urgency precludes such consultation. FAR class deviation requests shall be submitted to the CPO per (HSAR) 48 CFR subpart 3001.70 including complete documentation of the justification for the deviation, and the estimated number and type of contract actions affected. The CPO will transmit a copy of each approved FAR deviation to the FAR Secretariat.
[71 FR 25767, May 2, 2006]
#### 28.303 Insurance against loss of or damage to Government property.

When the Government requires or approves insurance to cover loss of or damage to Government property (see 45.104, Responsibility and liability for Government property), it may be provided by specific insurance policies or by inclusion of the risks in the contractor's existing policies. The policies shall disclose the Government's interest in the property.

[48 FR 42286, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 72 FR 27384, May 15, 2007]
Page 1 of 3

# **FY 2018 SAFRA NCC AWARDS**
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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; nevertheless, an order 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 

### MAY 1 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS ACOSTA ACEVEDA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-3195 (D.C. No. 96-CV-3160) (District of Kansas)

ORDER *
Before TACHA , BALDOCKand LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Appellant, Jesus Acosta-Aceveda, requests the grantof a certificate of appealability to review the effectiveness of his counsel at trial. We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by appeall ant in their entirety and conclude that he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights to effective assistance of co unsel.- 2 -

Having concluded that he has not made the necessary showing to obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1), we DENY the grant of a certificate of appealability, and DECLINE to review the merits of the judgment of the district court. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
3003.203 Reporting suspected violations of the Gratuities clause. ( a ) Suspected violations shall be reported to the contracting officer responsible for the acquisition (or the COCO if the contracting officer is suspected of the violation). The contracting officer (or the COCO) shall obtain from the person reporting the violation, and any witnesses to the violation, the following information: ( 1 ) The date, time, and place of the suspected violation;
( 2 ) The name and title (if known) of the individual(s) involved in the violation; and
( 3 ) The details of the violation (e.g., the gratuity offered or intended) to obtain a contract or favorable treatment under a contract.
( 4 ) The person reporting the violation and witnesses (if any) shall be requested to sign and date the information certifying that the information furnished is true and correct.
( b ) The contracting officer shall submit the report to the COCO (unless the alleged violation was directly reported to the COCO) and the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for further action. The COCO and HCA will determine, with the advice of the Component legal counsel, whether the case warrants submission to the OIG, or other investigatory organization.
[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 25768, May 2, 2006; 71 FR 48801, Aug. 22, 2006]
# C_2019233EN.01000201.xml

| 11.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 July 2019

(2019/C 233/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1220 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4637 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89928 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6093 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1133 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 141,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6930 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,565 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 325,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2738 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7335 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,4398 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6210 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4713 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7692 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6997 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5270 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7227 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3935 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 853,86 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6434 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,756 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,2695 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,586 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2585 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5421 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,9510 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1220

JPY

Japanese yen

122,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4637

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89928

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6093

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1133

ISK

Iceland króna

141,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6930

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,565

HUF

Hungarian forint

325,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2738

RON

Romanian leu

4,7335

TRY

Turkish lira

6,4398

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6210

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4713

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7692

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6997

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5270

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,21

ZAR

South African rand

15,8875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7227

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3935

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 853,86

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6434

PHP

Philippine peso

57,756

RUB

Russian rouble

71,2695

THB

Thai baht

34,586

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2585

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5421

INR

Indian rupee

76,9510

---

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

---
- 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 |
|                                        |

                - International       Resource Information System  (IRIS) -- a performance reporting       system and searchable database for 14 international education programs
                - OPE -       Other Applicant and Grantee Resources

IFLE Home

----

 

 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
#### 252.247-7015 [Reserved]
___________

No. 96-2058

___________

Dennis Lee, and all other *

automobile insurance policy *

holders/members of Arkansas *

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance *

Company of Arkansas, Inc., and *

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty *

Insurance Company, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

*

Arkansas Farm Bureau Mutual *

Insurance Company of Arkansas, *

Inc., Members/Holders of Auto- *

mobile Insurance Policies; *

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty *

Insurance Company, Members/ *

Holders of Automobile Insurance *

Policies, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation,*

An Incorporated Entity or, *

Alternatively, AR Farm Bureau *

Federation, An Unincorporated *

Association - Andrew Whisenhunt,*

*

Defendant/Appellee. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

No. 96-2180 Western District of Arkansas.

___________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

Dennis Lee, and all other *

automobile insurance policy *

holders/members of Arkansas *

Farm Bureau Insurance Company *

of Arkansas, Inc., and Southern *

Farm Bureau; *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

*

Arkansas Farm Bureau Mutual *

Insurance Company of Arkansas, *

Inc., Members/Holders of Auto- *

mobile Insurance Policies; *
 The HONORABLE JOHN B. JONES, United States District Judge for 1

the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge 2

for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division.

-2-

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty *

Insurance Company, Members/ *

Holders of Automobile Insurance *

Policies, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation,*

An Incorporated Entity or, *

Alternatively, AR Farm Bureau *

Federation, An Unincorporated *

Association - Andrew Whisenhunt,*

*

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 15, 1997

 Filed: February 6, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this action with allegations Appellee committed

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a),(c), and (d) in the operation of the

Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. The district court granted summary

2

judgment to Appellee. After a careful review of the record and the

parties’ briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was

correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The Cross-Appeal

is dismissed as moot.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2017042EN.01000201.xml

| 9.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 February 2017

(2017/C 42/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0665 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4342 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85315 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4523 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0637 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8835 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,32 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3118 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4890 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9709 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3960 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4020 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2745 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4600 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5112 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 220,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,3162 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3295 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4573 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 211,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7342 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,233 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,1825 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,359 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3330 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,9102 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,6095 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0665

JPY

Japanese yen

119,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4342

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85315

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4523

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0637

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8835

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,32

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3118

RON

Romanian leu

4,4890

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9709

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3960

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4020

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2745

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4600

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5112

KRW

South Korean won

1 220,64

ZAR

South African rand

14,3162

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3295

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4573

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 211,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7342

PHP

Philippine peso

53,233

RUB

Russian rouble

63,1825

THB

Thai baht

37,359

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3330

MXN

Mexican peso

21,9102

INR

Indian rupee

71,6095

---

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

1

Source

---
3024.203 Policy. ( a ) The Department's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act is codified in regulations 6 CFR part 5, subpart B, FOIA. Information requests concerning awards beyond those routinely handled by contracting officers (e.g., identification of successful offerors, public announcements, debriefings, surety notices under HSAR 3028.106-6) shall be submitted to the FOIA Office of the Component making the award. The FOIA office for the DHS Office of Operations only, is Departmental Disclosure Officer (DDO), DHS, Washington, DC 20528 or *foia@dhs.gov .*
( b ) See (FAR) 48 CFR 15.207(b) on safeguarding proposals.
[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 48801, Aug. 22, 2006; 86 FR 17316, Apr. 2, 2021]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSE LUIS OTERO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2608

[June 9, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502019CT015161AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M. 

Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### 31.002 Availability of accounting guide.

Contractors needing assistance in developing or improving their accounting systems and procedures may request a copy of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Pamphlet No. 7641.90, Information for Contractors. The pamphlet is available via the Internet at *http://www.dcaa.mil.*

[67 FR 6120, Feb. 8, 2002]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-428-CV

IN RE BARRI LYN MCKASSON RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus is denied.

Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 18, 2009

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Delesline, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered November 26, 1975, convicting defendant of the crime of possession of a weapon as a felony is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case is remanded for a new trial. The charge, as established after a reconstruction hearing, included the improper reference to the jurors’ " 'hearts and conscience’ ” in assessing defendant’s guilt. *(People v Johnson,*46 AD2d 123, 127, revd on other grounds 39 NY2d 364; *People v Bell,*45 AD2d 362.) But more important, it was error of constitutional dimension to permit cross-examination of defendant exposing his failure to express, on various postarrest occasions, his defense that he had been framed or "flaked”. *(Doyle v Ohio,*426 US 610.) The error cannot be considered, in the circumstances of this case, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as required by *Chapman v California*(386 US 18). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Evans and Lupiano, JJ.
');
	document.write('

July 24, 2012

Dear College President:

Getting students successfully through college and into the workforce is a shared responsibility among federal and state governments, institutions like yours, and students and families. In order to meet our national goal of  producing the highest proportion of college graduates by the end of this decade, we must make it easier for parents and students to finance their college education and to understand their financial obligations. It starts with transparency.

Today, I am asking you to voluntarily adopt a new “Shopping Sheet” we have developed that clearly shows prospective  students the cost of their college education. The “Shopping Sheet” reflects input from thousands of students, parents, college counselors, financial aid administrators, and other higher education officials. It is designed to be consumer-friendly while putting as little burden as possible on you and your institution. We believe the “Shopping Sheet” accomplishes  both while allowing colleges to include additional financial aid information  specific to each institution.

The “Shopping Sheet” can be viewed on the  Department’s Web site at http://collegecost.ed.gov/shopping_sheet.pdf. And your institution may indicate its commitment  to using this tool, or direct any questions regarding its adoption, to shoppingsheet@ed.gov.

Students should not have to wait until after they graduate to find out the size of their monthly student loan payment. Families choosing a college should have clear and comparable information in a common format to guide their choice. And no one should forego college because they think they cannot afford it.

Our goal is that more students will arrive at school each fall less worried about how they will pay for college and  more focused on how they will complete college. We know that you share that goal, and so we hope that you will join your colleagues across the country who have already agreed to adopt the “Shopping Sheet” starting in the 2013-2014 school year.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request, and for the important work you do every day to provide a quality college education to young people and adults and to help secure America’s future.



| | Sincerely, 
| | -----------
| | /s/        
| | Arne Duncan
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00065

- CV

FRANCISCO JASSO

v. LUPITA MARTINEZ
On Appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 3037

- 23

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 7, 2024
Case: 1:12-cv-02450 Document #: 158 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:2469
Case: 1:12-cv-02450 Document #: 158 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2470
Case: 1:12-cv-02450 Document #: 158 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:2471
Case: 1:12-cv-02450 Document #: 158 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:2472
#### In the Matter of Martin X. Sostre, Appellant, v. Prison Board of Attica Prison et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court denying, without a hearing, motion for an order compelling respondents to reduce petitioner’s sentence.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.3 —  Schedule of Director Compensation****Compensation of Directors**. Each director of the Corporation is also a director of FirstFinancial Bank (“FFB”), the lead subsidiary bank of the Corporation, and receives directors’ feesfrom each organization. For 2008 a director of the Corporation and FFB will receive a fee of $750for each board meeting attended.Non-employee directors also receive a fee for meetings attended of the Audit Committee of$1,000, the Compensation Committee of $1,000, the Governance/Nominating Committee of $500, and theLoan Discount Committee of $300. Each director also will receive from FFB a semi-annual director’sfee of $2,500 on July l5th and December 16th. No non-employee director served as a director of anyother subsidiary of the Corporation.Directors of the Corporation and FFB who are not yet 70 years of age may participate in adeferred director’s fee program at each institution. Under this program, a director may defer$6,000 of his or her director’s fees each year over a five-year period. When the director reachesthe age of 65 or age 70, the director may elect to receive payments over a ten-year period. Theamount of the deferred fees is used to purchase an insurance product which funds these payments.Each year from the initial date of deferral until payments begin at age 65 or 70, the Corporationaccrues a non-cash expense which will equal in the aggregate the amount of the payments to be madeto the director over the ten-year period. The Corporation expects that the cash surrender value ofthe insurance policy will offset the amount of expenses accrued. If a director fails for any reasonother than death to serve as a director during the entire five-year period, or the director failsto attend at least 60 regular or special meetings, the amount to be received at age 65 or 70, asapplicable, will be pro-rated appropriately.Directors also may be compensated under the Corporation’s 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Underthis plan, directors may receive 90, 100 or 110 percent of the director’s “award amount” if theCorporation and FFB attain certain goals established by the Corporation’s Compensation Committee.See Exhibit 10.3 to this Form 10-K for a description of this plan.