alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 22, 1964)

#### Sylvia Glassman, Respondent-Appellant, v. Solomon Glassman, Appellant-Respondent.

In an action for a judicial separation, in which a judgment had been rendered on April 17, 1950 in favor of the plaintiff wife, the parties cross-appeal as follows from certain portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, made December 20, 1963 upon reargument: (1) Defendant husband appeals from so much of the order as directed him to pay to the plaintiff wife, in addition to other sums previously ordered to be paid, the sum of $75 per month for medical care of their son; and as directed the husband to pay to the wife a counsel fee of $250 for services rendered by her attorneys on this motion. (2) The plaintiff wife appeals from so much of the order as denied her motion to appoint her a receiver in sequestration of her husband’s property. Order modified: (1) by striking out so much of its second decretal paragraph as directs the defendant husband to make the additional payments of $75 per month; and (2) by adding a provision denying the plaintiff wife’s motion insofar as it seeks such additional payments. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from by the respective parties, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the plaintiff wife failed to submit sufficient evidence of the necessary medical expenses required for the treatment of the condition of the parties’ son to justify the increase directed by Special Term. (For prior related appeals in this action, see 17 A D 2d 973, 19 A D 2d 714.) Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
3001.105-1 Publication and code arrangement. ( a ) The HSAR is published in: ( 1 ) The Federal Register and
( 2 ) Cumulated form in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
EXHIBIT 32

 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of SecureCARE
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Dennis Nasto, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Neil
Burley, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

         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
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ DENNIS NASTO
---------------------------------------------------
Name:  Dennis Nasto
Title: Chief Executive Officer
       (Principal Executive Officer)


/s/ NEIL BURLEY
---------------------------------------------------
Name:  Neil Burley
Title: Chief Financial Officer
       (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date:  November 20, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. and
will be retained by SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016394EN.01000501.xml

| 26.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 394/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 394/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 October 2016

(2016/C 394/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0872 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4387 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88998 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7180 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0848 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9868 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,16 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3042 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4901 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3407 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4229 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4478 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4331 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5208 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5133 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 230,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0403 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3685 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5030 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 140,12 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5142 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,418 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,4963 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,998 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3872 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,1024 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,6370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0872

JPY

Japanese yen

113,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4387

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88998

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7180

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0848

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9868

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,16

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3042

RON

Romanian leu

4,4901

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3407

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4229

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4478

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4331

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5208

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5133

KRW

South Korean won

1 230,63

ZAR

South African rand

15,0403

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3685

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5030

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 140,12

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5142

PHP

Philippine peso

52,418

RUB

Russian rouble

67,4963

THB

Thai baht

37,998

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3872

MXN

Mexican peso

20,1024

INR

Indian rupee

72,6370

---

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

1

Source

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 177 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 177

 Congratulating the Webster University chess team for winning a record-
   breaking fifth consecutive national title at the President's Cup 
            collegiate chess championship in New York City.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2017

  Mrs. McCaskill (for herself and Mr. Blunt) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating the Webster University chess team for winning a record-
   breaking fifth consecutive national title at the President's Cup 
            collegiate chess championship in New York City.

Whereas Webster University is the first team in the history of the President's 
        Cup collegiate chess championship to win 5 consecutive national titles;
Whereas the 2017 victory is the seventh consecutive national championship for 
        Grandmaster and coach Susan Polgar and the program at the Susan Polgar 
        Institute for Chess Excellence;
Whereas Webster University is a leader in promoting chess as a vehicle for 
        enriching the education of children and young adults; and
Whereas Webster University has become a hub for developing chess excellence in 
        students from across the United States and around the world: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates Webster University for winning a record-
        breaking fifth consecutive national title at the President's 
        Cup collegiate chess championship; and
            (2) encourages Webster University to continue promoting the 
        educational benefits of chess among its students and the larger 
        community.
                                 <all>
```
');
	document.write('

**Who May Apply: (by category)** Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)

**Who May Apply: (specifically)** Community  Colleges

FIPSE Home
- 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 |
|                                        |

### Please see the  Department’s Official CARES Act: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund website  here, which contains the most updated information on the HEERF program

**Who May Apply: (by category)** Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)

**Who May Apply: (specifically)**
Eligible applicants are IHEs as defined in Section 18004(a)(1) of the CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 (March 27, 2020)

Cares Act HEERF Home
   Printable view  Last Modified: 07/08/2020How 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
Honorable Tammy Baldwin
          House of Representatives
          Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congresswoman Baldwin:

Thank you for your letter expressing your appreciation for our quick response            to your concern about the late delivery of the 2002-03 Free Application            for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

Prior to the release of the FAFSA, we consult with the Internal Revenue            Service (IRS) because the tax form line items are incorporated by reference            on the FAFSA. We understood from the IRS that these might change. Because            correct tax line references are necessary for parents and students to            accurately complete the FAFSA, we decided to delay printing the FAFSA            until the IRS had locked in the tax forms. In late October, we learned            that the IRS was proceeding with printing their tax forms, and we immediately            moved forward with the printing of the FAFSA.

We apologize for any inconvenience this unanticipated delay in printing            and shipping FAFSAs may have caused students this year. We will make            every effort to prevent future delays in distributing the FAFSA. However,            should a delay occur, we will make information about the revised timetable            more quickly and readily available.

Lastly, please know that we share your concern about the availability            of the paper FAFSA to students who do not have electronic access. We            will continue to work internally and with our partners in the academic            community to address this concern.

If we may assist you further, please contact our Office of Legislation            and Congressional Affairs at 202-401-0020.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------
#### Jeanie Farrell, Respondent, v Allstate Insurance Company et al., Defendants, and Richard Candjon, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 14, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Stecher, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Bloom, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
(May 18, 1962)

In decisions Nos. 1-6: Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

#### (A) In the Matter of the Claim of Josephine Moscato, Appellant, v. Starr Dress & Costume Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of Sylvia Ober, Appellant, v. Frank Starr, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (C) In the Matter of the Claim of Louis Cohen, Appellant, v. Henry Ganz et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (D) In the Matter of the Claim of Ethel Richmond, Appellant, v. Dance Originals Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (E) In the Matter of the Claim of Tillie Ribner, Appellant, v. Irval Dress Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (F) In the Matter of the Claim of Lena Rabinowitz, Appellant, v. Rocco Magri et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (G) In the Matter of the Claim of Mollie Rosenzweig, Appellant, v. Trio Styles et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (H) Royal Bragin, Appellant, v. Charles B. Muhlig, Jr., Respondent. (I) In the Matter of the Claim of Oscar Levine, Appellant, v. New York Daily News et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (J) In the Matter of Zerah Cone, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Nellie G. Camp, Deceased. Solomon Winner.

[In each action] Motions to dismiss appeals granted by default, without costs.
# C_2016456EN.01000301.xml

| 7.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 456/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 456/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 December 2016

(2016/C 456/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0734 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84210 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8030 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0833 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9803 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,045 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,49 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4780 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4975 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,7202 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4395 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4242 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3250 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5059 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5228 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 255,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6122 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3861 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5400 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 364,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7611 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,191 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,4247 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,213 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6837 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8710 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,7775 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0734

JPY

Japanese yen

122,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4384

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84210

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8030

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0833

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9803

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,045

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,49

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4780

RON

Romanian leu

4,4975

TRY

Turkish lira

3,7202

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4395

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4242

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3250

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5059

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5228

KRW

South Korean won

1 255,21

ZAR

South African rand

14,6122

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3861

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5400

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 364,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7611

PHP

Philippine peso

53,191

RUB

Russian rouble

68,4247

THB

Thai baht

38,213

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6837

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8710

INR

Indian rupee

72,7775

---

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

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5864

BRADLEY SULLIVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

(CR-95-304)

Submitted: March 19, 1996

Decided: April 3, 1996

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lisa B. Kemler, MOFFITT, ZWERLING & KEMLER, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,

Leslie B. McClendon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Sullivan appeals his 120-month sentence imposed pursuant

to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ten

grams or more of LSD.* The court sentenced Bradley under 21

U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A)(v) (West Supp. 1995), which mandates a

ten-year minimum sentence for a conviction of trafficking in more

than ten grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of LSD.

Because we find that the sentencing court properly determined the

weight of the LSD in determining that the ten-gram threshold was

met, we affirm Bradley's sentence.

Bradley alleges that a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that assigns a presumptive weight of 0.4 milligrams per dose of

LSD for purposes of determining a guidelines sentence alters the

method of weight calculation for purposes of § 841 as well. Before

the guidelines amendment, the weight of the carrier medium with the

absorbed LSD was included in determining the weight of the drug.

See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 455 (1991); United

States v. Daly, 883 F.2d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496

U.S. 927 (1990).

The Supreme Court recently rejected Bradley's argument in Neal

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4077 (U.S. Jan. 22,

1996) (No. 94-9088). In Neal, the Court held that Chapman still

applies to cases involving statutory minimum sentences despite the

amendment to the Guidelines. Thus, the court properly calculated the

weight of LSD in sentencing Bradley, and since that weight exceeded

ten grams, Bradley was properly sentenced to the statutorily mandated

minimum. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

_________________________________________________________________

*Bradley also was sentenced to five years of supervised release and

assessed a $50 special assessment.

 2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
Docket Operations M-30 

U.S. DOT 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY 

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO 45433 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590 

AFRL/RQQE 

1950 Fifth Street 

Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7251 

Subject: Letter of Support for Area-IF AA Section 333 Exemption Request 

To Whom It May Concern: 

10July2015 

I extend my support of Area-I's Section 333 exemption request for their ReMAP flight program. 

As a member of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), I have worked with Area-I since 2012 as the 

Program Manager of their Air-Launched, Tube-Integrated, Unmanned System (ALTIUS) development 

program. Under this program I have overseen the approval process for wind tunnel testing and flight 

testing of both ground-launched and air-launched prototypes developed by Area-I. In addition, as part of 

my duties at AFRL, I have overseen a number of flight test programs focused on the development of 

experimental electric propulsion systems and have served on numerous Technical Review Boards and 

Airworthiness Review Boards as a subject matter expert in the areas of aircraft electrical power systems 

and aircraft electrical propulsion systems. 

I have been impressed with Area-l's professionalism and attention to detail in their design and testing 

process. So far, Area-I has successfully conducted wind tunnel and ground-launched flight test 

experiments with the permission of the AFRL Operations Office after successfully completing both 

Safety Review Board and Airworthiness Board assessments. They are currently in the process of 

extending this approval to cover air-launched flight tests, as well. This approval process has required 

significant documentation of Area-l's processes and procedures used to ensure safety and maximize 

testing success. I feel that the Area-I personnel have the required expertise, experience, and processes 

required to conduct UAS operations in this capacity. As a result, I am confident in Area-I's ability to 

conduct safe UAS flights using the FAA Section 333 exemption request. 

Overall, AFRL will directly benefit from Area-I's ability to perform UAS flights under this Section 

333 exemption. This exemption reduces the overall logistics footprint required for Area-I to conduct 

flight experiments, which in turn reduces cost and schedule constraints for Area-I's various development 

threads. The end result is an improved product at a lower cost to the Air Force a e warfighter. 

AN MILLER, PhD 

UAS Power/Control Portfolio Manager 

Power and Control Division 

Aerospace System Directorate
**FY 2020 Title III, Part F, TCCU Discretionary New Funding Slate**
204.7202 Policy. It is DoD policy that— ( a ) Contractor personnel who, as a condition of contract performance, require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are required to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter; and
( b ) In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, Level I antiterrorism awareness training may be completed— ( 1 ) Through a DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction for Level I antiterrorism awareness; or
( 2 ) Under the instruction of a qualified Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.
');
	document.write('

## FY 2018

- Project abstracts for the Pilot Program for Cybersecurity Education Technological Upgrades for Community Colleges:  MS Word (33K)

FIPSE Home