alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Collaborative Innovation 
Awards Review Meeting.
    Date: February 17, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1073, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 1073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfb3b0aaadbbbaacf1afb0b1bcba9fb1b6b7f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb7b4aea9bfbea8f5abb4b5b8be9bb5b2b3f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 22, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02280 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased. Charles Greenfield et al., as Coexecutors of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, Appellants; Abraham Greenfield, as Coexecutor of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to construe the testator’s will, Charles Greenfield and Isidore Greenfield, two of the three executors, appeal (as limited by their brief) from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, made August 30, 1963 on remittitur, as fixed the fees for the several counsel. Decree modified on the law and the facts as follows: (a) by striking from the last decretal paragraph the $1,500 allowance made to Rivkin & Rosen, Esqs.; and (b) by adding said sum to the allowance made to Jay Leo Rothschild, Esq. As so modified, the decree, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with costs to all parties who filed separate briefs, payable out of .the estate. The findings of fact implicit in the Surrogate’s decision, insofar as they are inconsistent herewith, are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. Coneededly, Messrs. Rivkin & Rosen, who represented Isidore Greenfield on the appeal to the Court of Appeals, did nothing independently of Mr. Rothschild, counsel for Charles Greenfield, and they ask nothing apart from what has been .awarded to Mr. Rothschild. In the circumstances, the counsel fee for representing Isidore Greenfield in the Court of Appeals properly should have been awarded to Mr. Rothschild. In all other respects, it is our opinion that the various allowances were appropriate under all the circumstances here presented. (For prior appeal, see 13 A D 2d 681, 774, 846, affd. 11 N Y 2d 747.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Sara Ashley, Appellant, v Sarah A. Curtis, as Commissioner of the Steuben County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to petitioner, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Steuben County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding petitioner claimed *829that the termination of her public assistance benefits under the home relief program was violative of section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code in that the manner in which she was purportedly notified of the termination deprived her of due process of law (US Const, 14th Amdt) and also failed to comply with applicable State regulations. Special Term awarded to petitioner the public assistance payments which respondents had denied and, upon treating petitioner’s cause of action under section 1983 as a plenary claim for injunctive relief, enjoined respondent Curtis from using the method of notification shown here on the ground that it failed to meet the requirements of due process. Finally, Special Term denied petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees made pursuant to section 1988 of title 42 of the United States Code. Petitioner appeals only from the denial of her application for attorney’s fees. Special Term correctly determined that attorney’s fees may be recovered as part of the costs in State court proceedings instituted to enforce a provision of section 1983 pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act *(Young v Toia,*66 AD2d 377). It erred in declining to award such fees on the ground that "There is no showing that the *Johnson [Johnson v Georgia Highway Express,*488 F2d 714] tests have been met by petitioner”. That case dealt with the adequacy of an award for attorney’s fees and set forth 12 guidelines to be considered in determining the amount to be awarded. The guidelines are not pertinent, however, to the threshold question of whether an award should be made. Although it is noted in *Johnson*that whether attorney’s fees should be allowed is a matter of judicial discretion, the area in which such discretion may properly be exercised has been circumscribed by the rule that in an appropriate case a prevailing plaintiff " 'should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’ ” *(Christiansburg Garment Co. v Equal Employment Opportunity Comm.,*434 US 412, 416-417, citing *Newman v Piggie Park Enterprises,*390 US 400, 402; cf. *Matter of Bess v Toia,*66 AD2d 844.) Inasmuch as no relief based upon section 1983 was granted against respondent Blum, petitioner is not entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees from her (see US Code, tit 42, § 1988; cf. CPLR 8101). With respect to respondent Curtis, however, the case should be remitted for a determination of whether this is an appropriate case in which to grant counsel fees and, if so, for the application of the proper discretionary rule. (Appeal from judgment of Steuben Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ. [96 Misc 2d 45.]
');
	document.write('

**Program Office:** Student Service

**CFDA Number:** 84.936A**Program Type:** Noncompetitive grants**Also Known As:** Thurgood Marshall Program

This program is designed to provide low-income, minority, or disadvantaged secondary school students and college students with the information, preparation, and financial assistance needed to gain access to and to complete law school study.

Funding for this program may be used to pay for services such as: pre-college programs; undergraduate pre-law information resources centers; information and counseling; tutorial services; pre-law mentoring programs; assistance and counseling on admission to accredited law schools; a six-week summer law institute for Thurgood Marshall fellows to prepare for legal studies; mid-year seminars; and other educational activities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                 1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                       6,280 <F1>
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               64,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 2,401
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                     185,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                               5,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             258,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                    157,439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        80
<OTHER-SE>                                                  78,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               258,710
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            16,070
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             3,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           5,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              3,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 3,374
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.42
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES $882 OF RESTRICTED CASH.
</FN>



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Camco Financial Corporation
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard C. Baylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Corporation.

/s/Richard C. Baylor
------------------------------------------
Richard C. Baylor, Chief Executive Officer

November 5, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 232.409-1 Recommendation for approval.

Follow the procedures at PGI 232.409-1 for preparation of the documents required by FAR 32.409-1(e) and (f).

[70 FR 75413, Dec. 20, 2005]
EXHIBIT 99.1



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



In connection with the revised annual report of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ James Collord

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

E. James Collord, President, Director and CEO

Date: April 18, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Victor M. Rivera, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered May 12, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and new trial ordered. The indictment against defendant contained one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, charging that on May 18, 1960, he “ unlawfully attempted to take from the person and possession ” of a named person *“*a wallet and a quantity of United States currency, of the aggregate value of less than one hundred dollars owned by [said person] against his will, by means of force and violence, and fear of immediate injury to his person.” At the trial evidence was adduced sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time and place alleged in the indictment, defendant was guilty of attempted robbery by reason of his attempt to take approximately $6,000 from a safe in the presence of, but not the property of, the person named in the indictment. However, with respect to the act charged in the indictment, there was no evidence of any attempt by the defendant to take a wallet from the alleged victim (and the trial court so ruled as matter of law); nor was there any proof adduced as to an attempt to take any currency owned by the said victim. In our opinion, the proof of an attempt to take the money from the safe was insufficient to sustain the conviction, since there was a material variance between that proof and the acts charged in the indictment as constituting the crime *(People*v. *Moley,*13 A D 2d 822). “ The difficulty is that the act stated was not proven, and that the act proven was not stated ” *(People*v. *Humar,*106 N. Y. 502, 511). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
225.7307 Contract clauses. ( a ) Use the clause at 252.225-7027, Restriction on Contingent Fees for Foreign Military Sales, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are for FMS. Insert in paragraph (b)(1) of the clause the name(s) of any foreign country customer(s) listed in 225.7303-4(b).
( b ) Use the clause at 252.225-7028, Exclusionary Policies and Practices of Foreign Governments, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are for the purchase of supplies and services for international military education training and FMS.
[68 FR 15633, Mar. 31, 2003. Redesignated at 70 FR 73155, Dec. 9, 2005. Amended at 78 FR 37988, June 25, 2013, as amended at 88 FR 6584, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### Wladyslaw Juchniewicz and Katarzyna Juchniewicz, appellees, v. Erwin E. Cowen et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 30,875.

Action upon judgment note. Order denying motion to vacate judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. C. P. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second *645division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1926.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 5, 1926.

Delavan B. Cole, for appellants.

Thaddeus F. Kuflewski and Cooney & Verhoeven, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

October 20, 2020 

Eric G. Mackey

Superintendent of Education 

Alabama State Department of Education

5114 Gordon Persons Building 

P.O. Box 302101 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

emackey@alsde.edu

Dear Superintendent Mackey: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant awards H027A180015 and H173A180088. 

The Department received your June 23, 2020 request on behalf of the Alabama State Department 

of Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs’ State lead, Kate Moran at

Kate.Moran@ed.gov, if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

cc: State Director
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 136 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
   Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles'' (89 
Fed. Reg. 27842 (April 18, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/20/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:945

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/20/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:946

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/20/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:947
#### 239.7001 Policy.

Agencies shall follow the procedures in DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 9, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Programs, when considering the exchange or sale of Government-owned information technology.

[71 FR 39010, July 11, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 61481, Dec. 28, 2017]
#### Clara Lenick *v.*William Lenick.

Motion for leave to reargue denied in all respects. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
(December 23, 1964)

#### Josephine (Pace) Di Francesco v. Mario J. Di Francesco.

Motion to dismiss appeals granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant perfects the appeal for the February 1965 Term of this court. Respondent’s cross application for a stay is denied with leave to renew by applying to a Justice of this court pursuant to section 1014 of the Family Court Act upon adequate papers. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### Harassment Prevention Resources

              - Resources for Addressing Racial Harassment
              - Title IX Coordinator Resources
              - Sexual Harassment Resources
              - Disability Discrimination Resources
              - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Resources
              - Resources for Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Students  
Resources on Religious Discrimination
MICHAEL DENNARD

GOODSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 03 47

Opinion filed February 6, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Michael Dennard Goodson, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Nanuet School District, Petitioner, v New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board dated July 13, 1978 which (1) vacated a determination and order of the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed, upon a finding that no probable cause existed, respondent Mascoll’s complaint of an unlawful discriminatory practice related to employment and (2) remanded *725the matter to the State division for further proceedings. Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeal board properly granted the complainant’s and the State division’s request that the matter can be remanded to the division for further proceedings. The record discloses that the division’s investigation was inadequate since it recommended a dismissal of the complaint without studying the petitioner’s entire policy as to benefits paid to female employees who become pregnant (see *Matter of Gregory v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*64 AD2d 775). We have considered the other arguments raised by the petitioner and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.