alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019423EN.01000101.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 423/01)

Last publication

OJ C 413, 9.12.2019

Past publications

OJ C 406, 2.12.2019

OJ C 399, 25.11.2019

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019

OJ C 363, 28.10.2019

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2016457EN.01001001.xml

| 8.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 457/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 457/10

---

Notice of open competitions

(2016/C 457/07)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AD/332/16 — SPANISH-LANGUAGE (ES) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/332/16 — SPANISH-LANGUAGE (ES) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

| | EPSO/AD/333/16 — GREEK-LANGUAGE (EL) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/333/16 — GREEK-LANGUAGE (EL) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

| | EPSO/AD/334/16 — ITALIAN-LANGUAGE (IT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/334/16 — ITALIAN-LANGUAGE (IT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

| | EPSO/AD/335/16 — LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE (LT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/335/16 — LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE (LT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

| | EPSO/AD/336/16 — MALTESE-LANGUAGE (MT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/336/16 — MALTESE-LANGUAGE (MT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

| | EPSO/AD/337/16 — SWEDISH-LANGUAGE (SV) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/337/16 — SWEDISH-LANGUAGE (SV) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 457 A of 8 December 2016.

Official Journal of the European Union

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
- 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)
                - International Resource Information System (IRIS) -- a performance reporting system and searchable database for 14 international education programs
                - Related Site: National Resource Centers Program (NRC)
                - OPE - Other Applicant and Grantee Resources

**FY 2022-2025 NRC/FLAS Project Directors Meeting**
                - Click here for full list of links and 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
#### 33.204 Policy.

The Government's policy is to try to resolve all contractual issues in controversy by mutual agreement at the contracting officer's level. Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve controversies prior to the submission of a claim. Agencies are encouraged to use ADR procedures to the maximum extent practicable. Certain factors, however, may make the use of ADR inappropriate (see 5 U.S.C. 572(b)). Except for arbitration conducted pursuant to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), (5 U.S.C. 571, *et seq.*), agencies have authority which is separate from that provided by the ADRA to use ADR procedures to resolve issues in controversy. Agencies may also elect to proceed under the authority and requirements of the ADRA.

[59 FR 11381, Mar. 10, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 58595, Oct. 30, 1998]
2448.102 Policies. ( a ) The authority of the agency head to exempt contracts from including Value Engineering (VE) procedures and processes under 48 CFR 48.102(a) is delegated to the HCA for individual (case-by-case) exemptions and to the Senior Procurement Executive for class exemptions.
( b ) The Senior Procurement Executive is responsible for managing and monitoring HUD's VE efforts.
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 219 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and 

Human Services relating to ‘‘Supporting the Head Start Workforce and 

Consistent Quality Programming’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2024 

Mr. PALMER submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Health and Human Services relating 

to ‘‘Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent 

Quality Programming’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Sup5 porting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 219 IH 

1 Programming’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 67720; published August 

2 21, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3842

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Glenda Suhr, also known as Glennda Suhr, also known as Glenda Currier, also

known as Deborah Halpin

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

 Submitted: July 15, 2015

Filed: July 21, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Glenda Suhr appeals fromthe sentence imposed by the District Court after she

1

pleaded guilty to access device fraud. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court

erred in its loss calculation and by assessing a criminal history point for a prior

conviction. We conclude that Suhr’s appeal waiver should be enforced and precludes

review of her sentence and restitution order. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d

702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the validity and applicability of an appeal

waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 780, 780–81 (8th Cir.

2007) (concluding that an appeal waiver barred a challenge to a restitution order

because the defendant waived “all rights to appeal non-jurisdictional issues”); United

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–90 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (describing the

circumstances under which the appellate court should enforce an appeal waiver and

dismiss the appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). We have reviewed the record

independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no

nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of South Dakota.

-2-
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Stanley Nowicki, Respondent, v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., Appellant, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the self-insured employer from a decision and award of benefits by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The board has found that claimant, a molder for 31 years, 19 years with appellant, is totally disabled as a result of silicosis. Appellant urges that there is no substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of total disability, such evidence indicating rather that claimant was only partially disabled and thus not presently entitled to benefits. While it is true that appellant’s expert and the board’s panel of experts and consultants unanimously found only partial disability, Dr. Ciesla, claimant’s expert, testified to total disability. Appellant’s assertion that Dr. Ciesla’s testimony does not commend “ itself to the reasonable mind in the context of this record ” and that in accepting his testimony and *“*arbitrarily ” rejecting that of the other experts “ the Board has made a spurious ‘ choice ’.” Of course the board if it chose, in the exercise of its fact-finding power, could properly accept Dr. Ciesla’s testimony and reject that of the other experts despite their numerical superiority *(Matter of Palermo*v. *Gallucci & Sons,*5 N Y 2d 529). One would expect on this record that the board would have come to a different conclusion, but we cannot say that its finding was not rationally supportable. Dr. Ciesla’s testimony although subject to some inconsistencies and discrepancies had sufficient probative force to constitute substantial evidence upon which the board could base its determination. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
1947 Galilee Ct., Suite 103 • Davis, California 95618 

March 20, 2015 

California Air Resources Board 

Carol Sutkus 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

~!l257-3650 • (800) 287-3650 • Fax (530) 757-367~-

SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal Letter 

Dear Ms. Sutkus: 

Per your request, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (District) is submitting this 

letter to request that the Air Resources Board (ARB) submit to US EPA Region 9 the following 

as revisions to the SIP: 

Amendments to Rule 2.26, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, 

adopted by the District's Board of Directors on December 10, 2008. This rule will replace 

the existing Rule 2.26, adopted April 27, 1994, which is currently in the SIP (approved 

on April 30, 1996). The submittal package was sent to your staff via electronic mail as 

confirmed by Monica Lewis on March 17, 2015. 

A.rnendments to Rule 2.34, Stationary Gas Turbines, adopted by the District's Board of 

Directors on November 12, 2014. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.34, adopted 

July 13, 1994, which is currently in the SIP (approved on September 3, 1998). The 

submittal package was sent to your staff via electronic mail on November 18, 2014. 

Amendments to Rule 2.21, Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer, adopted by the 

District's Board of Directors on March 12,2014. This rule will replace the existing Rule 

2.21, adopted September 14, 2005, which is currently in the SIP (approved on October 

31, 2006). The submittal package was sent to your staff via electronic mail on March 19, 

2015. 

Amendments to Rule 2.22, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, adopted by the District's 

Board of Directors on January 14, 2015. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.22, 

adopted June 12, 2002, which is currently in the SIP (approved on January 23, 2003). The 

submittal package was sent to your staff via electronic mail on March 20, 2015. 

F:\RULES\Development\SIP\Since 5-9912015 SIP subrnittal.docx 
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have questions concerning this matter, please 

contact Frank DeMaris at (530) 757-3667. 

Sincerely, 

Mat Ehrhardt, P .E. 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

F:\RULES\Development\SIP\Since 5-99\2015 SIP submittal.docx
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 30 

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove all United States Armed Forces, other than United 

States Armed Forces assigned to protect the United States Embassy, 

from Somalia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BURCHETT, Ms. 

GREENE of Georgia, and Mr. BIGGS) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 

Powers Resolution, to remove all United States Armed 

Forces, other than United States Armed Forces assigned 

to protect the United States Embassy, from Somalia. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 

3 Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs 

4 the President to remove all United States Armed Forces, 

5 other than United States Armed Forces assigned to pro6 tect the United States Embassy, from Somalia by not later 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HCON 30 IH 

1 than the date that is 365 days after the date of the adop2 tion of this resolution. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey Dwayne JONES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-6963.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2008.

Decided: June 11, 2008.

Jeffrey Dwayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Dwayne Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis*228miss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George E. Gallo, Respondent, v. Bethlehem Steel Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of benefits by the Workmen’s Compensation Board contending that the award should be paid by the Special Fund for Disability Benefits (Disability Benefits Law [Workmen’s Compensation Law], § 207). Decedent began work with the appellant employer on September 28, 1955. During the period from September 28, 1955 to May 18, 1962 there is a history of layoffs, on one occasion over a year, and subsequent reinstatements. On May 18, 1962 decedent was again laid off. Thereafter he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits until about July 1, 1962 when he became disabled with a bleeding peptic ulcer. He died on August 31, 1962. Appellant’s position is that since disablement took place more than four weeks after May 18, 1962, the date decedent was indefinitely laid off, the Special Fund should bear the award. The board, however, has found that employment did not terminate as of May 18, 1962 but continued during the layoff period. The term “in employment” is not limited to the last day a claimant actually performed work *(Matter of Flo*v. *General Elec. Co.,*7 N Y 2d 96, 100; *Matter of Gross*v. *Mary Herbert Fashions,*15 A D 2d 626, affd. 13 N Y 2d 93). Rather the relationship subsists until there is a severance thereof as expressed by the intent of the parties. Here the board in the exercise of its fact-finding power could determine in view of the union agreement, the past history of layoffs and reinstatements, and the various insurance benefits that subsisted during the layoff, that the relationship continued with enough definiteness so that decedent remained “in employment” during the layoff period. For does the receipt of unemployment benefits *ipso facto*destroy this relationship *(Matter of Gross*v. *Mary Herbert Fashions, supra).*Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2



          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
              Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     I, Eric M. Specter, the Chief Financial Officer of Charming Shoppes, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby 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 Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended August 3,
2002 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:   September 13, 2002

                                                         /S/ ERIC M. SPECTER
                                                         Eric M. Specter
Exhibit
23(b)
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-38373, 333-64312, 333-96435, 333-92130, 333-97749, 333-118784,
333-145204, 333-149466 and 333-161301) of Pharmos Corporation of our report
dated February 22, 2010 relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-K/A.
 
 Friedman
LLP
 East
Hanover, New Jersey
 March 3,
2010
32.007 Contract financing payments. ( a ) ( 1 ) Unless otherwise prescribed in agency policies and procedures or otherwise specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the due date for making contract financing payments by the designated payment office is the 30th day after the designated billing office receives a proper contract financing request.
( 2 ) If an audit or other review of a specific financing request is required to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, the designated payment office is not compelled to make payment by the specified due date.
( 3 ) Agency heads may prescribe shorter periods for payment based on contract pricing or administrative considerations. For example, a shorter period may be justified by an agency if the nature and extent of contract financing arrangements are integrated with agency contract pricing policies.
( 4 ) Agency heads must not prescribe a period shorter than 7 days or longer than 30 days.
( b ) For advance payments, loans, or other arrangements that do not involve recurrent submission of contract financing requests, the designated payment office will make payment in accordance with the applicable contract financing terms or as directed by the contracting officer.
( c ) A proper contract financing request must comply with the terms and conditions specified by the contract. The contractor must correct any defects in requests submitted in the manner specified in the contract or as directed by the contracting officer.
( d ) The designated billing office and designated payment office must annotate each contract financing request with the date their respective offices received the request.
( e ) The Government will not pay an interest penalty to the contractor as a result of delayed contract financing payments.
[66 FR 65355, Dec. 18, 2001]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-04243

Judge: Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), 

Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all causes of action in the Complaint against 

the unnamed Defendant. Defendant has neither filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor a 

motion for summary judgment with respect to the same. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted,

AF Holdings LLC 

DATED: January 31, 2013

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496)

Prenda Law Inc.

161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-880-9160

Fax: 312-893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-04243 Document #: 14 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:89
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 31, 2013 all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, in compliance with Local Rule 5.2(a). 

/s/ Paul A. Duffy

Paul A. Duffy

Case: 1:12-cv-04243 Document #: 14 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:90