alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Program  Office: **International  and Foreign Language Education

**CFDA Number:** 84.153A

**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive  Grants  

PDF

Program Description

The BIE program provides grants to institutions of higher education,  that enter into an agreement with a trade association to improve the academic  teaching of the business curriculum and to conduct outreach activities that  will assist the local business community to compete in the global arena.

Types of Projects

Each program assisted with federal funds must enhance  primarily the international academic program of the institution. Eligible  activities may include but are not limited to: 

- Innovation  and improvement of international education curricula to serve the needs of the  business community, including the development of new programs for  nontraditional, mid-career, or part-time students;
- Development  of programs to inform the public of increasing international economic  interdependence and the role of American business within the international  economic system;
- Internationalization  of curricula at junior and community colleges, and at undergraduate and  graduate schools of business;
- Development  of area studies programs and interdisciplinary international programs;
- Establishment  of export education programs through cooperative arrangements with regional and  world trade centers and councils, and with bilateral and multilateral trade  associations;
- The  establishment of internships overseas to enable foreign language students to  develop their foreign language skills and their knowledge of foreign cultures  and societies;
- Summer  institutes in international business, foreign area, and other international  studies designed to carry out the purposes of this program.
New The 2022-2023 Student Support Services (SSS) Annual Performance Report is available December 7, 2023. 

TRIO Maps Home Page

Letter to  TRIO and GEAR UP programs' project directors about an ED and HHS collaborative  for disconnected youth

**Program Office:**Federal TRIO Programs

**CFDA Number:** 84.042**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants**Also Known As:**SSS, TRIO (SSS is one of eight TRIO programs.)

Program Description

Through a grant competition, funds are awarded to institutions of higher education to provide opportunities for academic development, assist students with basic college requirements, and to motivate students toward the successful completion of their postsecondary education. Student Support Services (SSS) projects also may provide grant aid to current SSS participants who are receiving Federal Pell Grants (# 84.063). The goal of SSS is to increase the college retention and graduation rates of its participants.

Types of Projects

All SSS projects **must** provide:  academic tutoring, which may include instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects; advice and assistance in postsecondary course selection, assist student with information on both the full range of student financial aid programs, benefits and resources for locating public and private scholarships; and assistance in completing financial aid applications.  Education or counseling services designed to improve the financial and economic literacy and assist students in applying for admission to graduate and professional programs; and assist students enrolled in two-­year institutions and applying for admission to, and obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in four­-year programs. The SSS projects **may also** provide individualized counseling for personal, career, and academic information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint students with career options; exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually available; mentoring programs, securing temporary housing during breaks for students who are homeless youths and students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system.
Exhibit 2Best Performing SCR Retrofit Installations6/8/11234500.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.08 01/30/08 08/17/08 03/05/09 09/21/09 04/09/10 10/26/10

lb/mmBTUParishUnit5,30dayrollingaverage30dayrollingBOD_any30_dayBOD_all30_day6789101112131415161700.020.040.060.080.10.12 01/30/08 08/17/08 03/05/09 09/21/09 04/09/10 10/26/10

lb/mmBTUBelewsCreekUnit1,30dayrollingaverage30dayrollingBOD_any30_dayBOD_all30_day1800.020.040.060.080.10.12 01/30/08 08/17/08 03/05/09 09/21/09 04/09/10 10/26/10

lb/mmBTUMitchellAEPUnit1,30dayrollingaverage30dayrollingBOD_any30_dayBOD_all30_day
#### 3401.000 Scope of part.

This part establishes a system of Department of Education (Department) acquisition regulations, referred to as the Education Acquisition Regulation (EDAR), for the codification and publication of policies and procedures of the Department that implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :
A2 0 A0 97 1 . DAVI D EARL BRI TT v . J ANI S MANGUM.

Dav i d Earl Bri t t ap p eal s t o t hi s Co u rt fro m th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s m i s s al o f h i s p et i t i o n f o r wri t o f h ab eas co rp u s

. U n d er o u r Co n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Su prem e Co u rt h as
ex cl u s i v e ap p el lat e ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver al l cas es i n v o l v i ng h a b e a s co rp u s

. See Ga. Co n s t

. 1 9 8 3 , Art

. V I, Sec. VI, Par. III (4 ). Acco rd i n g l y , we h ereb y TRANSFER t h i s
cas e t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 24, 2020

01/24/2020
# C_2020124EN.01002201.xml

| 17.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/22

---

Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)

(2020/C 124/07)

I.   Name of the EGTC, address and contact point (as it is currently in the EGTC register)

| Official name: Interregional Alliance for the Rhine-Alpine Corridor EGTC |
| --- |
| Registered office: M1, 4-5, 68161 Mannheim, Germany |
| Person responsible (Director): Joerg Saalbach |
| Email address: joerg.saalbach@egtc-rhine-alpine.eu |
| Internet address of the Grouping: www.egtc-rhine-alpine.eu |

Official name: Interregional Alliance for the Rhine-Alpine Corridor EGTC

Registered office: M1, 4-5, 68161 Mannheim, Germany

Person responsible (Director): Joerg Saalbach

Email address: joerg.saalbach@egtc-rhine-alpine.eu

Internet address of the Grouping: www.egtc-rhine-alpine.eu

II.   New members

| Official name: Province Limburg |
| --- |
| Postal address: Regierung an der Maas, Limburglaan 10 (Postbox: Box 5700, 6202 MA Maastricht) |
| Internet address: www.limburg.nl |
| Type of member: Regional authority |
| Country: The Netherlands |

Official name: Province Limburg

Postal address: Regierung an der Maas, Limburglaan 10 (Postbox: Box 5700, 6202 MA Maastricht)

Internet address: www.limburg.nl

Type of member: Regional authority

Country: The Netherlands

| Official name: Metropolregion Rheinland |
| --- |
| Postal address: Ottoplatz 1, 50679 Cologne |
| Internet address: www.metropolregion-rheinland.de |
| Type of member: Association of local authorities |
| Country: Germany |

Official name: Metropolregion Rheinland

Postal address: Ottoplatz 1, 50679 Cologne

Internet address: www.metropolregion-rheinland.de

Type of member: Association of local authorities

Country: Germany

| Official name: Ports of Genoa |
| --- |
| Postal address: Palazzo San Giorgio, Via della Mercanzia 2, 16124 Genova |
| Internet address: www.portsofgenoa.com |
| Type of member: Public undertaking |
| Country: Italy |

Official name: Ports of Genoa

Postal address: Palazzo San Giorgio, Via della Mercanzia 2, 16124 Genova

Internet address: www.portsofgenoa.com

Type of member: Public undertaking

Country: Italy

| Official name: Provincie Vlaams-Brabant |
| --- |
| Postal address: Provincieplein 1, 3010 Leuven |
| Internet address: www.vlaamsbrabant.be |
| Type of member: Regional authority |
| Country: Belgium |

Official name: Provincie Vlaams-Brabant

Postal address: Provincieplein 1, 3010 Leuven

Internet address: www.vlaamsbrabant.be

Type of member: Regional authority

Country: Belgium

III.   Members who left the grouping

| Official name: Technologie Region Karlsruhe |
| --- |
| Postal address: Emmy-Noether-Straße 11, 76131 Karlsruhe |
| Internet address: https://technologieregion-karlsruhe.de/ |
| Type of member: Public undertaking |
| Country: Germany |

Official name: Technologie Region Karlsruhe

Postal address: Emmy-Noether-Straße 11, 76131 Karlsruhe

Internet address: https://technologieregion-karlsruhe.de/

Type of member: Public undertaking

Country: Germany

---
#### City of Duluth *vs.*William F. Mallett.

April 28, 1890.

City — Power to Prevent Obstruction of Streets by Bailway Cars.— The legislative charter of a city, authorizing the adoption of ordinances to prevent the incumbering of streets with carriages, *held*to authorize an ordinance to prevent the obstruction of streets by railroad cars.

Same — Ordinance not Unreasonable. — An or linance prohibiting the stopping of railroad cars or locomotives on a street crossing for the switching of cars is not *prima facie*unreasonable and void.

Same — Prosecution of Servant. — It does not exculpate one violating the law that he was an agent acting under the direction of another.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Duluth, refusing a new trial.

*White & Reynolds,*for appellant.

*S. L. Smith,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.

This is a prosecution for the violation of an ordinance of the city of Duluth, which prohibited the stopping of a train of railroad cars or a locomotive on any street-crossing, either for switching or any other purpose whatever, except to prevent accident in case of immediate danger. The defendant was convicted, the case showing that he was the engineer operating a locomotive attached to a long train -of freight-cars; that he stopped the train on a street-crossing, (Lake avenue,) and ran back and forth on the crossing several times for the purpose of switching cars and placing them in position, some part of the train being all the time on the crossing, — the street being thus continuously obstructed for a period of from six to ten minutes, according to the testimony on the part of the prosecution; that the train was at a stand-still only long enough to reversé the direction of its motion.

The charter of the city, authorizing the adoption of ordinances “to prevent the incumbering of streets * * * with carriages, carts, wagons, sleighs, boxes, firewood, or any other material or substance whatever,” empowered the city council to pass a reasonable *205ordinance to prevent such obstructions by railroad cars. They are “carriages,” within the meaning of the statute.

If under any circumstances the ordinance could be deemed unreasonable, there was nothing shown in this case to justify the court in so declaring. It is not apparent from the ordinance itself that it. was so; and courts are not justified in declaring such enactments unreasonable, and therefore invalid, unless their unreasonableness be clearly shown. *Knobloch*v. *Chicago, Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co.,*31 Minn. 402, (18 N. W. Rep. 106.) No necessity was shown for the use of this street-crossing for the purpose of switching cars. It does not follow that the prohibition of the ordinance was unreasonable merely because it may have interfered with a use of the street-crossing, which was a matter of convenience to the railroad company, nqr merely because the switching could not be practicably done *at this place*in any other manner than that adopted on this occasion.

It did not excuse the engineer of this train that he acted under the direction of a foreman or superior agent of the corporation.

Order affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

y0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142404

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142404 COA: 294813 Wayne CC: 94-008592-FC DARRYL ALAN WESTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
27.202-2 Notice of Government as a licensee. ( a ) When the Government is obligated to pay a royalty on a patent because of an existing license agreement and the contracting officer believes that the licensed patent will be applicable to a prospective contract, the Government should furnish the prospective offerors with— ( 1 ) Notice of the license;
( 2 ) The number of the patent; and
( 3 ) The royalty rate cited in the license.
( b ) When the Government is obligated to pay such a royalty, the solicitation should also require offerors to furnish information indicating whether or not each offeror is the patent owner or a licensee under the patent. This information is necessary so that the Government may either— ( 1 ) Evaluate an offeror's price by adding an amount equal to the royalty; or
( 2 ) Negotiate a price reduction with an offeror when the offeror is licensed under the same patent at a lower royalty rate.
#### In the Matter of Pierce H. Russell, as District Attorney, Respondent, v. James W. Doherty, Appellant.

Motion for a stay of proceedings denied and appeal dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be reviewed is not appealable *(Matter of Ryan [Hogan],*306 N. Y. 11). Our decision, which is based upon jurisdictional considerations, is not intended to indicate approval of the procedure adopted by the County Court. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
32.503-4 Approval of progress payment requests. ( a ) When the reliability of the contractor and the adequacy of the contractor's accounting system and controls have been established (see 32.503-3 above) the ACO may, in approving any particular progress payment request (including initial requests on new contracts), rely upon that accounting system and upon the contractor's certification, without requiring audit or review of the request before payment.
( b ) The ACO should not routinely ask for audits of progress payment requests. However, when there is reason to ( 1 ) question the reliability or accuracy of the contractor's certification or
( 2 ) believe that the contract will involve a loss, the ACO should ask for a review or audit of the request before payment is approved or the request is otherwise disposed of.
( c ) When there is reason to doubt the amount of a progress payment request, only the doubtful amount should be withheld, subject to later adjustment after review or audit; any clearly proper and due amounts should be paid without awaiting resolution of the differences.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000715369
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1983-2 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             76,054
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     103,122
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  179,176
<PP&E>                         31,344,979
<DEPRECIATION>                 31,263,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    306,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              66,885
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        197,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      306,540
<SALES>                           210,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  213,098
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     249,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (36,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (36,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (36,450)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (5.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 94 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2024 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4366. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4366, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following correction: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HCON 94 RDS 

1 Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘Making consolidated 

2 appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

3 2024, and for other purposes.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAWED AHMADI,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10121

D.C. No. 4:16

- cr

- 00403

- JD

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 12, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jawed Ahmadi pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959(a), 960(a)(3), and 963. He contends that he was denied due

process because the district court declined to engage in a pre

- trial evidentiary

d etermination whether his conduct had a sufficient nexus to the United States

.

Assuming arguendo that Ah madi ’s guilty plea did not waive his ability to raise this

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAR 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

argument o n appeal , we affirm.

T he charges against Ahma di required the government to prove that he agreed

to distribute heroin “intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that

[it] will be unlawfully imported into the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 959(a )

. Proof

of that element of the offense would have presumptively established a sufficient link

to the United States to comport with the Due Process Clause

. See United States v.

Medjuck , 156 F.3d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 1998). H ad Ahmadi chosen to go to trial, th e

jury would have been required to decide whether that elem ent was proved beyond a

reasonable doubt . Thus, because the existence of a nexus was “intermeshed with

questions going to the merits,” the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing

was not an abuse of discretion

. United States v. Nukida , 8 F.3d 665, 670 (9th Cir.

1993). B ecause Ahmadi opted to plead guilty, his plea established the requisite

nexus to the United States. See United States v. Harris , 108 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th

Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit H-1

Case: 1:12-cv-05811 Document #: 128-9 Filed: 12/13/14 Page 1 of 132 PageID #:3064
#### 34.000 Scope of part.

This part describes acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109; and the use of an Earned Value Management System in acquisitions designated as major acquisitions consistent with OMB Circular A-11, Part 7.

[71 FR 38245, July 5, 2006]
#### BUSS, Respondent, v. ROSENBERG, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec ond Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Ike Buss against Max Rosenberg.

No opinion-judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Abdullah ALSHALABI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3822-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2007.

*68Michael Hurwitz, Esq., Hurwitz Stamper *&*Roth, New York, NY, for Defendant Appellant.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Licham Nyiendo, Assistant United States Attorney; Peter A. Norling, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

Present: Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Hon. B.D. PARKER, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Defendant-Appellant Abdullah Alshalabi (“Alshalabi”) appeals from an August 4, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dearie, J.), convicting him, following a guilty plea, of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance containing MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and sentencing him principally to 72 months imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and relevant procedural history of this case.

Alshalabi argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Under Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B), a defendant “may withdraw a plea of guilty ... after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence^] if ... the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Maher,*108 F.3d 1513, 1529 (2d Cir.1997).

Alshalabi sought to withdraw his plea in the district court on the grounds that he is innocent, lacked sufficient time with his attorney, was hampered by the use of a translator, and did not sufficiently understand the law. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Alshalabi’s claim of innocence is belied by the unequivocal statements he made on the record concerning his guilt. *Maher,*108 F.3d at 1530 (“The self-inculpatory statements he made under oath at his plea allocution ‘carry a strong presumption of verity.’ ” (quoting *Black-*
      *69
      *ledge v. Allison,*431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977))). Moreover, prior to accepting Alshalabi’s plea, Judge Dearie asked several times, and in several different ways, whether Alshalabi had adequate time with his attorney, was satisfied with the representation she had provided, and understood the charges to which he was pleading guilty. The district court considered Alshalabi’s demeanor, education level, and took great care in confirming the voluntariness of his decision to plead guilty. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.