alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stanford A. Chalson, Appellant, v Joan Chalson, Respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 8, 1978, held in abeyance and the matter remanded to Special Term, Supreme Court, Bronx County, for proceedings as hereinafter set forth. The Special Term, without stating reasons therefor, disaffirmed the report of the Special Referee, which had recommended against a finding of contempt, and adjudged appellant in contempt. After the report had come in, a request was made that the amount due for arrears be "expanded” to bring it up to date; the court did so, but did not set forth how the original amount of arrearage rose, in what appears to have been a brief time, from $1,700 to $8,400. Nothing is found in the file to answer either question. The remand is for the purpose of having Special Term supply these deficiencies. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Markewich, Silverman, Lynch and Yesawich, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO LOPEZ-GOMEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-cr-00234-FL-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Lopez-Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Lopez-Gomez appeals the district court’s margin 

order denying his motion for sentence modification. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Once imposed, 

a sentence is final and may be modified only under a narrow set 

of well-defined circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012); 

United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Lopez-Gomez has failed to establish that any of these 

circumstances is applicable to his case. Accordingly, we 

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
410.001 Policy. In addition to those uses listed in FAR 10.001, agencies must use the results of market research to— ( a ) Ensure the minimum use of hazardous or toxic materials;
( b ) Ensure the maximum use of biobased products and biofuels; and
( c ) Identify products and services on or eligible for addition to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act Procurement List in order to achieve USDA's goal to increase participation in this program.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(No. 333-02007) filed with the SEC on March 28, 1996, Form S-8 (No. 333-36610) filed with the SECon May 9, 2000 and Form S-3D (No. 333-129023) filed with the SEC on October 14, 2005 of JuniataValley Financial Corp. of our reports dated March 13, 2008, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and Juniata Valley Financial Corp.’s internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ BEARD MILLER COMPANY LLPBeard Miller Company LLP
#### Minnie Johnson, appellee, v. J. W. Blakesmith, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,975.

Action for value of care, board and nurture of defendant’s minor child. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the City Court of Canton; the Hon. Fred H. Snyder, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1926.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 1, 1926.

Taff *So*Putman, for appellant.

Jos. R. Martin, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### ANDERSON, Appellant, v. WALSH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Robert M. Anderson against Thomas S. Walsh, A. B. Nathan, for appellant. J. E. Duress, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Tobacco-Free Schools Toolkit      

# Resource: Tobacco-Free Schools Toolkit

This toolkit (PDF, 28 pages) was designed to help school districts respond to the youth tobacco/vaping epidemic. The toolkit assists schools in creating a tobacco-free environment that helps prevent students from using tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and supports students who need help quitting. Sample language is provided for the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of a 100% tobacco-free school district policy. Recommendations for evidence-informed programs to educate students about the dangers of tobacco, provide alternatives to suspension when a student is found using a tobacco or nicotine product, and offer tobacco cessation strategies for youth are also provided. **Learn more**(PDF, 28 pages).
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/2019

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 627 Márta 2019 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  )

*1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

627 Márta 2019

---

| Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- |
| | Ceartúcháin |
| 2019/C 87/01 | Ceartúchán ar Chomhaontú idir Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, ag teacht le chéile dóibh i dtionól na Comhairle, maidir le cosaint faisnéise rúnaicmithe a mhalartaítear ar mhaithe le leas an Aontais Eorpaigh, a síníodh sa Bhruiséil an 25 Bealtaine 2011( IO C 202, 8.7.2011 ) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúcháin

2019/C 87/01

Ceartúchán ar Chomhaontú idir Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, ag teacht le chéile dóibh i dtionól na Comhairle, maidir le cosaint faisnéise rúnaicmithe a mhalartaítear ar mhaithe le leas an Aontais Eorpaigh, a síníodh sa Bhruiséil an 25 Bealtaine 2011( IO C 202, 8.7.2011 )

( IO C 202, 8.7.2011 )

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (*1)   Faoin tagairt C 87 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(*1)   Faoin tagairt C 87 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

*1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúcháin

| 7.3.2019 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2019

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

Ceartúchán ar Chomhaontú idir Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, ag teacht le chéile dóibh i dtionól na Comhairle, maidir le cosaint faisnéise rúnaicmithe a mhalartaítear ar mhaithe le leas an Aontais Eorpaigh, a síníodh sa Bhruiséil an 25 Bealtaine 2011

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 202 Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 8 Iúil 2011
  )

(2019/C 87/01)

Ar leathanach 15, foirmle dheiridh, dáta:

in ionad:

“Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil ar an gceathrú lá de mhí na Bealtaine sa bhliain dhá mhíle a haon déag.”,

léitear:

“Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil, an cúigiú lá is fiche de Bhealtaine an bhliain dhá mhíle agus a haon déag.”.

---
# C_2020444EN.01000501.xml

| 22.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/5

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2020/C 444/04)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Luxembourg

Subject of commemoration: The 100th anniversary of the Grand Duke Jean

Description of the design: The design depicts on the left hand side the effigy of the Grand Duke Jean and on the right hand side the effigy of the Grand Duke Henri. Close to each effigy, the respective name of the Grand Duke is specified, as well as the year of birth ‘1921’ of the Grand Duke Jean. Below the effigies, an outline of Luxembourg city is represented. At the left, the text ‘GROUSSHERZOGE VU LËTZEBUERG’ designating also the issuing country is depicted in circular form. The year-date ‘2021’ is shown at the bottom right.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 500 000

Date of issue: January 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
- 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

## Legislation

                - Section 18004(a)(1) of the CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 (March 27, 2020)

Cares Act HEERF 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
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Clark, Respondent, v General Electric Company et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 28, 1976 as amended by decision filed August 9, 1977, and from a decision filed February 17, 1978. The board found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, 50% chargeable to an injury on November 23, 1971 and 50% chargeable to an injury in February, 1972. Initially, appellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the board’s decision that claimant has a permanent partial disability. Appellants argue that instead claimant should have been awarded a 15% scheduled award. Where there is a continuing condition of pain or continuing need for medical treatment or the medical condition remains unsettled, then an award for continuing disability benefits is indicated *(Matter of Clifford v Larkin Rest.,*31 AD2d 866). The choice between a schedule and nonschedule award raises a question of fact for the board’s determination (p 867). An impartial orthopedic specialist submitted a report to the board in which he stated that claimant had a mild partial disability in his neck and left shoulder. This physician also stated that when claimant was examined by him, claimant continued to experience pain on extension and bending of the neck and in the shoulder on overhead elevation. Although contradictory testimony was given by this physician, the board was free to selectively adopt or reject segments of his medical opinion *(Matter of Rodriguez v Atlantic Gummed Paper Corp.,*61 AD2d 873). Upon consideration of the entire record we are of the opinion that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision to make a continuing disability award rather than a schedule award and, therefore, the decisions should not be disturbed *(Matter of Manfredi v Babcock Constr. Corp.,*33 AD2d 852). Appellants also argue that no claim was ever filed by claimant for a work-related injury occurring in February, 1972 and, consequently, the board improperly charged 50% of claimant’s disability to said alleged injury. In appellants’ application to the board for review, however, this issue was not raised. Consequently, we may not properly consider the issue on this appeal *(Matter of Middleton v Coxsackie Correctional Facility,*38 NY2d 130; *Matter of Onofri v Syracuse China Corp.,*63 AD2d 774). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Yukon-Tanana region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 01
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:872
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000964288
 
October 19, 2018
#### 52.232-8 Discounts for Prompt Payment.

As prescribed in 32.111(b)(1), insert the following clause:

# Discounts for Prompt Payment (FEB 2002)

(a) Discounts for prompt payment will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. However, any offered discount will form a part of the award, and will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated in the offer by the offeror. As an alternative to offering a discount for prompt payment in conjunction with the offer, offerors awarded contracts may include discounts for prompt payment on individual invoices.

(b) In connection with any discount offered for prompt payment, time shall be computed from the date of the invoice. If the Contractor has not placed a date on the invoice, the due date shall be calculated from the date the designated billing office receives a proper invoice, provided the agency annotates such invoice with the date of receipt at the time of receipt. For the purpose of computing the discount earned, payment shall be considered to have been made on the date that appears on the payment check or, for an electronic funds transfer, the specified payment date. When the discount date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday when Federal Government offices are closed and Government business is not expected to be conducted, payment may be made on the following business day.

(End of clause)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 26904, June 28, 1985; 54 FR 13337, Mar. 31, 1989; 62 FR 12712, Mar. 17, 1997; 66 FR 65361, Dec. 18, 2001; 70 FR 43581, July 27, 2005]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2294
FRANKLIN LEE MINOR, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1374-K) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Lee Minor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. George Levi Russell, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Franklin Lee Minor, Sr., filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on May 13, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. Wetherefore dismiss 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
H. J. Res. 27 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-three 

Joint Resolution 

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

Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 

Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 

‘‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’. 

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 Department of the Army, 

Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental 

Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of 

the United States’ ’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 3004 (January 18, 2023)), and 

such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
CERTIFICATIONS Exhibit 32.2 I, Christopher
M. Capone, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.
The
 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CH Energy Group, Inc. and Central Hudson
 Gas & Electric Corporation (the Companies) for the period ended
 June 30, 2008 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements
 of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
The
 information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies. Date: August
4, 2008 /s/ Christopher M. CaponeChristopher M. CaponeExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officerof CH Energy Group, Inc./s/ Christopher M. CaponeChristopher M. CaponeExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officerof Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation - 101 -