alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
32.110 Payment of subcontractors under cost-reimbursement prime contracts. If the contractor makes financing payments to a subcontractor under a cost-reimbursement prime contract, the contracting officer should accept the financing payments as reimbursable costs of the prime contract only under the following conditions: ( a ) The payments are made under the criteria in subpart 32.5 for customary progress payments based on costs, 32.202-1 for commercial product or commercial service purchase financing, or 32.1003 for performance-based payments, as applicable.
( b ) If customary progress payments are made, the payments do not exceed the progress payment rate in 32.501-1, unless unusual progress payments to the subcontractor have been approved in accordance with 32.501-2.
( c ) If customary progress payments are made, the subcontractor complies with the liquidation principles of 32.503-8, 32.503-9, and 32.503-10.
( d ) If performance-based payments are made, the subcontractor complies with the liquidation principles of 32.1004(d).
( e ) The subcontract contains financing payments terms as prescribed in this part.
[65 FR 16279, Mar. 27, 2000, as amended at 86 FR 61029, Nov. 4, 2021]
## Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

On October 29, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register **final regulations** amending the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regulations to implement provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA), and other recently enacted legislation.  These regulations are effective July 1, 2010.

The Department published in the Federal Register two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM).  Both NPRMs proposed changes to the regulations governing the Title IV student loan programs.  One, published **July 23, 2009**, covered lender and guaranty agency issues. The other, dated **July 28, 2009**, included school based issues.  The deadline for submitting comments to the July 23 NPRM was August 24, 2009 while the deadline for submitting comments to the July 28 NPRM was August 27, 2009.

**List of negotiators for the Loans-Lender Team:**MS Word (39K) | PDF (27K)

## Schedule

**Session One:  February 23-25, 2009**

- Organizational Protocols:    MS Word  (41K) |  PDF  (33K)
- Agenda:     MS Word  (40K) |  PDF  (63K)
- Proposed Regulatory Language:    MS Word  (105K) |  PDF  (99K)

**Session Two:  March 30 - April 1, 2009**

- Agenda:     MS Word  (29K) |  PDF  (57K)
- Proposed Regulatory Language:    MS Word  (336K) |  PDF  (378K)

**Session Three: May 4-May 6, 2009**

All meetings were held at the Department of Education, 8th Floor Conference Center, 1990 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

On December 31, 2008, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to establish five negotiated rulemaking committees for higher education.  This notice summarizes the issues each team addressed.  See Notice Of Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Committees.

Spring 2009 Negotiated Rulemaking | HEOA Page | OPE Policy Page
Exhibit 99.1



This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not
be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
filing.


              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, E. Linn Draper, Jr., the chief executive officer of

                      American Electric Power Company, Inc.
                             AEP Generating Company
                            AEP Texas Central Company
                             AEP Texas North Company
                            Appalachian Power Company
                         Columbus Southern Power Company
                         Indiana Michigan Power Company
                             Kentucky Power Company
                               Ohio Power Company
                       Public Service Company of Oklahoma
                       Southwestern Electric Power Company

(the "Companies"), certify that (i) the Quarterly Reports of the Companies on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Reports") fully
comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Reports fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Companies.


/s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.
-------------------------

E. Linn Draper, Jr. May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Industrial sites controlled by others

**Use of the formulated substance (trade**  **product s)**  **in leather**  **tanneries**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 10176 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                               H. R. 10176

To authorize the Bay Mills Indian Community of the State of Michigan to 
         convey land and interests in land owned by the Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2024

 Mr. Bergman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Bay Mills Indian Community of the State of Michigan to 
         convey land and interests in land owned by the Tribe.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND AND INTERESTS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF 
              MICHIGAN.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), 
notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the 
Bay Mills Indian Community of Michigan (including any agent or 
instrumentality of the Tribe) (referred to in this section as the 
``Tribe''), may transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise convey, without 
further authorization or approval, all or any part of the Tribe's 
interest in any real property that is not held in trust by the United 
States for the benefit of the Tribe.
    (b) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section is intended to 
authorize the Tribe to transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise convey, 
any lands, or any interest in any lands, that are held in trust by the 
United States for the benefit of the Tribe.
    (c) Liability.--The United States shall not be held liable to any 
party (including the Tribe or any agent or instrumentality of the 
Tribe) for any term of, or any loss resulting from the term of any 
transfer, lease, encumbrance, or conveyance of land made pursuant to 
this Act unless the United States or an agent or instrumentality of the 
United States is a party to the transaction or the United States would 
be liable pursuant to any other provision of law. This subsection shall 
not apply to land transferred or conveyed by the Tribe to the United 
States to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
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 
            -           Share with Youth: We Need You Here      

# Share with Youth: We Need You Here

We R Native released a video highlighting the lived experience of tribal youth in order to raise awareness about suicide prevention and to encourage young people to seek help if they need it. **Learn more.**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7056

HERBERT MCDOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden; MCKITHER BODISON,Associate Warden; KEN LONG, Institution Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-3064-3-22BC) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert McDowell, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herbert McDowell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McDowell v. Miro , No. CA-98-3064-3-22BC (D.S.C. July 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000019731
<NAME> CHESAPEAKE CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      66,300,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              122,900,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,900,000
<INVENTORY>                                102,600,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           310,000,000
<PP&E>                                     867,200,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             358,600,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             916,000,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      135,400,000
<BONDS>                                    266,000,000
<COMMON>                                    21,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 399,500,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               916,000,000
<SALES>                                    216,800,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           216,800,000
<CGS>                                      154,600,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              202,200,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,700,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,600,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,700,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,000,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,000,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
#### 52.228-17 Individual Surety—Pledge of Assets (Bid Guarantee).

As prescribed in 28.203-4(a), insert the following provision:

# Individual Surety—Pledge of Assets (Bid Guarantee) (FEB 2021)

(a) Offerors shall obtain from each person acting as an individual surety on a bid guarantee—

(1) A pledge of assets that meets the eligibility, valuation, and security requirements described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 28.203-1; and

(2) Standard Form 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety.

(b) The Offeror shall include with its offer the information required at paragraph (a) of this provision within the timeframe specified in the provision at FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, or as otherwise established by the Contracting Officer.

(c) The Contracting Officer may release the security interest on the individual surety's assets in support of a bid guarantee based upon evidence that the offer supported by the individual surety will not result in contract award.

(End of provision)

[86 FR 3686, Jan. 14, 2021]
#### Melvin R. COMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXACO, INC., and the Travelers Insurance Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 74-4199

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 1975.

*1244Gothard J. Reck, Darryl J. Tschirn, Metairie, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

John C. Combe, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Comer was injured during the course of a robbery of the gas station where he was employed. The station is located, as Comer admittedly knew before the robbery, in a high-crime area. He argues his employer failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting employees’ safety — despite Comer’s express request therefor. Appellees respond that Comer knew the risks and assumed them. The District Court granted summary judgment for Employer, and we affirm, on the basis of Pfister v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Co., La.App., 4 Cir., 1974, 290 So.2d 362 and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

First, Comer asserts we are not bound by *Pfister,*because an earlier Louisiana Supreme Court case, Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 1971, 258 La. 1067, 249 So.2d 133, is fatally inconsistent. The short answer, in our *Erie*-bound Court, is that the same Louisiana Supreme Court refused to review *Pfister,*1974, La., 293 So.2d 187,1 and we must conclude that *that*— the controlling — Court did not see any fatal inconsistency. *See,*Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis, 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 267, 269.

Second, Comer would distinguish *Pfister*on the ground Comer, because of his physical condition, had a great deal of difficulty finding work. Thus, unlike Pfister, he cannot be held to the same free acceptance of risk that Pfister, an apparently healthy man, was. We do not read *Pfister*so narrowly. We think the Court’s concern was not availability of other employment, but the basic freedom-to-quit. Comer knew he was working in a high-crime area, *was*free to quit (whether or not he could have found other work), yet he elected to stay. *That,*says *Pfister,*is an assumption of the risk — and *that*is the end of this case.

Affirmed.

1

. So did the United States Supreme Court, 1974, 419 U.S. 966, 95 S.Ct. 229, 42 L.Ed.2d 181.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chyron Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Kieliszak, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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:

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 12, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1995

<CASH>                                             9,700
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    182,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1,500
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 319,700
<PP&E>                                         2,711,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,112,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,970,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            364,000
<BONDS>                                          553,800
<COMMON>                                         353,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              5,400
<PREFERRED>                                        2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       287,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,970,100
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 743,700
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    473,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                35,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  130,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                      45,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               84,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      84,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00
        


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATIONS


     I Atul Sharma, certify that:


     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Comstock Industries, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this annual report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this annual report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this annual report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this annual report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

          (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          (c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: March 26, 2003
                                   Atul Sharma
                                   Principal Executive Officer and
                                   Principal Financial Officer