alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019189EN.01004001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/40 |

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2019/C 189/08)

![Image 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/uriserv/OJ.C_.2019.189.01.0040.01.ENG.xhtml.C_2019189EN.01004002.tif.jpg)

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

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)](#ntr1-C_2019189EN.01004001-E0001). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019189EN.01004001-E0002), 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
: Slovakia

Subject of commemoration
: The 100th anniversary of the death of Milan Rastislav Štefánik

Description of the design
: The design features a portrait of Milan Rastislav Štefánik. To the left of the portrait are the dates of Štefánik’s birth ‘1880’ and death ‘1919’, one above the other. At the left side of the inner part of the coin, in semi-circle, are the name ‘MILAN RASTISLAV ŠTEFÁNIK’ and the name of the issuing country ‘SLOVENSKO’. The year of issuance ‘2019’ is between the portrait and the right side. Below the year are the stylised letters ‘PV’, the initials of the designer, Peter Valach, and below them is the mint mark of the Kremnica Mint (Mincovňa Kremnica), consisting of the letters ‘MK’ placed between two dies.

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

Estimated number of coins to be issued
:

1 000 000

Date of issue
: April 2019

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019189EN.01004001-E0001)  See [OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2001_373_R_TOC) for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019189EN.01004001-E0002)  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](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_009_R_TOC)).

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00001

- CV

In re Great American Insurance Company of New York

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Edward Smith , Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Filed: February 22, 2023
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 220 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 220

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Debt Collection Practices 
   (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2024

Mr. Palmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Debt Collection Practices 
   (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt''.

    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 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair 
Collection of Medical Debt'' (89 Fed. Reg. 80715; published October 4, 
2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1258

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Irvin J. Johnson,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: June 17, 2015

Filed: June 22, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Irvin Johnson directly appeals after the district court revoked his supervised 1

release and sentenced him within his Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range to

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
7 months in prison, to be followed by additional supervised release. Johnson’s

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that Johnson’s

sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984

(8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.

2009). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
#### 52.247-45 F.o.b. Origin and/or F.o.b. Destination Evaluation.

As prescribed in 47.305-2(b), insert the following provision in solicitations when offers are solicited on the basis of both f.o.b. origin and f.o.b. destination:

# F.o.b. Origin and/or f.o.b. Destination Evaluation (APR 1984)

Offers are invited on the basis of both f.o.b. origin and f.o.b. destination, and the Government will award on the basis the Contracting Officer determines to be most advantageous to the Government. An offer on the basis of f.o.b. origin only or f.o.b. destination only is acceptable, but will be evaluated only on the basis submitted.

(End of provision)
#### 332.703-72 Incremental Funding Table.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert substantially the following language in Section B: Supplies or Services and Prices or Costs, Table 1, in all cost-reimbursement contracts for severable services using incremental funding. The language requires the contracting officer to:

(1) Insert the initial funding obligated by the award;

(2) Identify the increment of performance covered by the funding provided; and

(3) Specify the start and end dates for each increment of performance, as required by the “Limitation of Funds” clause at FAR 52.232-22.

(b) Modification of the language is permitted to fit specific circumstances of the contract, including but not limited to language necessary to reflect the specific type of cost reimbursement contract awarded, but the language may not be omitted completely.

Table 1—B. \_\_\_\_Estimated Cost—Incrementally Funded Contract

(a) The total estimated cost to the Government for full performance of this contract, including all allowable direct and indirect costs, is $\_\_\_\_ [*insert full amount*].

(b) The following represents the schedule\* by which the Government expects to allot funds to this contract:

| CLIN, task number, or description | Start date of increment of performance | End date of increment of performance | Estimated cost ($) | Fee ($) (as appropriate) | Estimated cost plus fee ($) (as appropriate) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | [Total] | [Total] | [Total] |

\* To be inserted after negotiation

(c) Total funds currently obligated and available for payment under this contract are $\_\_\_\_ [*insert amount funded to date*].

(d) The contracting officer may issue unilateral modifications to obligate additional funds to the contract and make related changes to paragraphs (b) and/or (c) above.

(e) Until this contract is fully funded, the requirements of the clause at FAR 52.232-22, *Limitation of Funds,* shall govern. Once the contract is fully funded, the requirements of the clause at FAR 52.232-20, *Limitation of Cost,* govern.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 5
 <LEGEND>
 This Schedule contains summary financial
 information extracted from the financial
 statements contained in the body of the
 accompanying Form 10-K and is qualified in
 its entirety by reference to such financial
 statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                  1
        
 <S>                           <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             OCT-31-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                  OCT-31-1996
 <CASH>                        22,165,892
 <SECURITIES>                  0
 <RECEIVABLES>                 0
 <ALLOWANCES>                  0
 <INVENTORY>                   0
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>              22,593,615
 <PP&E>                        1,647,257
 <DEPRECIATION>                816,651
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                24,710,420
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,960,147
 <BONDS>                       0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
 <PREFERRED>                   0
 <COMMON>                      574,047
 <OTHER-SE>                    22,176,226
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  24,710,420
 <SALES>                       0
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
 <CGS>                         0
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                 6,166,210
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>              (722,800)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>              0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>               (5,443,410)
 <INCOME-TAX>                  0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>           (5,443,410)
 <DISCONTINUED>                0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>               0
 <CHANGES>                     0
 <NET-INCOME>                  (5,443,410)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.10)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                 0
         

</TABLE>
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 73 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving 

Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2023 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. BACON, Mr. COLE, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, and Mr. 

CARL) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States giving Congress power to prohibit the physical 

desecration of the flag of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 73 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys5 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 39 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating 

to ‘‘Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2023 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. LATTA, Ms. SEWELL, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. DELUZIO, Mr. MURPHY, and Ms. TENNEY) submitted the following joint resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to ‘‘Procedures Covering Suspension of 

Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord 

With Presidential Proclamation 10414’’. 

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 Commerce relating to ‘‘Procedures Covering 

5 Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties 

6 in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414’’ (87 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 39 IH 

1 Fed. Reg. 56868), and such rule shall have no force or 

2 effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
31.201-2 Determining allowability. ( a ) A cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) Reasonableness.
( 2 ) Allocability.
( 3 ) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable, otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles and practices appropriate to the circumstances.
( 4 ) Terms of the contract.
( 5 ) Any limitations set forth in this subpart.
( b ) Certain cost principles in this subpart incorporate the measurement, assignment, and allocability rules of selected CAS and limit the allowability of costs to the amounts determined using the criteria in those selected standards. Only those CAS or portions of standards specifically made applicable by the cost principles in this subpart are mandatory unless the contract is CAS-covered (see 48 CFR 9903). Business units that are not otherwise subject to these standards under a CAS clause are subject to the selected standards only for the purpose of determining allowability of costs on Government contracts. Including the selected standards in the cost principles does not subject the business unit to any other CAS rules and regulations. The applicability of the CAS rules and regulations is determined by the CAS clause, if any, in the contract and the requirements of the standards themselves.
( c ) When contractor accounting practices are inconsistent with this subpart 31.2, costs resulting from such inconsistent practices in excess of the amount that would have resulted from using practices consistent with this subpart are unallowable.
( d ) A contractor is responsible for accounting for costs appropriately and for maintaining records, including supporting documentation, adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, are allocable to the contract, and comply with applicable cost principles in this subpart and agency supplements. The contracting officer may disallow all or part of a claimed cost that is inadequately supported.
[48 FR 42301, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 39590, Aug. 31, 1992; 61 FR 31656, June 20, 1996; 69 FR 17767, Apr. 5, 2004]
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: Preventing Youth Hate Crimes & Identity-Based Bullying Fact Sheet      

# Resource: Preventing Youth Hate Crimes & Identity-Based Bullying Fact Sheet

This fact sheet (PDF, 1 page) summarizes key takeaways and resources from OJJDP's Preventing Youth Hate Crimes & Identity-Based Initiative. The fact sheet highlights the initiative’s comprehensive preventing youth hate crimes literature review, 2-day virtual symposium, 13-part webinar series, and 19 youth roundtable discussions. It also provides an overview of the bullying prevention curriculum OJJDP has developed for the field, elevates important statistics on hate crimes and the prevalence of identity-based bullying, and includes links to related resources on OJJDP’s website.**Learn more.**
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

# Data Collections

Overview > Benthic Habitat Mapping > Main Hawaiian Islands > 2007 Data Products

## Main Hawaiian Islands 2007

#### Reports

2007 Mapping of Benthic Habitats for The Main Eight Hawaiian Islands - Task Order I Project Completion Report (PDF, 7.75MB)2007 Abridged Methods Manual for Shallow-Water Benthic Habitats of the Main Hawaiian Islands (PDF, 1.57MB)

#### Data and Maps

**Benthic Habitat Maps**

2007 Benthic Habitat Maps - Printable PDF area maps  for download. Each document contains three selectable layers (Zone, Geomorphological Structure Types, and Biological Cover).

**Accuracy Assessment Points**

- Accuracy Assessment Points Data

**Ground Validation Points**

- Ground Validation Points Data

**Benthic Habitat Shapefiles**

A digital vector shoreline (land/water interface) was manually digitized from the one-meter pansharpened multispectral IKONOS imagery to provide accurate, up-to-date shoreline data. Those areas of the coastline that were obscured by cloud cover were derived from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs).

- Benthic Habitat Shapefiles Data

**Shoreline Shapefiles**

A digital vector shoreline (land/water interface) was manually digitized from the one-meter pansharpened multispectral IKONOS imagery to provide accurate, up-to-date shoreline data. Those areas of the coastline that were obscured by cloud cover were derived from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs).

- Shoreline Shapefiles Data

**IKONOSâ„¢ and Quickbirdâ„¢ Satellite Imagery**

Benthic habitat maps of the main 8 Hawaiian Islands were created through visual interpretation of multispectral IKONOSâ„¢ and Quickbirdâ„¢ imagery using the NOAA Habitat Digitizer extension. Habitat boundaries were delineated around signatures (e.g., areas with specific color and texture patterns) in the orthorectified imagery mosaic corresponding to habitat types in the Classification Scheme.

-  Hawaii
-  Kahoolawe
-  Kauai
-  Kaula
-  Lanai
-  Maui
-  Molokai
-  Niihau
-  Oahu
- Main Hawaiian Islands Satellite Image Mosaic Files-Land
- Digital Elevation Model Hillshade File-Land

#### ** In This Site

              - Data Collections Overview
              -  Benthic Habitat Mapping                  -  Main Hawaiian Islands                    -  2007 Data & Other Products
                  -  2003 Data & Other Products 
                -  Palmyra Atoll 
                -  Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 
                -  Republic of Palau 
                -  Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
                -  St. John, USVI National Park and Reef National Monument 
                -  Southwest Puerto Rico 
                -  American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
                -  Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
                -  U.S. South Atlantic Deep Coral Assessment 
              -  Biogeographic Assessments/Ecological Characterizations 
              -  Long-term Monitoring 
              -  Regional Ecosystem Science 

**NCCOS Home
#### Thomas C. LILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIBLET PRODUCTS OF LOUISIANA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 74-1353.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 1975.

Troy E. Bain, Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Benjamin C. King, Shreveport, La., for defendants-appellees.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before TUTTLE, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing, Liles contends that “even if Riblet Products of Louisiana is entitled to immunity of the Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1032, he still has a claim against American Employers Insurance Company for coverage provided to Larry Larkin.” Liles’ complaint, as we observed before, did not name Larkin as a defendant. It is true, as the appellant points out, that it is not necessary to name Larkin as a defendant in order to assert a claim against American Employers as Larkin’s insurer under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, LSA-R.S. 22:655. Liles’ complaint, however, also failed to allege that American Employers was obligated under a policy that provided coverage of claims against Larkin as well as against his employer, Riblet Products. Nor did it otherwise give notice that American Employer’s was being sued as Larkin’s insurer. Such averments are necessary, at least, to show the district court’s jurisdiction over the subject of the claim. See Rule 9, Fed.R.Civ.P.; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Liles’ claim against Larkin or *722against American Employers Insurance Company in its capacity as Larkin’s insurer was not, therefore, raised by the pleadings, was not passed on by the district court, and is not properly before this court on appeal.

The petition for rehearing is denied.