alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

            -           Report: New Data on Postsecondary Tuition, Fees, and Degrees      

# Report: New Data on Postsecondary Tuition, Fees, and Degrees

This report provides a first look at the findings from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System fall 2016 collection, which measured cost of attendance in 2016-17, degrees and other awards conferred in 2015-16, and 12-month enrollment in 2015-16. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017075&utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=Announcements&utm_campaign=Report
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
      March 31, 2005 (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)); and

2.    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Companies.

Date: May 3, 2005


                                              /s/ Christopher M. Capone
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                Christopher M. Capone
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                              of CH Energy Group, Inc.


                                              /s/ Christopher M. Capone
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                Christopher M. Capone
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                    of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CH Energy Group, Inc. and to Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation and will be retained by CH Energy Group, Inc. and Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.]


                                       48
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41374 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICOLAS NUNEZ-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-547-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nicolas Nunez-Munoz (Nunez) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after a previous deportation. Nunez argues that the district reversibly erred under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. There was no “ Booker ” error or Sixth Amendment violation because the only enhancement to Nunez’s sentence was for his prior conviction. See Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756, 769.No. 04-41374 -2- Nevertheless, the district court committed “ Fanfan ” error by sentencing Nunez pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). We have previously rejected Nunez’s claim that such error is “‘structural’ in nature.” See id. at 463. The Government concedes that Nunez preserved his Fanfan argument. As such, this court reviews the claim for harmless

error. See id. at 464. There is no indication in the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker
. Nunez next argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Nunez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Nunez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Nunez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuitNo. 04-41374 -3- precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, Nunez’s conviction is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
#### 601.403 Individual deviations.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 1.403.

[53 FR 26159, July 11, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 66751, Dec. 28, 1994]
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: Blackout Wednesday Impaired Driving Prevention Materials      

# Resource: Blackout Wednesday Impaired Driving Prevention Materials

This webpage contains educational materials for traffic safety advocates and the public about the dangers and consequences of impaired driving during “Blackout Wednesday.” Blackout Wednesday, also known as “Drinksgiving,” is a cultural phenomenon that encourages the heavy consumption of alcohol and drugs before and throughout the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.  

This page contains graphics, short videos, fact sheets, news releases, and social media messaging to promote sober driving during Blackout Wednesday and the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. **Learn more.**
#### Griffin Brothers, Inc., Respondent, v Charles Yatto et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 1, 1978 in Washington County, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment. In their motion to open the default judgment, defendants asserted that they thought their former attorney had filed an answer, when in fact he had not, and that they did not know why he had failed to do so. This court has held that the mere assertion of "law office failure” standing alone generally is not sufficient to set aside a default judgment (.e.g, *Reed v Cone,*61 AD2d 877; *Keith*v *New York State Teachers’ Retirement System,*56 AD2d 671). Moreover, in addition to excusable neglect, the movant must present facts demonstrating the existence of a meritorious defense (see *Bishop v Galasso,*67 AD2d 753) and in our view the defenses proffered by defendants are insufficient as a matter of law. As to the adequacy of the factual allegations of the complaint in this breach of contract action, plaintiff is required to plead the provisions of the contract upon which the claim is based *(Lupinski v Village of Ilion,*59 AD2d 1050), and this it clearly has done. Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff was not required to attach a copy of the contract or plead its terms verbatim (see 4 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 29:9). Defendants also assert that plaintiff assigned its rights under the contract and thus cannot sue, but it appears that plaintiff assigned only its rights relating to the sale of the real property while this action is for breach of that portion of the contract pertaining to the sale of personalty, which, in our view, is separable (see *Rudman v Cowles Communications,*30 NY2d 1, 13). Defendants’ contention that plaintiff misrepresented the size of the land and existence of certain encroachments relates to the realty portion of the contract, and should have been raised in the foreclosure action. Finally, defendants’ contention that plaintiff represented the value of the personalty as $50,000 when it was worth only $42,000 is irrelevant since defendants only paid $42,000. Accordingly, we conclude that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### WHALEY, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Action by Nettie M. Whaley against the Erie Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

McLENNAN, P. J., dissents.
#### LAWRENCE et al. v. GROUT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1906.)

Action by George H. Lawrence and others against Edward M. Grout and others.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10232 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to incentivize certain preparedness measures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Ms. STRICKLAND) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to incentivize certain preparedness 

measures, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investing in Commu5 nity Resilience Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 406(b)(3)(A) of the Rob8 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

9 Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(b)(3)(A)) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10232 IH

1 (1) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘preparedness,’’ 

2 after ‘‘disaster relief,’’; 

3 (2) in clause (iv)— 

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘or programs designated 

5 by the Administrator that result in substantial 

6 science-based and verified increased resilience 

7 from building standards or land use practices 

8 for storms, tsunamis, floods, wildfires, or equiv9 alent disasters’’ after ‘‘community rating sys10 tem’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘and’’; 

12 (3) in clause (v), by striking the period and in13 serting ‘‘; and’’; and 

14 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(vi) support of viable community 

16 emergency response teams or equivalent 

17 non-governmental organizations that pro18 vide disaster assistance, including by pro19 viding or facilitating regular training, out20 reach, and soliciting participation in pre21 paredness exercises.’’. 

22 (b) COMPREHENSIVE GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 

23 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, 

24 acting through the Administrator of the Federal Emer25 gency Management Agency, shall issue comprehensive 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 10232 IH

1 guidance to State and Tribal governments relating to the 

2 measures and investments described in section 

3 406(b)(3)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

4 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 5172(b)(3)(A)), as amended in subsection (a). 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act, and the amend8 ments made by this Act, shall take effect on the date that 

9 is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 (b) APPROPRIATIONS.—The amendments made by 

11 this Act shall be carried out only with funds appropriated 

12 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency on or 

13 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

14 (c) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS.—No additional funds 

15 are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of car16 rying out this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                    10,669,409.34      13,114,307.84         0.00        452,541,692.16
AR                             0.64             100.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                       123,255.83               0.00         0.00          4,800,000.00
B2                        49,302.34               0.00         0.00          1,920,000.00
B3                        61,627.92               0.00         0.00          2,400,000.00
B4                        55,490.80               0.00         0.00          2,161,000.00
B5                        37,002.43               0.00         0.00          1,441,000.00
B6                        43,141.08               0.00         0.02          1,680,060.81
X                      1,147,894.92               0.00         0.00                  0.00

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
   THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
   EXTRACTED FROM CHRYSLER FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND 
   SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
   ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
   BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                           $       777
<SECURITIES>                             410
<RECEIVABLES>                         17,299
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        23,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                               16,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  25
<OTHER-SE>                             3,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          23,442
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,474
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          338
<INCOME-TAX>                             110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      228
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Leslie H. BAKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 75-1274

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 1975.

Leslie H. Baker, Jr., pro se.

Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., William L. Johnson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Ft. Worth, Tex., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Harry Marselli, William M. Brown, Gilbert E. Andrews, Acting Chief, App. Section, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

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

*

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

PER CURIAM:

 In this second go around1 Taxpayer asserts that brokerage and related expenditures in the purchase of securities are not to be added to the price paid to the seller but should be deducted as an expense. Similarly, he argues that such costs of sale are not to be deducted from the sales proceeds from the buyer. Despite the earnestness of his contentions they come too late. For the law has held to the contrary. Woodward v. Commissioner, 1970, 397 U.S. 572, 574—75, 90 S.Ct. 1302, 1304, 25 L.Ed.2d 577, 581; Spreckles v. Commissioner (Helvering), 1942, 315 U.S. 626, 62 S.Ct. 777, 86 L.Ed. 1073; Commissioner (Helvering) v. Winmill, 1938, 305 U.S. 79, 59 S.Ct. 45, 83 L.Ed. 52; Meade v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1974, 489 F.2d 161; Helis v. Usry, 5 Cir., 1972, 464 F.2d 330.

Affirmed.

1

. Baker v. District Director, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 199.
#### 31.205-2 [Reserved]
#### 725.701 General.

USAID's source and nationality requirements for program-funded contracts and subcontracts are set forth in 22 CFR part 228, Rules on Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by USAID. 22 CFR part 228 is supplemented by the policies and procedures in ADS Chapters 310 and 312.
#### Vivian Ferentz, Respondent, v. Melvin Ferentz, Appellant.

Order, entered on March 15, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                             VERIZON MARYLAND INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                  Nine Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                                             September 30, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                                                          <C>
Income before provision for income taxes                                                     $ 484.4
Equity in loss from affiliates                                                                  31.1
Dividends received from equity affiliate                                                          .4
Interest expense                                                                                62.4
Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                   10.7
Amortization of capitalized interest                                                             2.2
                                                                                ------------------------

Earnings, as adjusted                                                                        $ 591.2
                                                                                ========================

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                                              $ 62.4
Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                   10.7
Capitalized interest                                                                             8.2
                                                                                ------------------------

Fixed Charges                                                                                 $ 81.3
                                                                                ========================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                              7.27
                                                                                ========================

</TABLE>
#### 9.401 Applicability.

In accordance with Public Law 103-355, Section 2455 (31 U.S.C. 6101, note), and Executive Order 12689, any debarment, suspension or other Governmentwide exclusion initiated under the Nonprocurement Common Rule implementing Executive Order 12549 on or after August 25, 1995 shall be recognized by and effective for Executive Branch agencies as a debarment or suspension under this subpart. Similarly, any debarment, suspension, proposed debarment or other Governmentwide exclusion initiated on or after August 25, 1995 under this subpart shall also be recognized by and effective for those agencies and participants as an exclusion under the Nonprocurement Common Rule.

[60 FR 33065, June 26, 1995, as amended at 84 FR 19845, May 6, 2019]