alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
909.104-3 Application of standards. ( e ) *Guaranteeing corporate entities.* The Department of Energy (DOE) may select an entity which was newly created to perform the prospective contract, including, but not limited to, a joint venture or other similarly binding corporate partnership. In such instances when making the determination of responsibility pursuant to 48 CFR 9.103, the contracting officer may evaluate the financial resources of other entities only to the extent that those entities are legally bound, jointly and severally if more than one, by means of a performance guarantee or other equivalent enforceable commitment to supply the necessary resources to the prospective contractor and to assume all contractual obligations of the prospective contractor. The guaranteeing corporate entity(ies) must be found to have sufficient resources in order to satisfy its guarantee.
[64 FR 16651, Apr. 6, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 36362, July 22, 2009]
#### 923.7001 Nuclear safety.

The DOE regulates the nuclear safety of its major facilities under its own statutory authority derived from the Atomic Energy Act and other legislation. The DOE also regulates, under certain specific conditions, the use by its contractors of radioactive materials and ionizing radiation producing machines.

[49 FR 12003, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9106, Feb. 25, 1994; 74 FR 36365, July 22, 2009]
#### 908.1102 Presolicitation requirements.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60111 Summary Calendar

VINSON BALLARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY; DOCTOR MARCUS A. CHANAY, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; DOCTOR LORIA BROWN, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; MICHAEL THOMAS, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; DOCTOR CAROLYN MYERS, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; WAYNE GOODWIN, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; PAMELA MITCHELL, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; ROBIN PACK, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; DOCTOR CURTIS JOHNSON, Individually and in h is Professional Capacity; FRANCIS HORTON WHITE, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; ATTORNEY DAVID BUFORD, Individually and in his Professional Capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:13

- CV

- 672

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

* 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 circumstance s set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60111 Document: 00513641813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2016No. 16

- 60111

2 Plaintiff

- Appellant Vinson Ballard a/k/a Rev. Vinson Ballard, M.S., proceeding pro se on appeal after being represented by counse l in the district court, makes largely unintelligible complaints about the proceedings and results of a court supervised and approved settlement of various employment claims between Ballard and Jackson State University, the sole remaining Defendant

- Appelle e. We have carefully and painstakingly reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the various rulings and o rders of the magistrate judge and the district court from which Ballard appears to appeal. As a result of our review, w e find no reversible error in any of the proceedings or rulings, and conclude that Plaintiff

- Appellant Ballard has had all the procedural and substantive process to which he is due. The orders and rulings from which Ballard appeals are, in all respects,

A FFIRMED. Case: 16-60111 Document: 00513641813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2016
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 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

            -           Coverage of Behavioral Services for Youth with Substance Use Disorders      

# Coverage of Behavioral Services for Youth with Substance Use Disorders

”Coverage of Behavioral Services for Youth with Substance Use Disorders,” (PDF, 16 pages) aims to help states (a) design a benefit that will meet the needs of youth with substance use disorders (PDF, 16 pages) and their families and (b) comply with their obligations under Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment requirements. This guidance is based on research and results of a SAMHSA-supported technical expert panel. 

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-26-2015.pdf?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
852.235-73 Facilities. As prescribed at 835.003-74, insert the following clause: Facilities (DEC 2022) ( a ) The facilities specified in the contract are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract. Therefore, prior to removing, replacing, or diverting any of the listed or specified facilities, the Contractor shall— ( 1 ) Notify the Contracting Officer in writing; and
( 2 ) Submit justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the potential impact on this contract.
( b ) The Contractor shall make no removal, replacement or diversion of facilities without the Contracting Officer's written consent.
(End of clause) [87 FR 70750, Nov. 21, 2022]
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
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 Annual Report of Atlas America Public #9 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and
 2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.
 
 By:
              /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
              Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
              March
      28, 2008
# SIERRA CLUB rOUNLJED 1892

Se pte mb e r 17 , 20 15 Guy Donald so n , C hi ef Air Plannin g Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Reg io n 6 1445 R oss Avenue, S ui te 1200 Dallas, T exas 75202-2733 Re: Air Di s pers ion Model in g of T exas S ui fur Dioxide P ollut io n D ear Section Chief D o nald so n: Air disper s i on modeling recently conducted by Wingra Engineering, S.C. o n behalf of the S ierra Club demonstrate s that s ulfur d iox i de ("S 0 2 ") emis ions f ro m the B ig Brown Steam Electric Stati o n , Lime sto ne Electric Generating Stati o n , Mart in Lake Generatin g Station, M o nticello Steam Ele c tric Statio n , and the W.A. Pari s h Electric Generating Station in Texas have caused dow nw in d S 0 2 amb ie nt a ir conce ntrations to exceed the 75 pa rt s per billio n National Amb i e nt Air Quality Standard ("NAAQ S "), w hich tran s lates to 

### J96.2 mi c rogr a m s per c ubi c m e t er



### ("~ **/m ).**  

### In par ti c ular , using the most recent emiss i ons data fo r eac h facility , th e modeling s hows:
• Bi g Brown cau ses concentrations a high as 454



### ~g/m **3** • Lime s ton e causes concentrations as high as 249



### ~g/m **3** • Martin Lake causes concentrati o n s as high as 347



### ~g/m **3** • Montic e ll o cau ses conce ntr at ions as hi g h as 329



### ~g/m **3** • W.A. Pari s h cau ses concentrations as hi g h as 39 4



### ~g/m **3** The modeling a lso de m o n st r ates th at the excee d a nc es in the a r eas s urrounding these facilitie s arc even g reater when nearby so urce s of S 0 2 are taken into account. According l y, the area s urrounding Big Brown , Limestone, Martin L ake, M o n ticello, and W.A. Pari s h s hou ld each be des i gnated no n att ainrnent un der the NAAQS.

### Mr. D onald son, Chief Air Pl anni n g Sect ion U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency, Reg io n 6 September 

### 17, 2015 Page 2 Enclosed, please find the results of the modeling analysis, a long w ith the coJTesponding modeling inpu t and output files. We urge EPA to consider this in formatio n as it undertakes area designations in Texas for the 

### 2010 rev ised primary S0 2 N AAQS. This in fo rm atio n i s be in g provided to both EPA's Office of Air Qu al i ty Planning and Standards and to approp ri ate personnel at the T exas Commissio n o n E n vironme nt al Quality. 

### ln the meantime, please let me know i f I can provide any additional in formation. Thank you for your atte n tio n to a nd co ns ide rat io n of thi s m atte r , an d please do not hesitate to contact me if yo u would lik e to discuss further. Sincerely,
Is/ J osh u a S mi th J os hu a Sm ith Staff Attorney S i

erra C lub 

### 85 Second St., Seco nd Floor San F ra ncisco, CA 

### 94108 Ph one: 

### (415) 977-5560 F ax: (415) 977-5793 joshua . smith @sie rr aclub.o rg
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

1.

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

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of our Company.



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis

Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

January 30, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 7, 2011 

s0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141923 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141923 

 COA: 287952 

Kalamazoo CC: 2007-001630-FC 

GERORD LARON ROBINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### James H. Burns et al., Appellants, v. Warren Knapton, Respondent.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
#### 53.205-1 Paid advertisements.

SF 1449, prescribed in 53.212, shall be used to place orders for paid advertisements as specified in 5.503.

[61 FR 39198, July 26, 1996]
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

            -           Parent Guide:  A Bargain for Frances      

# Parent Guide:  A Bargain for Frances

Booklet to accompany the book A Bargain for Frances, helping parents read and discuss money topics with their children.

https://pueblo.gpo.gov/CFPBPubs/CFPBPubs.php?PubID=13237
#### 352.237-74 Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery.

As prescribed in HHSAR 337.103(e), the Contracting Officer shall insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:

# Non-Discrimination In Service Delivery (DEC 2015)

It is the policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability (physical or mental). By acceptance of this contract, the contractor agrees to comply with this policy in supporting the program and in performing the services called for under this contract. The contractor shall include this clause in all sub-contracts awarded under this contract for supporting or performing the specified program and services. Accordingly, the contractor shall ensure that each of its employees, and any sub-contractor staff, is made aware of, understands, and complies with this policy.

(End of clause)
# C_2020399EN.01000201.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/2

---

Appointment of the First Advocate General

(2020/C 399/02)

At its General Meeting on 29 September 2020, the Court of Justice appointed, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure (1), Mr Szpunar as First Advocate General for the period from 7 October 2020 to 6 October 2021.

---

(1)  In the version applicable until the next partial replacement of the Judges and Advocates-General, provided for in the second paragraph of Article 253 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Amendments of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, adopted on 26 November 2019, OJ L 316, 6.12.2019, p. 103).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Vickerstaff, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 15, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. On direct examination the defendant admitted that he had previously been convicted of criminal trespass. During cross-examination the prosecutor questioned him with respect to the facts underlying that conviction. Such inquiry is not, per se, improper (see *People v Reed,*56 AD2d 896, mot for lv to app den 42 NY2d 830). However, the facts involved in the prior conviction were, to a degree, similar to the ones involved in the present case. To the extent that the cross-examination was intended to demonstrate a *modus operandi,*it was improper (see *People v Ragonesi,*63 AD2d 741, 742). Despite this error a reversal is not warranted on this record. Although the evidence adduced at trial was circumstantial, it excluded to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt (see *People v Wachowicz,*22 NY2d 369, 372). It included eyewitness testimony by the arresting police officer that the defendant was at the scene of the crime and fled when the police approached. The proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the improper cross-examination by the prosecutor (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00040 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF O .A.P., A CHILD On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011 - 559,782, Honorable Leslie Hatch, Presiding



### February 11 , 201 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK , JJ. Pending before us is appellant’s motion to extend the time to file his notice of appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. We deny the motion and dismiss the appeal. According to the motion, appellant is appealing a judgment entered on O ctober 3, 2014. A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed, thereby requiring the notice of appeal to be filed no later than January 2, 2015. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(a)(4). The documents on file with this court reflect that the motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was filed on January 20, 2015 and the notice of appeal was filed with the district clerk on January 26, 2015.2

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circum stances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1( a). We may extend the time to file the notice of appeal, however, if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, the appellant properly f il es a motion to extend time. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3 , 10.5(b)(1 )(2). However, the motion and notice of appeal must be fi led within the fifteen day time period mentioned in the appellate rules. If not, then the notice is untimely. See Strange v. State , 258 S.W.3d 184, 186 - 87 (Tex. App.
— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that both the motion and the notice of appeal were due within fifteen days from the date the notice was due)
. Here, appellant was given an opportunity to show why the court had juris diction over the matter . Appellant responded by re - filing the original motion to extend the time to file his notice of appeal. Appellant was required to file both his notice of appeal and the motion to extend the time to file his notice of appeal within fifteen days from the date his notice was due . E ven though appellant timely filed the motion on January 20 th , the notice was filed on January 26 th , which date fell outside the fifteen day deadline of January 20 , 2015. Accordingly, we deny the motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal. Per Curiam
#### KUFFERMAN et al., Respondents, v. NEW ORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme mrt, Appellate Term.

March 26, 1906.)

Apia! from Municipal Court, Borough of Manittan, Fifth District. Action by Samuel Kufrman and others against the New York City ailway Company. From a judgment for aintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Wilim E. Weaver, for appellant.

A. B. Greenirg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with sts.

SCOTT, P. J.

(dissenting). I dissent. It ipears to be a physical impossibility that the agon could have been hit where it was, and ■iven against the elevated railroad pillar as aintiffs’ witnesses say it was, if the accident ippened as plaintiff claims that it did.
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|     |                                                                                                                                                      |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/ Theodore H. Torbeck               |   |
| Theodore H. Torbeck                   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| March 7, 2014                    |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |
| /s/ Leigh R. Fox        |   |
| Leigh R. Fox            |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| March 7, 2014      |   |
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-3 (No. 333-106991, No. 333-112487, No. 333-117520,
No. 333-122658 and No. 333-127125) and Form S-8 (No. 333-60640, No. 333-81522, No. 333-88504, No. 333-106923, No. 333-110522, No. 333-116474, No. 333-125781 and No. 333-134925 and No. 333-143556) of
Napster, Inc. of our report dated June 11, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
|                              
|Los Angeles, California       
|June 11, 2008