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

            -           Promise Neighborhoods      

# Promise Neighborhoods

To address the challenges faced by students living in communities of concentrated poverty, Promise Neighborhoods grantees and their partner organizations will plan to provide services from early learning to college and career, including programs to improve the health, safety, and stability of neighborhoods, and boost family engagement in student learning.

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 13

- 01034

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2012

- 35806A

Style: Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir

and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as next f riend of Nayla McKnight

v

. Leah Anne Gonski Marino f/k/a Leah Anne Gonski and Jaou

- Chen Huang, M.D.

Date motion filed * : December 4, 201 4

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to F ile Motion for Rehearing and/or

Motion for En Banc Reco nsideration

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Motion for Rehearing and/or Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: Decem ber 10 , 20 14

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: January 26, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

Granted , in part

If document is to be filed, document due: January 20 , 2015

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices M assengale, Brown, & Huddle

Date: December 9 , 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paris Perkins, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 502]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered February 27, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the cumulative evidence presented at the *Sirois*hearing *(see Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand,*92 AD2d 405 [1983]) and the inferences that logically flowed therefrom were sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the defendant engaged in conduct or acquiesced in the conduct of others on his behalf that caused a witness’s unavailability to testify at trial *(see People v Cotto,*92 NY2d 68*645[1998]; *People v Geraci,*85 NY2d 359, 370 [1995]; *People v Field,*308 AD2d 548 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 571[2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly allowed the use of the witness’s grand jury testimony and audiotaped statement as part of the People’s direct case.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Valentin LOPEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41708

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Valentin Lopez-Alvarez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), *405which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

Lopez-Alvarez also requests a remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment under Fed. R.CrimP. 36 to reflect that he pleaded guilty to *attempted*illegal reentry into the United States. The Government joins in Lopez-Alvarez’s request that we remand for correction of the clerical error. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We remand to the district court with an instruction to correct the judgment pursuant to Fed. R.CrimP. 36 to reflect that Lopez-Alvarez pleaded guilty to attempted reentry of a deported alien.

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED; REMANDED with instruction.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *405published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

November 30, 2010 

Order 

 

November 30, 2010 

141241 

In Re DAVID G. MYERS 

Referee, SC: 141241 

Sanilac County Friend of the Court JTC: Formal Complaint No. 86 

______________________________ 

 On order of the Court, the Judicial Tenure Commission having submitted its 

decision and recommendation for discipline, and it further appearing that respondent 

passed away on October 24, 2010, proceedings on the recommendation are DISMISSED 

and the matter is remanded to the Judicial Tenure Commission.
#### 8.705-2 Direct-order process.

Central nonprofit agencies may authorize ordering offices to transmit orders for specific supplies or services directly to an AbilityOne participating nonprofit agency. The written authorization remains valid until it is revoked by the central nonprofit agency or the Committee. The central nonprofit agency shall specify the normal delivery or performance lead time required by the nonprofit agency. The ordering office shall reflect this lead time in its orders.

[48 FR 42129, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 67136, Dec. 27, 1991; 59 FR 67029, Dec. 28, 1994; 73 FR 53995, Sept. 17, 2008; 84 FR 19844, May 6, 2019]
931.205-47 Costs related to legal and other proceedings. ( h ) *Costs associated with whistleblower actions.* ( 1 ) Definitions for purposes of this paragraph (h): *Covered contractors and subcontractors* means those contractors and subcontractors with contracts exceeding $5,000,000.
*Employee whistleblower action* means any action filed by an employee in Federal or state court for redress of a retaliatory act by a contractor and any administrative procedure initiated by an employee under 29 CFR part 24, 48 CFR subpart 3.9, 10 CFR part 708 or 42 U.S.C. 7239.
*Retaliatory act* means a discharge, demotion, reduction in pay, coercion, restraint, threat, intimidation or other similar negative action taken against an employee by a contractor as a result of an employee's activity protected as a whistleblower activity by a Federal or state statute or regulation.
*Settlement and award costs* means defense costs and costs arising from judicial orders, negotiated agreements, arbitration, or an order from a Federal agency or board and includes compensatory damages, underpayment for work performed, and reimbursement for a complainant employee's legal counsel.
( 2 ) For costs associated with employee whistleblower actions where a retaliatory act is alleged against a covered contractor or subcontractor, the contracting officer— ( i ) May authorize reimbursement of costs on a provisional basis, in appropriate cases;
( ii ) Must consult with the Office of General Counsel whistleblower costs point of contact, who will consult with other Headquarters points of contact as appropriate, before making a final allowability determination; and
( iii ) Must determine allowability of defense, settlement and award costs on a case-by-case basis after considering the terms of the contract, relevant cost regulations, and the relevant facts and circumstances, including federal law and policy prohibiting reprisal against whistleblowers, available at the conclusion of the employee whistleblower action.
( 3 ) Covered contractors and subcontractors must segregate legal costs, including costs of in-house counsel, incurred in the defense of an employee whistleblower action so that the costs are separately identifiable.
( 4 ) If a contracting officer provisionally disallows costs associated with an employee whistleblower action for a covered contractor or subcontractor, funds advanced by the Department may not be used to finance costs connected with the defense, settlement and award of an employee whistleblower action.
( 5 ) Contractor defense, settlement and award costs incurred in connection with the defense of suits brought by employees under section 2 of the Major Fraud Act of 1988 are excluded from coverage of this section.
[65 FR 62301, Oct. 18, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36366, July 22, 2009; 75 FR 29459, May 26, 2010]
#### 9904.404-61 Interpretation. [Reserved]
#### 9904.413-64.1 Transition Method for the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule.

The transition method for the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule under this Standard shall be in accordance with 9904.412.64.1 Transition Method for CAS Pension Harmonization Rule.

[76 FR 81325, Dec. 27, 2011]
### 4/10/2015 Page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Summary Page

Chemical ID: P-15 -0363 Re viewer: Wong/EN

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment Cycles 1 Releases

Assessed in NCEM2? Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB Testing Required No

Hazard Concer n No

Releases Release

Below Acute Threshold 5 Release

Below Chronic Threshold 5 Other

Ingestion Surface water Ground water (landfill) Consumer Use: DtD 2

Inhalation Air: incineratio n (stack) Air: fugitive Consumer Use: CEM 3

Dermal Consumer Use: CEM Eco Surface water: ADR conc and/or PDM 4

Consumer Use: DtD

1 Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.

2 Down-the-Drain

3 Consumer Exposure Model

4 Probabilistic Dilution Model

5 The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch ’ s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-760V 

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 * 

PATRICIA A. SAYO, * 

 * Filed: March 4, 2015 

 Petitioner, * 

 * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s 

 v. * Fees & Costs

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES , * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Anne Carrion Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Michael Patrick Milmoe, Washington, DC, for Respondent 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On November 14, 2011, Patricia A. Sayo filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Athe Vaccine Program@). On February 10, 

2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I 

subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting 

Petitioner an award as outlined by the stipulation. 

On March 4, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in 

regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $31,617.51, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the 

United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 

107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of 

confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in 

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will 

be available to the public. (Id.) 

 
counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in 

compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any 

reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition. 

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award in the amount of $31,617.51 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to 

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Anne Carrion Toale, Esq. In the absence of a motion for 

review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER 

JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their

right to seek review.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
"CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                            PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>               304,039
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                   23,628
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                 10,250
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            5,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          343,582
<COMMON>                                  8,780
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                20,142
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                     111,260
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>          140,182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     74,581
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                       30,259
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                     0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                 0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                     0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>           98,560
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>           343,582
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                71,411
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                      1,500
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               65,992
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               67,492
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   3,919
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          (72)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            3,847
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,662
<NET-INCOME>                              2,185
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                   0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>             2,185
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  4,975
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                 4,068
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                   35,145
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.00


</TABLE>
#### 52.232-23 Assignment of Claims.

As prescribed in 32.806(a)(1), insert the following clause:

# Assignment of Claims (MAY 2014)

(a) The Contractor, under the Assignment of Claims Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 3727, 41 U.S.C. 6305 (hereafter referred to as *the Act*), may assign its rights to be paid amounts due or to become due as a result of the performance of this contract to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution, including any Federal lending agency. The assignee under such an assignment may thereafter further assign or reassign its right under the original assignment to any type of financing institution described in the preceding sentence.

(b) Any assignment or reassignment authorized under the Act and this clause shall cover all unpaid amounts payable under this contract, and shall not be made to more than one party, except that an assignment or reassignment may be made to one party as agent or trustee for two or more parties participating in the financing of this contract.

(c) The Contractor shall not furnish or disclose to any assignee under this contract any classified document (including this contract) or information related to work under this contract until the Contracting Officer authorizes such action in writing.

(End of clause)

*Alternate I* (APR 1984). If a no-setoff commitment is to be included in the contract (see 32.801 and 32.803(d)), add the following sentence at the end of paragraph (a) of the basic clause:

Unless otherwise stated in this contract, payments to an assignee of any amounts due or to become due under this contract shall not, to the extent specified in the Act, be subject to reduction or setoff.

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2667, Jan. 17, 1986; 79 FR 24223, Apr. 29, 2014]
CERTIFICATIONS

     I, David Chin, certify that:

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

  2.Based on 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 on 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
     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
     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; and

  6.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     indicated in this annual report whether 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 11, 2004

/s/ David Chin
-----------------
     President
844.402 Policy requirements. ( a ) (3) Determine whether a particular subcontract item meets the definition of a commercial item. This requirement does not affect the contracting officer's responsibilities or determinations made under FAR 15.403-1(c)(3).