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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee (MID).                    

*Date:*                         May 26-27, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G51, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Amir E. Zeituni, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G51 Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-2550,                         *amir.zeituni@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 17, 2021. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-03612 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

ERRATUM

February 2, 2007 

Appeal No. 06-1055 

Precedential Opinion, Richlin Security Service Company v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary 

of Homeland Security

Decided: December 26, 2006 

On pages 2, 3 and 5, replace the citation to “Richlin Sec. Serv. Co., DOTBCA No. 

3034E and 3035E, 04-2 BCA ¶ 32,789 (2005)” with “Richlin Sec. Serv. Co., DOTBCA 

No. 3034E and 3035E, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,021 (2005)”
#### McAFEE v. WYCKOFF.

(Supreme Cor Appellate Division, Second Department.

Ma: 16, 1906.)

Action by Frederick L. McA against Clarence F. Wyckoff.

No opini Judgment affirmed, without costs, on the or ion of Mr. Justice Herrick at Trial Tei 89 N. Y. Supp. 996.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 110 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 110

To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and 
                    other related subsidy programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on 
Oversight and Accountability, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and 
                    other related subsidy programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Farewell to Unnecessary Energy 
Lifelines Reform Act of 2023'' or the ``FUEL Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOENERGY SUBSIDY PROGRAMS 
              AND OTHER RELATED SUBSIDY PROGRAMS.

    Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
U.S.C. 8101 et seq.) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Franklin, Appellant.

[This opinion has been withdrawn from publication at 7 AD3d 636 by the State Reporter and republished at 7 AD3d 966.]
#### Arthur Weinberger, Plaintiff, and Steven Croyle et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Ralph S. Seneca et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Harold D. Van Leuven, Sr., et al., Respondents.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which the jury returned a verdict (1) in favor of plaintiffs Croyle and against defendants Seneca and Matthews for $20,000 on the cause of action for loss of earnings and $250 on the cause of action for loss of services, but failed to award plaintiffs damages for personal injuries, and (2) in favor of defendants Van Leuven and the Long Island Motor Haulage, the appeals, as limited by the briefs of the respective parties, are from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Orange County on December 16, 1977, as denied the branch of the Croyles’ motion which sought to set aside the verdict in favor of defendants Van Leuven and the Long Island Motor Haulage and granted a new trial on the issue of damages and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court, entered January 5, 1978, as awarded damages to plaintiffs Croyle pursuant to the jury’s verdict and failed to find defendants Van Leuven and the Long Island Motor Haulage liable. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the awards in favor of plaintiffs Croyle. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The verdict of the jury on liability was neither irrational nor unwarranted on a fair interpretation of the credible evidence. In addition, a damage award for loss of earnings without an award for the injury that occasioned the absence from work is, as the trial court found, inconsistent. We have modified the judgment to conform to the intent of the trial court’s order which set aside so much of the jury’s verdict as awarded damages. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
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

            -           Workforce Investment Act Youth Programs      

# Workforce Investment Act Youth Programs

This program provides formula funds to states for local resources to deliver a comprehensive array of youth services that focus on assisting at-risk and disadvantaged youth attain education and skills for PSE and employment.

http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/
§ 1.653 How may a party use a deposition in the hearing? ( a ) *In general.* Subject to the provisions of this section, a party may use in the hearing any part or all of a deposition taken under § 1.644 against any party who: ( 1 ) Was present or represented at the taking of the deposition; or
( 2 ) Had reasonable notice of the taking of the deposition.
( b ) *Admissibility.* ( 1 ) No part of a deposition will be included in the hearing record, unless received in evidence by the ALJ.
( 2 ) The ALJ will exclude from evidence any question and response to which an objection: ( i ) Was noted at the taking of the deposition; and
( ii ) Would have been sustained if the witness had been personally present and testifying at a hearing.
( 3 ) If a party offers only part of a deposition in evidence: ( i ) An adverse party may require the party to introduce any other part that ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced; and
( ii ) Any other party may introduce any other parts.
( c ) *Videotaped deposition.* If the deposition was recorded on videotape and is admitted into evidence, relevant portions will be played during the hearing and transcribed into the record by the reporter.
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of VillageEDOCS (the "Company") onForm 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that::

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

(2)The information contained in the Annual Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  March 31, 2005                                                       | /s/ K. Mason Conner                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------- | ------------------------------------  |
|                                                                                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISEADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOVILLAGEEDOCS AND WILL BE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Page 11 of 24
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(c)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-B
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

JPMorgan Chase Bank                         Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
fka, Bank One National Association          fka, Banker Trust Company
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              60 Wall Street, 26th Floor
Chicago, IL 60670                           New York, NY 10005
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration        Attn: Structured Finance Services
Phone: (312) 407-0192                       Mail Stop NYC60-2606
Fax: (312) 407-1708                         Phone: (212) 250-8222
                                            Fax: (212) 797-8606

Key Bank USA, National Association          MBIA Insurance Corporation
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor                 113 King Street
Cleveland, OH 44114                         Armonk, NY 10504
Attn: President, KER                        Attn: Data Administration
Phone: (216) 828-4293                       Phone: (914) 765-3772
Fax: (216) 828-9301                         Fax: (914) 765-3810

Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between Key Bank USA,
National Association as Master Servicer and Great Lakes Educational Loan
Services, Inc., as Subservicer, dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the
Subservicer from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, based on the review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

The undersigned also hereby certifies that the Subservicer has disclosed to the
Master Servicer and to the Trust's certified public accountants all significant
deficiencies relating to the Subservicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards in accordance with a review conducted in compliance with the standard
as set forth in the Agreement.

                                    Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.,
                                    Subservicer

Date:  February 9, 2004             By: /S/ MICHAEL J. NOACK
                                        ------------------------------------
                                    Name: Michael J. Noack
                                    Title: Chief Servicing Officer
null

2011-04-13

462.7556

eng - Argued: 2011-04-13. Docket number: 5-10-0351WC
#### § 1150.111 Milk.

*Milk* means any class of cow's milk.

[76 FR 14788, Mar. 18, 2011]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0724 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-043-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7070

MARION GEDDIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina

Department of Corrections (SCDC); HENRY DARGAN

MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-02-3570-8-24B1)

Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Geddis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney

General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Geddis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322,

 , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Geddis has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Regulatory Dockets 

Orville Wright Building (FOB-lOA) 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: Time-limited Exemption from 14 CFR 91.227 (c)(l)(i) and (iii) - Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements 

Reference: Grant of Exemption Number 12555, regulatory docket No. FAA-2015-0971 

Grant of Exemption No. 12555 provides for a time-limited grant of exemption from the ADS-B 

Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) and Navigation Accuracy Category for position (NACp) 

requirements of 14 CFR section 91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020 through December 

31, 2024. 

Thomas Cook Airlines (TCX), Hangar I, Manchester Airport, Manchester, United Kingdom, 

M90 5FL herby notifies the FAA that we intend to comply with the conditions and limitations 

expressed in the exemption cited above. 

Signature: 

A~Jo 

__ 

A~~;:w-~gton 

Group Airlines Head of Airbus Operations 

Copies: 

AFS-1 

CMO/CHDO/FSDO 

Rcgistcn:tl Office 

The Thomas Cook Business Park 

Coningsby Road 

Peterborough 

PE3 858 

Rcgistcn:tl in England 

Comp:my registration no 

2011379
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd

day of July, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

BRANNON MATTOX, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00361-CR; Trial Court No. 114-0547-13

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 15th day of September, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
819.811-370 VA/SBA Partnership Agreement and contract clauses. ( a ) Before placing new requirements under the 8(a) program, the contracting officer must determine whether an SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside is mandated under the VA Rule of Two (see 802.101). If the determination does not result in an SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside, the contracting officer may consider the 8(a) program.
( b ) The Partnership Agreement provides that SBA can release procurements already in the program whenever an SDVOSB or VOSB set-aside is feasible.
( c ) When an 8(a) acquisition is processed pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the contracting officer shall: ( 1 ) For competitive solicitations and awards, use the clause at 852.219-71, VA Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Participants, substituting paragraph (c) of FAR 52.219-18, Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Participants, with paragraph (c) contained in 852.219-71.
( 2 ) For noncompetitive solicitations and awards insert the clause at 852.219-72, Notification of Section 8(a) Direct Awards, instead of the prescribed FAR clauses at 52.219-11, Special 8(a) Contract Conditions; 52.219-12, Special 8(a) Subcontract Conditions; and 52.219-17, Section 8(a) Award.
( 3 ) In all instances, contracting include the clause at FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, or if applicable 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule.
#### 704.502 Policy.

USAID encourages the use of electronic commerce through USAID's eSign Portal located at DocuSign. The agency head has determined that the eSign Portal is capable of ensuring authentication and confidentiality commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm from loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of the information. USAID uses Login.gov for secure sign in. USAID will accept electronic signatures in connection with contracts, modifications and any other documentation where digital signatures are authorized under the FAR.

[89 FR 4204, Jan. 23, 2024]