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

            -  Evidence and Innovation 
            -  Federal Understanding of the Evidence Base 
            -           U.S. Department of Labor      

# U.S. Department of Labor

**CLEAR: Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research**CLEAR's mission is to make research on labor topics more accessible to practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and the public more broadly so that it can inform their decisions about labor policies and programs. The Chief Evaluation Office's CLEAR identifies and summarizes many types of research, including descriptive statistical studies and outcome analyses, implementation, and causal impact studies.

## EBP Federal Directory

-  AmeriCorps 
-  U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
-  U.S. Department of Agriculture 
-  U.S. Department of Defense 
-  U.S. Department of Education 
-  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 
-  U.S. Department of Justice 
-  U.S. Department of Labor
#### Leonard Schechter, Respondent, v Jeanette Schechter, Appellant.

— In an action for partition of real property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 15, 1978, which granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and appointed a Referee. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated June 25, 1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, directed entry of a final judgment of partition and sale, and made appropriate provisions therefor. Appeal from the order dismissed as academic. The order was superseded by the granting of reargument. Order and judgment affirmed insofar as reviewed. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The parties to the instant action were married in 1973. In April, 1974 the plaintiff husband deeded the marital home, of which he was then the sole owner, to himself and his wife as tenants by the entirety. The parties were divorced, following a trial, in December, 1977. The judgment of divorce specifically denied the wife’s request for exclusive possession of the marital home. The judgment also denied the husband’s request for a direction that the property be sold. In his decision, the Trial Judge recommended that the parties voluntarily sell the property. In January, 1978 the husband commenced the instant action, claiming that the divorce judgment had converted his interest in the property to a tenancy in common, and that, as such, he was entitled to partition. Special Term granted summary judgment in the husband’s favor, over the wife’s claim that he was not entitled to the relief sought absent a modification of the divorce judgment (see *Ripp v Ripp,*38 AD2d 65, affd 32 *615NY2d 755). In our opinion, Special Term properly granted summary judgment. In the instant case, unlike *Ripp v Ripp (supra),*the defendant was denied exclusive possession of the marital premises by the matrimonial court. Consequently, partition of the property would not interfere with any judicially created right of occupancy, or compromise the integrity of the judgment of divorce. It is true that the matrimonial court declined to order a sale of the property. However, the court stated its belief that the parties would fare better if they sold the property voluntarily. The judgment of divorce left each party free to exercise whatever rights each had in the property. There is no indication that the court intended to preclude the parties from seeking partition at a later date. We find defendant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Edward Marmol, Respondent, v Steven Green, Defendant, and Ernest H. Kirchman et al., Appellants.

[777 NYS2d 512]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Ernest Henry Kirchman, and New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated April 22, 2003, as, in effect, upon converting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to a motion for summary judgment, denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Ernest Henry Kirchman and dismissing all claims except those claims arising out of the defendant Steven Green’s treatment of the plaintiff insofar as asserted against New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although the appellants demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged malpractice occurred over a substantial period of time before the plaintiff served the notice of claim, and although “it is the rule in the Second Department that the continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable where the interval of time between visits or treatments exceeds the applicable period of limitations” *(Grellet v City of New York,*118 AD2d 141, 149 [1986]), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to the interval of time between visits in the instant case *(see generally Borgia v City of New York,*12 NY2d 151 [1962]; *Doyaga v Columbia-Presbyt. Med. Ctr.,*307 AD2d 333, 334 [2003]).

Moreover, the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that a question exists regarding whether the parties considered that the plaintiffs treatment by the defendants was complete *(see McDermott v Torre,*56 NY2d 399, 405 [1982]). The fact that the plaintiff consulted other physicians at the same time that he was treated by the defendants does not necessarily establish that he lost his “continuing trust and confidence” *(Richardson v Orentreich,*64 NY2d 896, 898 [1985]) in the defendants, espe*683dally since the defendant Ernest Henry Kirchman encouraged the plaintiff to seek additional opinions, and the plaintiff testified that he only consulted other physicians to obtain documentation for his workers’ compensation claim. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C.        SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | Each                  of the                  Reports 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 each of the Reports fairly presents, in                  all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company to which it relates. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                   Anthony J. Alexander                                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                         Anthony                  J. Alexander |
|   |        Chief                  Executive Officer          |
|   |                           November 2, 2005          |

|   | /s/                     Richard H. Marsh                                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |         Richard                  H.                  Marsh         |
|   |                           Chief                  Financial Officer |
|   |                            November 2, 2005                   |

----
915.605 Content of unsolicited proposals. ( b ) ( 5 ) Unsolicited proposals for nonnuclear energy demonstration activities not covered by existing formal competitive solicitations or program opportunity notices may include a request for federal assistance or participation, and shall be subject to the cost sharing provisions of subpart 917.70.
[63 FR 56851, Oct. 23, 1998, as amended at 74 FR 36364, July 22, 2009]
#### 945.170 Providing Government property to contractors.
#### §§ 1000.91-1000.92 [Reserved]
932.407 Interest. ( d ) ( 4 ) Advance payments may be made without interest under cost-reimbursement contracts for construction or engineering services.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kirk M. Warshaw, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Twin Lakes, 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
respect 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 am 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

      c) 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 or not 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.


February 25, 2005                   /s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Kirk M. Warshaw
                                    Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

October 27, 2004 

 

The Premcor Refining Group Inc. 

1700 East Putnam Avenue, Suite 400

Old Greenwich, CT 06870 

 

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information ofPremcor Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated October 27, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-87210 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-111240 on Form S-3. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of theRegistration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

 

*Deloitte & Touche LLP*

Stamford, Connecticut
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul SILVA-SALDANA, also known as Juan Manuel Lopez-Morales, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40455

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, Saul Silva-Saldana 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), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *418the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AUSTIN NABEACK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-3198

[March 2, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 432022CF000222A.

Austin Nabeack, Orlando, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.1

 

SELECT INCOME REIT

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Select Income REIT (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000 for services as a Trustee, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,250 fees are paid if a Board meeting and one or more Board committee meetings, or two or more Board committee meetings, are held on the same date.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $15,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 3,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
8.705-4 Compliance with orders. ( a ) The central nonprofit agency shall inform the ordering office of changes in lead time experienced by its AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies to minimize requests for extensions once the ordering office places an order.
( b ) The ordering office shall grant a request by a central nonprofit agency or AbilityOne participating nonprofit agency for revision in the delivery or completion schedule, if feasible. If extension of the delivery or completion date is not feasible, the ordering office shall notify the appropriate central nonprofit agency and request that it reallocate the order, or grant a purchase exception authorizing acquisition from commercial sources.
( c ) When an AbilityOne participating nonprofit agency fails to perform under the terms of an order, the ordering office shall make every effort to resolve the noncompliance with the nonprofit agency involved and to negotiate an adjustment before taking action to cancel the order. If the problem cannot be resolved with the nonprofit agency, the ordering office shall refer the matter for resolution first to the central nonprofit agency and then, if necessary, to the Committee.
( d ) When, after complying with 8.705-4(c), the ordering office determines that it must cancel an order, it shall notify the central nonprofit agency and, if practical, request a reallocation of the order. When the central nonprofit agency cannot reallocate the order, it shall grant a purchase exception permitting use of commercial sources, subject to approval by the Committee when the value of the purchase exception is $25,000 or more.
[48 FR 42129, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 67136, Dec. 27, 1991; 59 FR 67028, 67029, Dec. 28, 1994; 73 FR 53995, Sept. 17, 2008]
Exhibit 31.1

Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934

                                   ----------

I, Teong C. Lim, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ELECTRONIC SENSOR
     TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company");

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:

     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          Company, 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; and

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal controls, to the Company's auditors and
     the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing
     the equivalent functions):

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to
          adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
          and report financial information; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          controls.


Date: March 24, 2006                       /s/ Teong C. Lim
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Teong C. Lim
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### HOOD v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

(Sueme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Dertment.

January 3, 1906.)

Action by Polly Hood, as administratrix, etc., against the high Valley Railroad Company.

No opinion, ¡tion for leave to appeal to the Court of Apals granted.
#### 919.7005 Eligibility to be a Mentor.

To be eligible for recognition by DOE as a Mentor, an entity must be performing at least one contract for DOE.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

No. 15-1492 

Filed: December 16, 2015 

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

 *

 *

VETERANS HEALTHCARE SUPPLY *

SOLUTIONS, INC., *

 *

 Plaintiff, *

 *

v. *

 *

THE UNITED STATES, *

 *

 Defendant. *

 *

 *

 *

 *

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

ORDER 

On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Without 

Prejudice. Pursuant to the December 15, 2015 Notice, the case is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Susan G. Braden 

SUSAN G. BRADEN 

Judge