alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
970.1707-2 Purpose. The purpose of DOE's Strategic Partnership Projects Program is to— ( a ) Provide access for non-DOE entities to highly specialized or unique DOE facilities, services, or technical expertise, when private facilities are inadequate;
( b ) Increase research and development interactions among DOE's management and operating contractors and industry in order to transfer DOE technologies to industry for further development or commercialization;
( c ) Maintain facility core competencies;
( d ) Enhance the science and technology capabilities at DOE facilities; and
( e ) Provide assistance to other Federal agencies and non-Federal entities in accomplishing goals that may otherwise be unattainable and to avoid the possible duplication of effort at Federal facilities.
[69 FR 75003, Dec. 15, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 36372, July 22, 2009; 80 FR 15519, Mar. 24, 2015]
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

            -           The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance      

# The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance

The report indicates that school-based physical activity may help improve students' grades and test scores and positively affect other factors that influence academic achievement. The report also concludes that adding time during the school day for physical activity does not appear to take away from academic performance.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pa-pe_paper.pdf
§ 1.185 Standards for awards. ( a ) Prevailing party. ( 1 ) A prevailing applicant may receive an award for fees and expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding, or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of the proceeding, unless the position of the Department was substantially justified. The position of the Department includes, in addition to the position taken by the Department in the adversary adjudication, the action or failure to act by the Department upon which the adversary adjudication is based. The burden of proof that an award should not be made to an eligible prevailing applicant because the position of the Department was substantially justified is on the agency.
( 2 ) An award to a prevailing applicant will be reduced or denied if the applicant has unduly or unreasonably protracted the proceeding or if special circumstances make the award sought unjust.
( b ) Excessive demand. ( 1 ) If, in an adversary adjudication arising from an agency action to enforce a party's compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement, the demand by the agency is substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with such decision under the facts and circumstances of the case, the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees and other expenses related to defending against the excessive demand, unless the party has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and expenses awarded under this paragraph shall be paid only as a consequence of appropriations provided in advance.
( 2 ) “Demand” means the express demand of the agency which led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a recitation by the agency of the maximum statutory penalty: ( i ) In the administrative complaint, or
( ii ) Elsewhere when accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilson Jones, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 493]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J), rendered February 23, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that a witness for the Feople improperly bolstered the identification of the defendant in viola*640tion of the rule in *People v Trowbridge*(305 NY 471 [1953]), is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Higgins,*216 AD2d 487 [1995]). In any event, the contention is without merit, since the defendant’s identification was not a disputed issue at trial *(see People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969 [1982]; *People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 552 [1979]).

The defendant’s contention that a comment made by the trial court denigrated him is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886, 887 [1982]; *People v Smalls,*293 AD2d 500 [2002]). In any event, the comment was proper *(see People v Moulton,*43 NY2d 944, 945-946 [1978]; *People v White,*210 AD2d 446 [1994], *affd sub nom. People v Kelly,*88 NY2d 248 [1996]), and at worse, harmless.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not excluded from a material stage of the trial *(see*CPL 260.20; *People v Roman,*88 NY2d 18, 26 [1996]; *People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469, 472 [1991]; *People v Gopaul,*171 AD2d 754, 755 [1991]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50458 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HECTOR MANUEL OROZCO-TARIN, also known as Hector Ortega, also known as Hector Manuel Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-2040-ALL-H

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hector Manuel Orozco-Tarin appeals the 46-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Orozco-Tarin complains that his sentence was enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which allowed the court to impose up to a twenty-year term of imprisonment because he was removed after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Orozco-Tarin argues that the sentencing provision violates theNo. 01-50458 -2- Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Orozco-Tarin thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Orozco-Tarin acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). OrozcoTarin’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Community Financial Shares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Fischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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/ Donald H. Fischer, CEO
|Donald H. Fischer         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|March 31, 2006            

* This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Carroll, Schendorf & Boenicke, Inc., defendant in error, v. I. Gittler, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 33,692.

*634Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Kaplan & Kaplan, for plaintiff in error. Henry M. Hagan, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Peter Siwinski et al., appellants, v. George Staszak, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,884.

Opinion filed January 27, 1930.

Crahen, Sullivan, O’Toole & Sullivan, for appellants; John F. O’Toole and Wm. G. Worthey, of counsel. Leesman, Boemer & Sehnell, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Susan H. Lewis, appellee, v. Farmers’ State Bank of Atkinson et al. appellants.

Gen. No. 7,997.

Opinion filed November 15, 1929.

Joseph L. Shaw, Henry Waterman, Connelly, Weld, Walker, Searle & Crampton, for appellants. Harry. E. Brown and Arthur G. Higgs, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of James A. Dow, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Ernest A. Dow et al., Respondents, v. New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

In a proceeding iby an infant and his father pursuant to statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5), for leave to serve a late notice of claim for damages for personal injury, -loss of services, etc., the New York City Housing Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered March 17, 1964, as granted such leave to the infant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the infant (see *Matter of Pandoliano*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*17 A D 2d 951). If not already served, the time of the infant plaintiff to serve the notice of claim is extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Rabin, J., concurs in the result, adhering, however, to the dissent expressed by him in *Matter of Pandoliano*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.*(17 A D 2d 951).
119 STAT. 3580 PUBLIC LAW 109–168—JAN. 10, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4637:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–168

109th Congress

An Act

To make certain technical corrections in amendments made by the Energy Policy

Act of 2005.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) SUBTITLE I OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT.—The Solid

Waste Disposal Act is amended as follows:

(1) In section 9012, in subsection (a)(2)(D), strike ‘‘or a

regulated’’ and insert ‘‘of a regulated’’.

(2) In section 9003, subsection (i), relating to governmentowned tanks, as added by section 1526(b) of the Energy Policy

Act of 2005, is redesignated as subsection (j).

(3) Section 9014 is amended by striking ‘‘2005 through

2009’’ in each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2006 through

2011’’ in each such place.

(b) TITLE XVII OF ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005.—Title XVII

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended as follows:

(1) Section 1703(c)(4) is amended by striking ‘‘clean coal

power initiative under subtitle A of title IV for’’ and inserting

‘‘Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative for

Fischer-Tropsch’’.

(2) Section 1704(b) is amended by striking ‘‘clean coal power

initiative under subtitle A of title IV’’ and inserting ‘‘Clean

Coal Power Initiative’’.

Approved January 10, 2006.

Ante, p. 1122.

Ante, p. 1120.

Ante, p. 1104.

Ante, p. 1097.

Ante, p. 1098.

Jan. 10, 2006

[H.R. 4637]
If you did not receive all the pages or experience any problems in the transmittal of these materials, please call us at 907-766-2833

SOUTHEAST ROADBUILDER’S INC.

HC60 Box 4800

HAINES, ALASKA 99827

roger@seroad.com

PHONE: (907) 766-2833 

FAX: (907) 766-2832

TO: Lauralyn (“Laura”) J. Remo 

DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

United States of America

FROM: Roger Schnabel

DATE: February 8, 2013

Re: Island Air Express

Mail Certificate – Prince of Wales

Klawock, Alaska

Dear Ms. Remo:

I represent Southeast Roadbuilder’s Inc., a commercial civil contractor on Prince of Wales Island, 

Alaska, dependent upon mail, freight, and passenger air service. It has come to our attention that the 

mail contract serving the Island and specifically Klawock is in the permitting process and Island Air’s 

opportunity to provide this service may be in jeopardy.

This note is to express our support of allowing Island Air the opportunity to share in the mail service for 

the area. Island Air provides a unique service, utilizing the existing airport facility full time. 

Specializing in service focused at the airport has its benefits relative to efficiency/convenience, 

scheduling, safety and service. With IFR capability, freight and mail is consistent and dependable, 

which is critical to our operations. Furthermore, we have found Island Air to be very accommodating 

and have only experienced delays due to weather and safety. It is important to all that we support 

conscientious, service and safety orientated operators, and Island Air has proven itself as this type of 

operator.

We are well aware of other carriers, presently providing mail service to the Island involving cancellation 

of flights due to other priorities, not weather or safety related. By not allowing Island Air the 

opportunity to provide mail service, in our opinion, will subject the Division to a quality of service, less

than what is readily available. 

Only seems right to support those that have your interests in mind, and Island Air has proven that their 

priorities are in the right place, i.e., its customers, and remain convinced you will not be disappointed, 

by having them part of your team.

Sincerely,

Roger J. Schnabel

Roger J. Schnabel

President
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MIRANDA ARTIAGA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72201

Agency No. A078-025-482

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Jose Miranda Artiaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72201

8 U.S.C. 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d

1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s

determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings,

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the

petition for review.

Artiaga did not allege he experienced past persecution or any harm in El

Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Artiaga

failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he fears from gang members in

El Salvador and a statutorily protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d

849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,

1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning Mexicans from the United

States,” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group). Accordingly,

Artiaga’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Artiaga does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as

time-barred or the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in a party’s

opening brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geneva Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, Marcus Johnson, Chief Executive Officer/President/Interim Chief Financial  Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.






Date: January 14, 2011
By:
/s/ MARCUS JOHNSONMarcus JohnsonChief Executive Officer/PresidentInterim Chief Financial Officer
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

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Essentials for Parenting Teens      

# Resource: Essentials for Parenting Teens

This webpage offers evidence-based guidance from experts and parents on the best approaches to parenting teens. The resource highlights articles, videos, and activities for parents and caregivers on these topics: 
                  -  Understanding and adapting to the teen years  
                  -  Coaching teens to recognize and manage emotions  
                  -  Encouraging teen independence  
                  -  Praising your teen  

**Learn more.**
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Greg Cobb, the Chief Financial Officer, of ImaRx Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies:  (i)
    
    the Amendment No. 1 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 of the Company (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and  (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:
April 3, 2008
    
    /s/    Greg CobbGreg CobbChief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.