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 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

            -           Functional Impairment in Delinquent Youth      

# Functional Impairment in Delinquent Youth

This report is part of the Beyond Detention series, which examines the findings of the Northwestern Juvenile Project, a large-scale longitudinal study of youth detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, Illinois. This bulletin specifically analyzes the youths’ functional impairment three years after their release in school, work, home, and community settings. 

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239996.pdf
First Department,

January, 1980

(January 3, 1980)

#### Herbert L. Isaacs, as Executor of Jerome J. Isaacs, Deceased, Respondent, v Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 11, 1979, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action, reversed, on the law, and motion granted, without costs. In the first cause of action, plaintiff seeks to recover $1,300 under a limited medical expense policy that covered the decedent on the date of his death. The policy covered "all indemnities” in eight enumerated areas. Prior to the commencement of this action, defendants had offered the plaintiff $384 in settlement of his claim on behalf of the estate. Immediately after the commencement of this suit, plaintiff was offered an additional $369. Thus, a balance of $547 is actually in dispute under the first cause. In the second cause, plaintiff requests punitive damages of $500,000 for defendants’ failure to make timely payment under the policy. Parenthetically, it should be observed that only four months passed between plaintiff’s claim and his commencement of this action. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause should have been granted. First, no separate cause of action exists for punitive damages which are but an incident of damages. *(Liffman v Booke,*59 AD2d 687.) Second, punitive damages are not awarded routinely for breach of contract. Plaintiff did not make any extraordinary showing that the defendants acted with a disingenuous or dishonest failure to carry out the subject contract. Hence, the plaintiff did not probatively establish any "bad faith” on defendants’ part. *(Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*30 NY2d 427, 437.) Third, the dispute presents a "good faith” difference of opinion as to the meaning and scope of the policy. In particular, the parties disagree as to the import of the contractual term "all indemnities”. Furthermore, an issue is raised as to whether inhalation therapy is covered under the enumerated provision permitting indemnification for the cost of oxygen. *851A factual question is also presented as to whether the hospital double billed for the blood supplied the decedent. In short, the record is devoid of any evidence of misconduct that would support a claim for punitive damages. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
February
      28, 2008





Mr.
      L.
      Scott Wilshire


213
      Park
      Entrance Drive


Pittsburgh,
      PA 15228





Dear
      Scott:





As
      you
      know, your employment agreement with HydroGen, L.L.C. (the “Company”), dated
      January 27, 2005 and effective March 1, 2005, is due to terminate on March
      1,
      2008.





It
      is the
      Company’s current intention to continue your employment with the Company and to
      enter into a new letter agreement with you. To that end, the Company would
      like
      to continue your current employment agreement in full force and effect (the
      “Extension”) until the earlier of (1) May 1, 2008 and (2) the date on which you
      and the company enter into a new letter agreement. Please understand that
      neither this letter nor the Extension is a guarantee of continued employment
      with the Company.





If
      you
      agree to the terms of the Extension, please sign below and return the signed
      letter to me.





Sincerely,





/s/
      John
      J. Freeh





John
      J.
      Freeh


Chief
      Executive Officer








Agreed
      and accepted:





/s/
                Scott Wilshire____________________
            Date:February
                28, 2008L.
                Scott Wilshire
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: Sleep in Middle and High School Students      

# Resource: Sleep in Middle and High School Students

This webpage discusses the importance of sleep in adolescent physical and mental health. The site also explores the recommended amount of sleep for middle and high school students and provides tips for caregivers to support healthy sleep habits in children and adolescents. **Learn more.**
#### § 1250.301 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture or any other officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom there has heretofore been delegated, or to whom there may hereafter be delegated, the authority to act in his stead.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04618]



[[Page 13448]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0003; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-11]
RIN 2120-AA66


Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-12, V-74, and V-516 in the 
Vicinity of Anthony, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA inadvertently published the same final action twice, 
on February 23, 2021, and again on March 1, 2021. FAA is withdrawing 
the second, duplicate publication.

DATES: Effective March 9, 2021, FR Doc. 2021-03879, published at 86 FR 
11859 (March 1, 2021), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting 
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can 
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88eeedecfaedefa6e4edefe9e4c8e6e9fae9a6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="197f7c7d6b7c7e37757c7e78755977786b78377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations 
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    FAA published FR Doc. 2021-02066, at 86 FR 10804, on February 23, 
2021. It inadvertently re-published the same document as FR Doc. 2021-
03879, at 86 FR 11859, on March 1, 2021. Therefore, FAA is withdrawing 
the second, duplicate document.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule 
published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2021 (86 FR 11859), FR 
Doc. 2021-03879 is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-04618 Filed 3-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### *Stephenson’s adm'r.*&c *vs Barnett*&c

Motion.

Case 6.

Error to the Madison Circuit; ©EoitetE Shannon, Judge.

*Constitutional law. Obligation of Contracts.*

'Case stated.

Acts allowing a replevin of two years unconstitutional as to contracts made before the enactment, according; to Lapsley and Brashcar, & Blair and Williams.

Chief Justice dissenting.

April 18.

Turner, for plaintiff; *Brock,*for defendants.

Judge OwsLEy

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The administrator of Stevenson brought; an action at law, against David McAlexander and Wm. Barnett, on a note executed by them to the intestate, the twenty-seventh' of April, 1816, for two hundred and sixty-four dollars thirty-two *cents,*payable twelve months after date, with interest from the date. Judgment was recovered by the administratrix for the amount of the note, with interest and cost, against McAlexander and Barnett, and on the 24!h of July, 1826, thereafter, an execution was issued against their estate, for the amount of the judge ment. The execution was levied on the estate of the defendant, Wm.. Barnett, and on the 5th of September, 1826, he, together with. Joseph Barnett, replevied the debt, by executing bond ■ for the pay* 'ment of the amount, and interest, within thz’ee *months.*

The Barnetts, by whom the bond was executed^ afterwards moved the circuit court of Madison .teo.unty to quash the bond, and the court being of opinion, that instead of being payable within thz’ee months, the bond ought to have been made payable Within two years, quashing the bond.

: The cases of Blair &c. vs. Williams, and Lapsley vs. Brashear &c. 4 Littell’s Reports, are decisive against the circuit court, and the principle adjudged in these cases is still approved.

■ A majority of the court, the Chief Justice dissenting, are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the circuit court quashing the bond, must be reversed, with cost, the cause z-emanded to the circuit court, and the motion of the defendants in error overruled, with cost.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

###### Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 1421

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 1421 appear at 74 FR 15656, Apr. 7, 2009.

#### § 1421.414 Producer request to a DMA for an MAL or LDP.

Peanut producers or their authorized agent may request that an MAL or LDP be processed by a DMA only if the DMA is approved under this subpart to process such a request and only if the producer supplies to the DMA:

(a) *Beneficial interest information.* Beneficial interest must be maintained by the producer according to § 1421.6 for the peanuts to be eligible for MAL or LDP; accordingly, the producer must supply to the DMA such information as it needed to make that determination.

(b) *Warehouse receipts and lien information.* Producers must supply for all peanuts either individual paper warehouse receipts in the producer's name or an electronic warehouse receipt (EWR) number and provider's name. Producers must supply relevant lien information regarding the peanuts; however, the producer's obligation in this regard does not relieve the DMA from making the appropriate lien search.

[70 FR 33799, June 10, 2005. Redesignated at 74 FR 15656, Apr. 7, 2009]
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

            -           Resource: Dating Matters Interactive Guide on Informing Policy      

# Resource: Dating Matters Interactive Guide on Informing Policy

This update to CDC’s Dating Matters online training helps professionals working in the injury and violence prevention field learn about evaluating teen dating violence policies, how they impact the problem, and how to use findings to inform and strengthen public health efforts. 

http://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/datingmatterspolicy/?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### §§ 1260.173-1260.174 [Reserved]
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-0423

IN RE RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,

2020 DDN 253

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 237255

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED— September 26, 2024)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of New York disbarring 

respondent from the practice of law; this court’s July 25, 2024, order maintaining 

respondent’s suspension pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing 

him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and 

respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on August 9, 2021; and it 

appearing that respondent has not filed a response, it is

ORDERED that Rudolph W. Giuliani is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to August 9, 2021. See In re Sibley, 

990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption 

in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption 

should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (“The imposition of 

identical discipline when the respondent fails to object should be close to automatic, 

with minimum review by both the Board and this court.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

PER CURIAM
#### § 1220.121 Promotion.

The term *promotion* means any action, including paid advertising, technical assistance, and trade servicing activities, to enhance the image or desirability of soybeans or soybean products in domestic and foreign markets, and any activity designed to communicate to consumers, importers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, government officials, or other information relating to the positive attributes of soybeans or soybean products or the benefits of importation, use, or distribution of soybeans and soybean products.
#### In re FORTY-SECOND & FORTY-THIRD STS. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate *1116Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

In the matter of Forty-Second and Forty-Third streets.

No opinion. Motions denied. Orders filed.
#### S. J. Groves & Sons Company, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 39914.)

—Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims Judge awarded certain items of damage on the theory that the amounts of damages had been stipulated. We find nothing in the record that may be considered to be such a stipulation. The only sitpulation that was entered into was an agreement to reduce the amount of certain claims made by the claimant. This stipulation is not in any way an agreement as to whether damages were sustained or the amount thereof. The Trial Judge made no findings as to damage or amount, but improperly assumed that this was covered by the stipulation. We affirm the determination that item I was properly established as an extra work claim, and that a breach of contract has been proved under items II and VII. We remit these matters to the Court of Claims for determination as to whether there were any damages sustained as to these items, and if so, the amounts thereof. Claim item III was not established, and it should be dismissed on the law and the facts. Items IV and IX were withdrawn upon appeal, and the judgment awarded thereon should be reversed and the claims dismissed. Except as modified herein the judgment should be affirmed. Any findings inconsistent herewith are hereby overruled and reversed. (Appeal from certain parts of judgment of the Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for breach of contract.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1412.34 PLC yield for additional oilseeds. ( a ) The PLC yield for the farm for additional oilseeds designated by the Secretary will be determined by multiplying the weighted average yield per planted acre for the crop on the farm, as determined in paragraph (b) of this section, times the ratio resulting from: ( 1 ) The national average yield for the crop, as determined by FSA, divided by
( 2 ) The national average yield for the crop for the 1998 through 2001 crop years, as determined by FSA.
( b ) ( 1 ) The yield per planted acre for such designated oilseed on the farm is calculated as follows: ( i ) The sum of the production of the crop for the 1998 through 2001 crop years, as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section; divided by
( ii ) The sum of the total planted acres of the crop for the 1998 through 2001 crop years.
( 2 ) The production of the crop for each of the 1998 through 2001 crop years will be the higher of the following, except in a year in which the acreage planted to the crop was zero, in which case the production for the crop for such year will be zero: ( i ) The total production for the applicable year based on the production evidence submitted in accordance with § 1412.35; or
( ii ) The amount equal to the product of: ( A ) The total planted acres for the crop, times
( B ) 75 percent of the harvested average county yield for that crop determined, where practicable, by calculating the weighted 4-year average of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) harvested acreage yields for the crop using the 1998 through 2001 crop years.
( 3 ) The NASS harvested acreage yield to be used in paragraph (b)(2) of this section will be based on: ( i ) NASS harvested irrigated yield for the crop, if available, for producers who irrigated the crop in the applicable years;
( ii ) NASS harvested non-irrigated yield for the crop, if available, for producers who did not irrigate the crop in the applicable years; or
( iii ) NASS harvested blended yield for all acreage, regardless of whether or not the acres were irrigated or non-irrigated, for all crops in all counties for which the yields in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section are unavailable.
( 4 ) If NASS harvested acreage yield data is not available, the Deputy Administrator will assign a yield to be used in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
( c ) The establishment of PLC yield for an additional oilseed in this section will be permitted using a producer certification of yield. The certification is subject to spot check or verification by FSA at any time. If selected for spot check or verification, the producer must submit evidence as specified in in § 1412.35 to support the certified yield.
[79 FR 57716, Sept. 26, 2014. Redesignated and amended at 83 FR 40658, Aug. 16, 2018]