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

            -           Reports: NCES Higher Education Trends      

# Reports: NCES Higher Education Trends

NCES issued three higher education trend reports related to grant and scholarship aid, Pell Grant recipients, and non-traditional undergraduate students:
                  - **Trends in Undergraduate Nonfederal Grant and Scholarship Aid by Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics, Selected Years: 1999-2000 to 2011-12**

This set of web tables presents trend data on nonfederal grant and scholarship aid awarded to undergraduate students between 1999-2000 and 2011-12.
                  - **Trends in Pell Grant Receipt and the Characteristics of Pell Grant Recipients: Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2011-12**

This set of web tables presents trends in the receipt of federal Pell Grants and among Pell Grant recipients.
                  - **Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics of Nontraditional Undergraduates: 2011-12**

This set of web tables provides an array of descriptive statistics about undergraduates with nontraditional characteristics enrolled in the 2011-12 academic year.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015604&utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
C. A. No. 78-234.

#### State *v.*Louis R. Ciarlo.

Mr. Chief Justice Bevilacqua and Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Dennis J. Roberts II,*Attorney General, *Faith A. LaSalle,*Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent, *John J. Bevilacqua, Thomas A. Tarro III,*for defendant-petitioner.

The petition to reargue is denied.
The closed cup flash point

with a Koehler closed cup flash

at '100'C. Therefore, the NCS

non-flammable.

FLASH POINT OF PMN NCS

of the PMN NCS ( as a 52%

point apparatus. No "flash"

in aqueous sodium hydroxide

solution w/w) was measured

was detected with temperature

solution would be considered
#### In the Matter of Madeleine Petrara, Appellant, v Thomas Libber et al., Respondents.

[775 NYS2d 590]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Cove Neck, dated October 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated February 14, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The denial by the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Cove Neck (hereinafter the Board) of the petitioner’s application for area variances was a proper exercise of its discretion and is supported by the record. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board correctly applied the balancing test contained in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) in denying her application for area variances *(see Matter of Sasso v Osgood,*86 NY2d 374, 384-386 [1995]). Accordingly, its determination was neither irrational nor unreasonable and was properly sustained by the Supreme Court *(see Matter of Urban Forest Prods. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals for Town of Haverstraw,*300 AD2d 498, 499-500 [2002]).

*533The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, Smith and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### § 1223.22 Shelled pecans.

*Shelled pecans* are pecans whose shells have been removed leaving only edible kernels, kernel pieces or pecan meal. One pound of shelled pecans is the equivalent of two pounds inshell pecans.
#### Finney, Adm’r, *v.*Gilder.

*Action on Promissory Note.*

1. *Judgment by default on achnowledgment of service; when erroneous.*A judgment by default, rendered on an acknowledgment of service by' the defendant, indorsed on the summons and complaint, is erroneous and, on appeal, will be reversed, when the record fails to show.that proof of such acknowledgment, or an admission of the fact of service, was made.

Appeal from Chambers Circuit Court.

The record fails to disclose the' name of the presiding judge in the circuit court.

*Assumpsit*by the appellee against the appellant. The facts are stated in the opinion.

B. B. McCraw and S. E. Rice, for appellant.

Name of counsel for appellee not disclosed by the record.

SOMERYILLE, J.

— The judgment rendered was erroneous and must be reversed. It was a judgment by default, and there was only an *achnowledgment*of service of process indorsed on the summons and complaint. This did not, under the long settled practice in this State, authorize the rendition *197of such a judgment without proof, or admission of the fact of service, appearing of record. ' The record here fails to show that the acknowledgment or signature was proved, or admitted in court to be *genuine.*— O'Neal *v.*Garrett, 3 Ala. 276; 1 Brick. Dig. 138, § 99; *Harris v.*Martin, 39 Ala. 556.

Beversed and remanded.
#### § 1214.1 Act.

*Act* means the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425), and any amendments thereto.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A N I EL SA LI N A S- V A RG A S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50557 D. C . No . 3 : 0 6 - c r - 0 0 6 3 9 - WQH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 18, 2013 ** B e f o r e : T A L L M A N , M . S M I T H , a n dH U R W I T Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . D a ni e l S a l i na s - V a r ga s appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c h a lle n g e s th e e ig h t- m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g th e r e v o c a tio n o f h is s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. S a lin a s - V a r g a s c o n te n d s th a t th e r e v o c a tio n s e n te n c e w a s s u b s tan tiv e ly 

# FI LED JU N 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50557 2 u n r e a s o n ab l e b e c au s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtf a i l e dt o w e i g h p r o p e r l yth e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g S a lin a s - V a r g a s ’s s e n te n c e . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 552 U . S . 38, 51 (200 7). In l i gh tof the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s and the se ct i on 35 83 (e ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s , th e b e lo w - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s u b s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See i d. ; U ni ted States v. G ut i errez- Sa nchez , 587 F . 3d 904, 908 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “ T he w e i ghtt o be gi ve n the va r i ous f a c t or s i n apa rt i c ul a rc a s e i s f orthe di s c r e t i on of

the di stri ctcourt . ”) . S a l i na s - V a r ga s a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e r e voc a t i on p ro cedu re u n d er sect i o n 3 5 8 3 v i o l at es App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 530 U . S . 466 (2 0 0 0 ). A s h e co n ced es, th i s co n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y U ni te d States v . Santana , 526 F . 3d 1257, 1262 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd U ni te d States v . H

ue r ta- P i m e ntal , 445 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 23 -25 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). AF F I RME D.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22527]

[[Page 54748]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

State Energy Advisory Board

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference call of the State 
Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:30 p.m.--4:30 p.m. EST. To 
receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gil Sperling, STEAB's Designated 
Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585; Phone: (202) 287-1644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative 
policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as 
designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Review and update accomplishments of STEAB's Sub-
committee and Taskforces, update Board members on the status of draft 
Resolution 11-01, review possible letters to the Department of Energy 
from the Board regarding the State Energy Program, and provide an 
update to the Board on routine business matters and other topics of 
interest, and plan for the upcoming November 2011 and March 2012 Board 
meetings.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gil Sperling at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must 
be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will 
be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the 
Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site: http://www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 29, 2011.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-22527 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32
  Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
    Form 10-Q Form 10-Q) Form 10-Q
  Dated: August 11, 2008

/s/  John
    C. MaloneJohn
    C. Malone
    Chief Executive OfficerDated: August 11, 2008

/s/  David
    J.A. FlowersDavid
    J.A. Flowers
    Senior Vice President and Treasurer
    (Principal Financial Officer)Dated: August 11, 2008

/s/  Christopher
    W. SheanChristopher
    W. Shean
    Senior Vice President and Controller
    (Principal Accounting Officer)   Form 10-Q
#### In the Matter of Roberta Wien, on Behalf of Herself, Her Minor Child, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Petitioner, v Joseph D’Elia, as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner dated August 10, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to reduce petitioner’s public assistance grant in order to recoup overpayments caused by her willful failure to report other income received by her son. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements and the matter is remitted to the respondent State commissioner for a new hearing not inconsistent herewith. The determination under review was rendered in the absence of a finding of no undue hardship, contrary to the applicable paragraphs of 18 NYCRR 352.31 (d). Although we hold this is not a proper case for a class action (see *Matter of Scarpelli v Lavine,*48 AD2d 899; *Matter of Mann v Lavine,*49 AD2d 879), we have nevertheless remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this memorandum. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### § 1280.238 OMB Control Numbers.

The control number for the information requirements assigned by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is 0581-0198, except that the OMB control number for the nominee background form is 0505-0001.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

V.A.P., 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

J.K.H.-G. AND CYS, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 223 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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

            -           When a Parent Is Incarcerated      

# When a Parent Is Incarcerated

Developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and featured on the Children's Bureau's website, this guide provides information to public child welfare agencies and caseworkers on working with incarcerated parents and their children. Goals of the primer include familiarizing child welfare professionals with the impact of incarceration and providing information to child welfare and correctional systems to help improve permanency outcomes for children.

https://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?event=website.viewArticles&issueid=133&sectionid=5&articleid=3443
###### 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.*

#### § 1416.108 [Reserved]
#### Thomas D’Aloisi, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And Related Actions.)

[776 NYS2d 901]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), dated August 6, 2003, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was to extend its time to comply with an order of the same court dated March 14, 2003, and denied his cross motion, in effect, to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York.

Ordered that the order dated August 6, 2003, is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to extend the time of the defendant City of New York to comply with the order dated March 14, 2003, is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the answer of the defendant City of New York is stricken.

As a result of the failure of the defendant City of New York to timely comply with an order dated March 14, 2003, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike its answer unless it complied with discovery demands, the conditional order became absolute *(see Stewart v City of New York,*266 AD2d 452 [1999]). To avoid the adverse impact of the order, therefore, the City was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the complaint *(see Stewart v City of New York, supra).*The City failed to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the City’s motion and denying the plaintiffs cross motion. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND EDWARD GILL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00577

- RDB

- 1; 1:18

- cv - 01303

- RDB )

Submitted : November 23, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Gill seeks to appeal the d istrict court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for relief from the court’s prior order denying relief on Gill’s 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. In his Rule 60 motion , Gill asserted that the probation officer unlawfully relied on Gill’s prior convictions to designate him a career offender . Because this motion sought to add a new ground for relief in his § 2255 proceeding that challenged Gill’s
sentence , the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) ; see also Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

- 32 (2005); United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 397

- 99 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substa ntial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
A bsent prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the reconsideration motion, which was, in actuality, a successive § 2255 motion

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability3 and dismiss Gill’s appeal. To the extent Gill is seeking authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion , we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.11a

December 20, 2001

Mr. Robert J. Weiskopf
Lightbridge
67 South Bedford Street, Suite 100E
Burlington, MA  01803

Dear Mr. Weiskopf:

The following summarizes the revised terms that we agreed to this afternoon
regarding the $1,661,514 million promissory note Primal Solutions, Inc. owes to
Corsair (a Lightbridge subsidiary).

1.   Primal to pay $125,000 to Corsair by December 26, 2001 for accrued
     interest. Since accrued interest to date totals $185,903, the remaining
     $60,903 of interest due will be added to principal. The $125,000 payment
     should be wired to:

          Silicon Valley Bank, San Jose
          ABA #121140399
          for the credit of: Corsair Communications
          Account #3300143006

2.   Principal balance of $1,661,514 will be increased to $1,722,417 reflecting
     the deferred interest in item 1.

3.   Term of the note extended from May 2004 to December 26, 2004.

4.   For the year 2002 no principal payments will be required.

5.   Monthly interest payments will commence January 26, 2002 at a rate of 8%
     per annum until the note is paid in full.

6.   Equal monthly principal payments will resume on January 26, 2003 through
     the term of the note which ends on December 26, 2004.

7.   If these terms are acceptable, please sign below. (FAX to Rob Weiskopf 781
     359 4560, mail original to Rob Weiskopf, Lightbridge Inc., 67 South Bedford
     Street, Burlington, MA 01803).

8.   Except as set forth above, the promissory note remains in full force and
     effect.

Best regards,                                          Agreed to and accepted:


William Salway                                         Robert J. Weiskopf
CEO, Primal                                            Lightbridge
hereunto duly authorized                               hereunto duly authorized
#### John A. Belskey, appellee, v. Anna Belskey, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,595.

Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Aaron Soble, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.