alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1709.214 Administrator's review and selection of grant awards. ( a ) The final decision to make a grant award is at the discretion of the Administrator. The Administrator shall consider the applications, the ranking, comments, and recommendations of the rating panel, and any other pertinent information before making a decision about which, if any, applications to approve, the amount of funds awarded, and the order of approval. The Administrator reserves the right not to make any awards from the applications submitted. When the Administrator decides not to make any awards, the Administrator shall document in writing the reason for the decision.
( b ) Decisions on grant awards will be made by the Administrator after consideration of the applications, the rankings and recommendations of the rating panel. The Administrator may elect to award less than the full amount of grant requested by an applicant.
( c ) The applications selected by the Administrator will be funded in rank order to the extent of available funds.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13345-13346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04648]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Notice To Reopen Public Scoping for the Homeland Defense Radar-
Hawaii Environmental Impact Statement; Correction

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of intent; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense published a document in the Federal 
Register of February 26, 2021, concerning a public scoping period for 
the Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii (HDR-H) Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS). The document contained an incorrect web address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Toppings, 571-372-0485.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of Friday, February 26, 2021, in FR Doc. 
2021-03449, on page 11735, in the first column, correct the sixth line 
of the ``For Further Information Contact'' section to read: ``https://
www.mda.mil/hdrh.html.''
    On page 11735, in the second column, correct the 19th line of the

[[Page 13346]]

``Supplementary Information'' section to read: ``https://www.mda.mil/
hdrh.html.''

    Dated: March 2, 2021.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2021-04648 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCarbon deposition model for oxygen-hydrocarbon combustion. Task 6: Data analysis and formulation of an empirical modelThe formation and deposition of carbon (soot) was studied in the Carbon Deposition Model for Oxygen-Hydrocarbon Combustion Program. An empirical, 1-D model for predicting soot formation and deposition in LO2/hydrocarbon gas generators/preburners was derived. The experimental data required to anchor the model were identified and a test program to obtain the data was defined. In support of the model development, cold flow mixing experiments using a high injection density injector were performed. The purpose of this investigation was to advance the state-of-the-art in LO2/hydrocarbon gas generator design by developing a reliable engineering model of gas generator operation. The model was formulated to account for the influences of fluid dynamics, chemical kinetics, and gas generator hardware design on soot formation and deposition.Document ID19900016779Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMakel, Darby B.*(Aerojet Technical Systems Co. Sacramento, CA, United States)*Rosenberg, Sanders D.*(Aerojet Technical Systems Co. Sacramento, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryInorganic And Physical ChemistryReport/Patent NumberKFY-FRNASA-CR-183986NAS 1.26:183986Accession Number90N26095Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-34715Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016779.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1795 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1795

 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 
          pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2013

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Schiff) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 
          pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fairness Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION.

    (a) In General.--Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
        402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and 
        (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
            (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is 
        amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and (q)'' and 
        inserting ``subsection (q)''.
            (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
        402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsection (k)(5), 
        subsection (q),'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
            (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
        402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsection (k)(5), 
        subsection (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
415) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and
            (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) of 
section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by striking 
``section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)'' in subparagraphs (C) 
and (D)(i) and inserting ``paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to monthly 
insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act 
for months after December 2013. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the 
Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 
primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into account 
the amendments made by section 3.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of American Community Newspapers Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 (the ‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

By:


/s/ Eugene M. Carr





Dated: November 14, 2007Eugene M. Carr
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)By:


/s/ Daniel J. Wilson





Dated: November 14, 2007Daniel J. Wilson
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


---
(March 15, 1967)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Wersba et al., Appellants. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimants from benefits on the ground that there was a lack of total unemployment. Claimants are husband and wife. Both are in their 70’s and receive Social Security. After apparently retiring from his hosiery business, the husband Charles, worked selling ice cream and other products from a truck. For several years he operated the business which was variously called self-employment by Charles, sole owner by Sally, his wife, and a partnership. The truck, the only apparent asset, was in -Sally’s name because of judgments against Charles. In March, 1964 they incorporated the alleged employer, Rockland Ice Cream Corporation. The sole stockholder and officer was claimants’ son, Morton Wersba. The original cash investment made by him was $735. Sally sold the truck to her son for $750 and this was used by the corporation as claimants had used it before. The date of the transfer was in March. During June the corporation started to buy merchandise according to the testimony and both claimants commenced to draw salaries of $100 per week at this time. These payments continued for a period of exactly 20 weeks, the minimum eligibility period. No other money was taken out of the business by anyone else and there were no other employees. The business was operated out of claimants’ garage. Charles drove the truck and did the selling with his wife helping him on weekends. Sally also bought supplies; received the purchases; loaded the truck; and kept the books. The son was employed full time by a manufacturing corporation as an engineer. His duties in connection with the alleged employer are said to have -been checking the freezers and signing cheeks. The board correctly found that the corporate business was, in reality, merely a continuation of claimants’ self-employment and further that claimants were not totally unemployed while awaiting their seasonal activity. The system set up to protect wage earners- who are unemployed through no fault of their own was not meant to include the payment of benefits to self-employed persons and analogous corporate officials who are idled by seasonal inactivity and we have so held in affirming the Appeal Board (see, e.g., *Matter of Vasquez [Catherwood],*26 A D 2d 859; *Matter of Reitman [Catherwood],*27 A D 2d 678). Claimants operated the same business as before and both drew salaries for exactly 20 weeks, without indication whether the employer was operating profitably or not. Such a scheme and pure subterfuge to obtain benefits cannot be sustained. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.
#### In the Matter of Donald E. De Groat, Appellant, v. Probation Service of Ulster County, Respondent.

Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person and assignment of counsel denied on the ground the order sought to be reviewed is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701, subd. [b], par. 1). Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
§ 15.68 *Ex parte* communications. ( a ) *General.* After proceedings have been commenced, any communication or discussion *ex parte,* as regards the merits of the proceeding or a factually related proceeding, between an employee of the Department involved in the decisional process and a person not employed by the Department, and any such communication or discussion between any employee of the Department, who is or has been engaged in any way in the investigation or prosecution of the proceeding or a factually related proceeding, and an employee of the Department who is involved or may be involved in the decisional process of a proceeding, except at a conference, hearing or review proceeding under these rules is improper and prohibited.
( b ) *Request for information.* A request for information about the status of a proceeding without discussing issues or expressing points of view and inquiries with respect to procedural matters or an emergency request for an extension of time are not deemed *ex parte* communications. When practical all parties should be notified of any request for an extension of time. Communication between an applicant or recipient and the agency or the Secretary with respect to securing voluntary compliance with any requirement of subpart A of this part is not prohibited.
( c ) *Unsponsored written material.* Letters expressing views or urging action and other unsponsored written material regarding matters in issue in a proceeding will be placed in the correspondence section of the docket of the proceeding. Such are not deemed part of the evidence or record.
#### Newport Wine & Liquors, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Hilden Corp., Respondent, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 123 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, in which a judgment was entered enjoining respondent Hildin Liquors, Inc. (sued herein as Hilden Corp.), from "trafficking in or participating in the sale of liquor or wine in violation of Sections 101-bb and 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law”, petitioners appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 27, 1978, which denied their application to adjudge Hildin to be in contempt of court for violating and disobeying the terms of the judgment, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated November 2, 1978, as, in effect, upon granting reargument, adhered to its original determination. Appeal from the order dated September 27, 1978 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order dated November 2, 1978. Order dated November 2, 1978 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, order dated September 27, 1978 vacated, and petitioners’ motion to hold Hildin in contempt is granted. The proceeding is remanded to the referee for the imposition of a fine in accordance with section 773 of the Judiciary Law. Appellants are awarded one bill of costs payable by Hildin. In this proceeding brought by the petitioners pursuant to section 123 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the respondent Hildin was enjoined from selling liquor and wine in violation of sections 101-bb and 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Hildin was served with notice of entry on May 26, 1978 and, upon its appeal, this court affirmed the judgment *(Newport Wines & Liqs. v Hilden Corp.,*65 AD2d 786). Contending that Hildin violated the injunction by selling liquors at a cost below the legally established minimum resale price, the petitioners sought to punish it for contempt. By the parties’ stipulation, the matter was referred to a referee for hearing and decision. The entirely uncontroverted evidence adduced at the hearing established that the employees of Hildin sold liquors at below the regulated minimum price, thereby violating sections 101-bb and 101-bbb of the Aleo*668holic Beverage Control Law. Hildin claimed, however, and the referee so found, that the petitioners were equally culpable and that therefore it would be improper to hold Hildin in contempt. However, this finding has no support in the record. Rather, we conclude that there has been no showing that petitioners violated the minimum price provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Furthermore, the referee’s determination that two of the petitioners were guilty of such misconduct solely by their association with the other petitioners, is improper. Accordingly, the application to hold Hildin in contempt should have been granted pursuant to section 753 of the Judiciary Law. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2339

EMMETT W. CALDWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL; MICHAEL BURGESS, Police

Officer; JOHN DOE, I, Police Officer; JOHN

DOE, II, Police Officer; JANET RENO; JOHN DOE,

III, Police Officer; OFFICER SMITH; MARTIN

DAVID; ANDRELL BAGLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-716-1)

Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 27, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett W. Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmett W. Caldwell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Caldwell’s

case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Caldwell that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Caldwell failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140 (1985). Caldwell has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1717.159 Applications for RUS approvals of mergers.

If a proposed merger requires RUS approval according to RUS regulations and/or the loan documents executed by any of the active borrowers involved, the application must be submitted to RUS not later than 90 days prior to the effective date of the proposed borrower action. A distribution borrower should consult with its assigned RUS general field representative, and a power supply borrower with the Director, Power Supply Division for general information prior to submitting the request.
#### Walter Quillman, Appellee, v. L. F. Cockram, Appellant.

Opinion filed June 5, 1929.

E. E. Smith, for appellant.

D. F. Moore, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action on a note payable to appellee and purporting to have been executed by appellant and others. Appellant was the only one sued and the- trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee.

Appellant says that the only question involved is whether or not appellee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant signed the note in question. *414We have carefully considered that question and are of the opinion that there is ample evidence to support the verdict.

We must say, however, that the question has not been properly preserved, and if we had reached the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict it would be our duty to affirm the judgment. In a jury trial if it is desired to save for review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the losing party must make a motion for a new trial, and, upon its being overruled, except to said ruling, and include such motion, order overruling the same and his exception thereto, together with the evidence, in a bill of exceptions. *Yarber v. Chicago & A. R. Co.,*235 Ill. 589; *People v. Gabrys,*329 Ill. 101.

The bill of exceptions contains the motion for a new trial, but it does not contain the ruling of the court thereon or an exception thereto. For the reasons aforesaid the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1245 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1245

    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2023

Ms. Hageman (for herself, Mr. Zinke, and Mr. Rosendale) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREATER YELLOWSTONE 
              ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the 
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 
Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears 
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (82 Fed. 
Reg. 30502 (June 30, 2017)) without regard to any other provision of 
law that applies to the issuance of that final rule.
    (b) No Judicial Review.--The reissuance of the final rule described 
in subsection (a) (including this section) shall not be subject to 
judicial review.
                                 <all>
```