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

            -  Announcements 
            -           Webinar Recording: Enhancing Professional Competencies for Preventing Drug and Alcohol Misuse Among College Students: Strategic Planning      

# Webinar Recording: Enhancing Professional Competencies for Preventing Drug and Alcohol Misuse Among College Students: Strategic Planning

This archived webinar is the third in a series on enhancing professional competencies for preventing drug and alcohol misuse among college students. This episode focuses on strategic planning. The episode discusses the entire prevention effort, including the campus and community context, vision setting, orchestrating a systematic process, and engaging key stakeholders. **Learn more.**
#### In the Matter of Galileo C.B. Ferraris, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Southampton et al., Respondents.

[776 NYS2d 820]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Ap*711peals of the Village of Southampton, dated September 26, 2002, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Carol Stewart-Black for certain area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered April 15, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion *(see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; *Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 444 [1978]; *Matter of Mejias v Town of Shelter Is. Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*298 AD2d 458 [2002]; *Matter of Association of Friends of Sagaponack v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton,*287 AD2d 620, 621 [2001]). In addition, a zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference, and will not be overturned by a court unless unreasonable or irrational *(see Matter of Sposato v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Pelham,*287 AD2d 639 [2001]; *Matter of Home Depot USA v Baum,*243 AD2d 476, 478 [1997]). Any ambiguities in a zoning ordinance must be resolved in favor of the property owner *(see Matter of Hogg v Cianciulli,*247 AD2d 474 [1998]). The interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton (hereinafter the Zoning Board) of the subject zoning ordinance, which resulted in the granting of certain variances to allow the respondent Carol Stewart-Black to construct a new house on her property, was reasonable and rational and the Zoning Board’s action was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

The petitioner’s contention regarding a “total area” variance is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Matter of Trident Realty v Planning Bd. of Inc. Vil. of E. Hampton, Suffolk County,*248 AD2d 545 [1998]; *Matter of Harder v Glass,*234 AD2d 293 [1996]; *Matter of Johnson v Coughlin,*205 AD2d 537 [1994]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### William C. CROMER, petitioner, v. Jim NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 06-1261.

May 14, 2007.

Case below, 455 F.3d 1346.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpacelab system analysis Marshall Avionics System Testbed (MAST)A synopsis of the visits to avionics test facilities is presented. A list of recommendaions for the MAST facility is also included.Document ID19900002486Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsIngels, Frank*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State, MS, United States)*Owens, John*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State, MS, United States)*Daniel, Steven*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State, MS, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 31, 1989Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-183804MSU-EE-FIN-20B-89NAS 1.26:183804Accession Number90N11802Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-36717Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900002486.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
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAdaptive grid embedding for the two-dimensional flux-split Euler equationsA numerical algorithm is presented for solving the 2-D flux-split Euler equations using a multigrid method with adaptive grid embedding. The method uses an unstructured data set along with a system of pointers for communication on the irregularly shaped grid topologies. An explicit two-stage time advancement scheme is implemented. A multigrid algorithm is used to provide grid level communication and to accelerate the convergence of the solution to steady state. Results are presented for a subcritical airfoil and a transonic airfoil with 3 levels of adaptation. Comparisons are made with a structured upwind Euler code which uses the same flux integration techniques of the present algorithm. Good agreement is obtained with converged surface pressure coefficients. The lift coefficients of the adaptive code are within 2 1/2 percent of the structured code for the sub-critical case and within 4 1/2 percent of the structured code for the transonic case using approximately one-third the number of grid points.Document ID19900012255Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsWarren, Gary Patrick*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State, MS, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186533NAS 1.26:186533Accession Number90N21571Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012255.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
§ 1735.75 Interim financing. ( a ) A borrower may submit a written request for RUS approval of interim financing if it is necessary to close an acquisition before the loan to finance the acquisition is approved. Loan funds shall not be used to reimburse acquisition costs unless RUS has granted approval of interim financing prior to the closing of the acquisition.
( b ) RUS will approve interim financing of acquisitions only in cases where loan funds cannot be made available in time for the closing.
( c ) RUS will not approve interim financing unless the following information is acceptable: ( 1 ) A written request for approval of interim financing, including a brief description of the acquisition, an explanation of the urgency of proceeding with the acquisition, and the source of funds to be used.
( 2 ) A completed RUS Form 490, “Application for Telephone Loan or Loan Guarantee.” See 7 CFR part 1737.
( 3 ) The portions of the Loan Design that cover the proposed acquisition, including cost estimates and information on any investments in nonrural areas. See 7 CFR 1737.
( 4 ) The information required in § 1735.74 (a)(1) through (a)(8), (a)(14) and (b)(1).
( 5 ) Any other data deemed necessary by the Administrator to approve the interim financing of the acquisition.
( d ) Furthermore, RUS will not approve interim financing if, in RUS's judgment, the proposed acquisition will not qualify for RUS financing or the proposed interim financing presents unacceptable loan security risks to RUS.
( e ) Because RUS approval of interim financing is not a commitment to make a loan, RUS will not approve interim financing unless the borrower is prepared to assume responsibility for financing all obligations incurred.
( f ) If the borrower plans to proceed with the closing after receiving RUS approval of interim financing, it must first receive preliminary approval from RUS. See § 1735.90
( g ) See 7 CFR part 1737 for regulations on interim financing for construction.
( h ) See 7 CFR part 1744, subpart B for conditions under which RUS will provide shared first lien and/or a lien accommodation for non-RUS lenders.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony J. Donahue et al., Appellants, v. American Radiator & Standard Corporation et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied an award for benefits to infant claimants, claiming to be acknowledged illegitimate dependent children of the deceased employee. The decedent employee died on August 23, 1961 of causes related to silicosis arising from his employment for which the employer has been held liable. The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the infant claimants are acknowledged illegitimate dependent children of the deceased employee. For many years prior to his death he was separated from his wife and lived with another woman who was also married, -and neither of them were legally separated or divorced. Two children, born to the woman, thus living with the decedent, are the claimants here. One child was born November 17, 1952 and the other November 6, 1955. The births of the children were duly registered as the legal children of the mother and her legal husband. The mother of the infant claimants testified that her legal husband was still living in the same city in which she lived, and that she had seen him “ at a funeral about three and one-half years ago ”. She further testified that she and her husband had not lived as husband and wife, since April, 1950. The board was not bound as a matter of law to accept her testimony as true. *(Matter of Searpullo*v. *Alba Barber Shop,*18 A D 2d 1122.) A child born during wedlock is presumed to be the legal child of the husband and wife, unless competent proof establishes non-access by the husband. The board’s finding that the presumption of legitimacy has not been overcome by the infant claimants, is supported by substantial evidence, and should not be disturbed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Staley, Jr., J.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00269-CR

Edward Garcia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-13-0715, THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due September 15, 2014. Appellant has filed two

motions requesting an extension of time to file the brief, which this Court granted. In granting the

last extension, this Court advised appellant that no further extensions would be granted. Appellant

has now filed a third motion requesting a 45-day extension of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief is granted in part.

Appellant’s counsel, Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez, is ordered to tender a brief in this cause no later than

January 15, 2015. Failure to file the brief by that date may result in counsel being called before this

Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for violating this order.

It is so ordered on this the 16th day of December, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Do Not Publish
#### § 1209.304 Subagents.

The referendum agent may appoint any individual or individuals deemed necessary or desirable to assist the agent in performing such agent's functions hereunder. Each individual so appointed may be authorized by the agent to perform any or all of the functions which, in the absence of such appointment, shall be performed by the agent.
§ 1767.71 Periods of retention. ( a ) Records of Rural Development borrowers of a kind not listed in the FERC regulations should be governed by those applicable to the closest similar records. Financial requirement and expenditure statements, which are not specifically covered by FERC regulations, are recommended to be kept for one year after the “as of date” of Rural Development's loan fund and accounting review.
( b ) Consumer accounts' records should be kept for those years for which patronage capital has not been allocated.
( c ) Records supporting construction financed by Rural Development shall be retained until audited and approved by Rural Development.
( d ) Records related to plant in service must be retained until the facilities are permanently removed from utility service, all removal and restoration activities are completed, and all costs are retired from the accounting records unless accounting adjustments resulting from reclassification and original costs studies have been approved by Rural Development or other regulatory body having jurisdiction.
( e ) Life and mortality study data for depreciation purposes must be retained for 25 years or for 10 years after plant is retired, whichever is longer.
(April 14, 1980)

#### In the Matter of John W. Jennings, Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on June 13, 1962. By decision dated December 10, 1974, he was censured by this court *(Matter of Jennings,*46 AD2d 932). In the present disciplinary proceeding, petitioner moves to confirm in part and to disaffirm in part the report of the Judge to whom the issues were referred. Respondent requests that we confirm the findings which are favorable to him and disaffirm those which are unfavorable. The petition contains three charges of professional misconduct. The Hearing Judge sustained two of the charges, finding that respondent used, without authority, moneys of a memorial fund (Charge No. 2) and neglected the prosecution of an appeal in a criminal matter (Charge No. 3). After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the record supports the findings of the Hearing Judge. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted. In mitigation, we note that the moneys of the memorial fund were subsequently returned by respondent. The Hearing Judge refused to sustain the charge that respondent failed to return an unearned fee to his client (Charge No. 1). We concur. However, we find that after respondent agreed to return a portion of the fee, his delay of approximately 22 months in so doing constitutes misconduct. As for the sanction to be imposed, while we cannot condone respondent’s actions and will deal vigorously with any subsequent dereliction, we have concluded that a severe censure is the appropriate measure of discipline in this matter. Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.
2005-1789.

#### State ex rel. John Q. Public v. Etna Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. On relator’s motion for leave to file a redacted affidavit and answer of respondents. Motion for leave granted. Alternative writ granted.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would also request briefing on whether John Q. Public is a person capable of suing or being sued.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2358** 

THOMASINA C. LACEY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00521

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : April 23, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thom asina C. Lacey, Appellant Pro Se. Hope B. Eastman, Arthur G. House, PALEY, ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN, ROSENBERG, EIG & COOPER, CHTD, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomasina C. L acey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her employment discrimination complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because Lacey could amend her complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the order she seeks to appeal is interlocu tory and not appealable
. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1132

In re: PHILIP JAY FETNER , Appellant

. PJF LIMITED (FAMILY) PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Coachman Farms, d/b/a Golden Zebra , Debtor ,

v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT 2017

- 19

- TT , Creditor,
THOMAS P. GORMAN , Trustee

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00937

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : November 30, 2023 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Philip Jay Fetner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Philip Jay Fetner seeks to appeal the district court’s order referring him to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for a possible criminal contempt prosecution . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because the district court has not found Fetner to be in contempt, nor has it imposed any other sanction, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. See Adkins v. Christie , 227 F. App’x 804, 806 (11th Cir. 2007); Tea ford v. Ford Motor Co. , 338 F.3d 1179, 11 81

- 82 (10th Cir. 2003); United States v. McCorkle , 321 F.3d 1292, 1298

- 99 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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 .*

§ 1436.11 Disbursements and assignments. ( a ) At the request of the borrower, one partial disbursement of loan principal and one final loan disbursement will be available. The partial loan disbursement will be made to facilitate the purchase and construction of an eligible facility and will be made after the approved applicant has completed construction on part of the structure. County FSA personnel will inspect and verify the amount of construction completed. ( 1 ) The amount of the partial loan disbursement will be determined by CCC and made after the borrower provides acceptable documentation for that portion of the completed construction to the County Committee.
( 2 ) Security required for the amount of the partial loan disbursement will be required before the partial loan disbursement is finalized.
( 3 ) The final disbursement of the loan by CCC will be made after the facility has been completely and fully delivered, erected, constructed, assembled, or installed and a CCC representative has inspected and approved such facility.
( 4 ) All additional security needed to fully secure both the partial and final loan disbursements must be received before the final loan disbursement.
( b ) Both the partial and final loan disbursements will be made only if the borrower furnishes satisfactory evidence of the total cost of the facility and payment of all debts on the facility in excess of the amount of the loan. If deemed appropriate by CCC, the partial and final disbursement may have separate notes and separate security instruments.
( c ) Both the partial and final loan disbursement will be made jointly to the borrower and the contractor or supplier, except disbursement may be made to the borrower solely where CCC determines, based upon information made available to CCC by the borrower, that the borrower has paid the contractor or supplier all amounts that are due and owing with respect to the facility and that all applicable liens, security interests, or other encumbrances have been released.
( d ) A release of liability will be required from all contractors and suppliers providing goods and services to the loan applicant.
( e ) Loan proceeds cannot be assigned.
( f ) For sugar storage facility loans, only one disbursement will be made and such disbursement will be regarded as a final disbursement.
[74 FR 41591, Aug. 18, 2009, as amended at 81 FR 25595, Apr. 29, 2016]