alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1709.12 Reporting requirements. To support Agency monitoring of project performance and use of grant funds, Grantees shall file periodic reports, required under 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, as provided in this part, and the grant agreement as follows: ( a ) A financial status report listing project expenditures by budget category in such form and at such times as provided in the grant agreement.
( b ) Project performance reports in such form and at such intervals as provided in the grant agreement. The project performance report shall compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal and grant agreement. The project performance report should identify all completed tasks with supporting documentation. If the project schedule as approved in the grant agreement is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds should be discussed. Reports are due as provided in the grant agreement.
( c ) A final project performance report with supporting documentation in such form and at the time specified in the grant agreement.
( d ) Such other reports as the Agency determines are necessary to assure effective grant monitoring as part of the grant agreement or the grant announcement as a condition of the grant award or advances of funds.
[70 FR 5351, Feb. 2, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 76002, Dec. 19, 2014]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMicro coring apparatusA micro-coring apparatus for lunar exploration applications, that is compatible with the other components of the Walking Mobile Platform, was designed. The primary purpose of core sampling is to gain an understanding of the geological composition and properties of the prescribed environment. This procedure has been used extensively for Earth studies and in limited applications during lunar explorations. The corer is described and analyzed for effectiveness.Document ID19900017005Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCollins, David*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Brooks, Marshall*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Chen, Paul*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Dwelle, Paul*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Fischer, Ben*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1989Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-183072NAS 1.26:183072ME-4182Accession Number90N26321Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT-21-002-800Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017005.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
#### § 160.80 Denial of loan of additional standards.

It shall be deemed impracticable under the act to loan additional duplicates to any person who has permitted duplicates previously loaned to him, without security, to become lost, damaged, or destroyed, if in the opinion of the Administrator, such loss, damage, or destruction resulted from any failure on the part of the interested person or his agent to take suitable precaution to prevent the loss, damage, or destruction, or when the available supply of duplicates is deemed insufficient to warrant the loan of additional duplicates to such person.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF
FRANK AIELLO


   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

     In connection with the Periodic Report of Cal
Alta Auto Glass, Inc.,(the "Company")  on Form 10-Q/A
for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, Frank Aiello,  President
of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

     (2.) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the
Company.

Date: October 9, 2008
 By: /s/ Frank Aiello

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

Frank Aiello

President/CEO/Principal Accounting Officer/ Dir.
#### § 1777.43 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest.
§ 160.54 Suspension or revocation of permits. ( a ) Any permit issued to an accredited processor to have naval stores inspected, graded, and certified by a licensed inspector may be suspended or revoked for the failure of the processor, after official notice, to correct any condition which renders his plant unqualified for licensed inspection service, or for repeated or continued non-conformance with any other provision of the act or the provisions in this part. A permit may be suspended for similar non-conformance or failure of shorter duration or less serious nature.
( b ) A permit for licensed inspection may be summarily suspended or revoked by any official authorized to issue or countersign such permits where the public health, interest, or safety so requires or for willful acts or omissions by the permittee which constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of his permit under paragraph (a) of this section. In all other cases, prior to the institution of proceedings for the suspension or revocation of a permit, such authorized official shall cause to be served upon the permittee, in person or by registered mail, a statement of the facts which appear to warrant such suspension or revocation, specifying a reasonable time, depending upon the circumstances in each case, within which the permittee may demonstrate or achieve compliance with the act and the provisions in this part. The permittee may demonstrate compliance by the presentation of evidence in writing or, in the discretion of such authorized official, at an oral hearing. If, at the end of the time allowed for the permittee to demonstrate or achieve compliance, such authorized official finds he is in compliance, his permit shall not be suspended or revoked. If such authorized official finds the permittee is not in compliance, the permit may be suspended or revoked after service upon the permittee, in person or by registered mail, of a notice that such action is under consideration for reasons specified in the statement of facts previously served upon him after reasonable opportunity is given the permittee to present further evidence in his behalf. Within 7 days after receipt of notice of the suspension or revocation of his permit, the processor by letter may appeal to the Administrator for its reinstatement, and may attach to such letter any evidence he may wish to submit.
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 .*

1450.208 Eligible practices. ( a ) Eligible practices are those practices specified in the conservation plan, forest stewardship plan, or equivalent plan that meet all standards needed to cost-effectively establish: ( 1 ) Annual crops;
( 2 ) Non-woody perennial crops; and
( 3 ) Woody perennial crops.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 1730.23 Review rating summary, RUS Form 300.

The RUS Form 300 is available from RUS and shall be used when required by this part.

[86 FR 36198, July 9, 2021]
§ 1753.1 General. ( a ) The standard RUS Telecommunications Loan Documents contain provisions regarding procurement of materials and equipment and construction of telecommunications facilities by telecommunications borrowers. This part implements certain of the provisions by setting forth requirements and procedures. Borrowers shall follow these requirements and procedures whenever using loan funds to purchase materials and equipment or perform construction, unless they have received the Administrator's written approval to do otherwise.
( b ) The typical procedure followed in constructing a project financed by an RUS loan begins with the prospective borrower obtaining the necessary preloan engineering and developing a complete loan application, including an LD (See 7 CFR part 1737). If a loan is approved and all prerequisites to advance of funds are satisfied, the borrower may proceed with the purchase and installation of materials and equipment and the construction of telephone facilities pursuant to this part 1753. Subpart A describes ( 1 ) RUS's general requirements with respect to steps to be taken after the loan is approved and before construction begins (See § 1753.3),
( 2 ) RUS requirements with respect to methods of construction (See §§ 1753.5 and 1753.6),
( 3 ) RUS requirements regarding sealed competitive bidding and negotiated bidding of construction contracts (See §§ 1753.6 and 1753.9),
( 4 ) RUS standards for materials, equipment, and construction financed with loan funds (See § 1753.7), and
( 5 ) RUS requirements for subcontracts and contract amendments covering construction financed with loan funds (See §§ 1753.10 and 1753.12).
( c ) Each borrower is responsible for the construction of its facilities and for the procurement of materials and equipment that are best suited to its needs.
( d ) If contracts, P&S, or other methods of procurement are subject to RUS approval pursuant to the provisions of the loan contract, as implemented by this part, RUS will review the documents or proposals submitted and notify the borrower in writing of approval or disapproval. RUS may withhold approval if, in RUS's judgment: ( 1 ) The P&S or contract will not accomplish loan purposes.
( 2 ) Provisions of the P&S or contract will add unnecessary expense to the project.
( 3 ) The proposal, method of procurement, or P&S do not conform to RUS engineering criteria or construction standards, or if they present unacceptable loan security risks to RUS.
( 4 ) The P&S or contract have been modified.
( e ) The requirements and procedures covering procurement of architectural and engineering services are described in subpart B of this part.
( f ) Single copies of RUS forms cited in this part are available from Administrative Services Division, Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1500. These RUS forms may be reproduced.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39396, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 64 FR 16604, Apr. 6, 1999]
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2008 (the“Report”), I, John L. Flavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date:   May 7, 2008        |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   |                                 |
|   | /s/ John L. Flavin                   |
|   | John L. Flavin                       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer              |
|   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc |

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
 the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
 13th day of November 15, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Garry Stevenson
 Chief Financial Officer
#### THYSON v. THYSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Emily F. Thyson against Frederick 0. Thyson.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### Peter Brent ZAUNER, Petitioner, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Civ. No. 68-584.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

July 8, 1969.

*334Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen. of Or., David H. Blunt and Deane S. Bennett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salem, Or., for respondent.

M. Chapin Milbank, Brown, Schlegel, Bennett & Milbank, Salem, Or., for petitioner.

OPINION

SOLOMON, Chief Judge:

Petitioner was convicted of “committing first-degree murder by killing a woman while attempting to commit rape.” State v. Zauner, 250 Or. 105, 441 P.2d 85 (1968). He seeks habeas corpus relief in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq.

Petitioner was 16 or 17 when he committed the offense. The juvenile court remanded his case to the circuit court. Petitioner claims the applicable statute required the juvenile court to first determine that he committed the offense. The Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the statute differently. It said that “the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction to hold a hearing and determine whether the best interests of the child and public will be served by having the Juvenile Court or an adult court make the determination of whether the act was committed and if so, what should be done with the juvenile.” State v. Zauner, 250 Or. 101, 441 P.2d 83, (1968). The proper interpretation of the Oregon statute does not raise a federal question.

Petitioner contends that the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Oregon statute denies him due process of law. He cites In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). *Gault*guarantees juveniles certain procedural rights at the adjudicator y stage of criminal proceedings. It does not require that those proceedings occur before a juvenile rather than an adult court, or that the juvenile court make certain findings before remanding a case to an adult court.

Petitioner contends he was denied due process when the state court submitted his case to the jury on a felony-murder theory. He asserts that there was no evidence of the felony-attempted rape. A state conviction cannot stand if there is no evidence to support it. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). Here, the State Supreme Court determined that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could determine that Petitioner attempted to rape his victim. 441 P.2d at 86-89. I agree with the State Court.

Petitioner contends that he was denied due process when the trial court permitted him to inspect only that portion of a witness’s notes which pertained to the witness’s testimony. Whatever the merits of this contention, I do not believe it raises a question under the laws or Constitution of the United States.

Petitioner is properly in the custody of the respondent. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is discharged.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNM920000 L13100000 FI0000]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases 
NMNM 110795, NMNM 110797, NMNM 110802

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reinstatement of terminated oil and gas leases.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, 
the Bureau of Land Management received a petition for reinstatement of 
oil and gas leases NMNM 110795, NMNM 110797, and NMNM 110802 from the 
lessee, David Petroleum Corporation et al, for lands in Guadalupe 
County, New Mexico. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied 
by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the 
law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Dupre, Bureau of Land 
Management, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico 87502 or at (505) 954-2142.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued that affects 
the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ 
percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500 administrative 
fee for the reinstatement of the leases and the $166 cost for 
publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met all the 
requirements for reinstatement of the leases as set out in Section 31 
(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM 
is proposing to reinstate leases NMNM 110795, NMNM 110797, and NMNM 
110802 effective back to the date of termination, September 1, 2009, 
under the original terms and conditions of the lease except for the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

Margie Dupre,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.
[FR Doc. 2010-2852 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-73,210; TA-W-73,210A]

                    By application dated August 2, 2010, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on July 14, 2010, and the Department's Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163).                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that there was no increase in imports or acquisition from a foreign country of software testing and quality assurance services by the workers' firm, and that the workers' firm did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a firm with workers eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the production of an article or supply of a service that was the basis for TAA-certification.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners provided additional information alleging the procurement by the subject firm from foreign sources of services like and directly competitive with those produced by the petitioning workers.

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

## Conclusion

                    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department                           ( print page 69469)                        of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of August, 2010.

 Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-28488 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of Helaine S. Brick (Admitted as Helaine Susan Brick), a Disbarred Attorney.

[779 NYS2d 779]

Application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York granted only to the extent of referring this matter to a hearing panel for a hearing and report, as indicated. No opinion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan,

Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
#### § 1726.205 Multiparty lump sum quotations.

The borrower or its engineer must contact a sufficient number of suppliers or contractors to assure competition and so that at least three bids will be received. On the basis of written lump sum quotations, the borrower will select the supplier or contractor based on the lowest evaluated cost.
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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the
date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2017 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 1, 2017



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ David Gladstone               
|David Gladstone                   
|Chief Executive Officer and       
|Chairman of the Board of Directors