alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1734.22 Matching contributions. ( a ) The grant applicant's minimum matching contribution must equal 15 percent of the grant amount requested and shall be used for approved purposes for grants listed in § 1734.21. Matching contributions generally must be in the form of cash. However, in-kind contributions solely for the purposes listed in § 1734.21 may be substituted for cash.
( b ) In-kind items listed in § 1734.21 must be non-depreciated or new assets with established monetary values. Use of specific manufacturers' equipment or services, or discounts thereon, are not considered eligible in-kind matching if the manufacturer, or its authorized reseller, is a vendor on the project, the grant writer for the grant application, or has undertaken any responsibility on the grant application, including payment.
( c ) Costs incurred by the applicant, or others on behalf of the applicant, for facilities or equipment installed, or other services rendered prior to submission of a completed application, shall not be considered as an eligible in-kind matching contribution.
( d ) Costs incurred for non-approved purposes for grant outlined in § 1734.23 shall not be used as an in-kind matching contribution.
( e ) Any financial assistance from Federal sources will not be considered as matching contributions under this subpart unless there is a Federal statutory exception specifically authorizing the Federal financial assistance to be considered as a matching contribution.
#### § 1744.208 Rural development investments before November 28, 1990.

All investments made by a borrower shall be subject to the provisions of this subpart, regardless of when the investment was made or whether it has been approved by RUS. Any restrictions required by RUS as a condition to approving a rural development investment before November 28, 1990, shall continue to be in effect to the extent that such investment exceeds the maximum investment ratio or causes the borrower to fall below the minimum total assets ratio.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  462,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                   118,602
<INVENTORY>                                     39,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               486,963
<PP&E>                                       1,352,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                 287,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,772,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,782
<BONDS>                                        520,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,554
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,027,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,772,065
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,577,767
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,027,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               135,862
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                   108,328
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            167,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   167,667
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68


</TABLE>
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 .*

§ 1463.7 Division of class assessment to individual entities. ( a ) In order to determine the assessment owed by an entity, that portion of the national assessment assigned to each class of tobacco will be further divided at the entity level. The amount of the assessment for each class of tobacco to be paid by each domestic manufacturer and importer of tobacco products will be determined by multiplying: ( 1 ) With respect to each class of tobacco, the adjusted market share of such manufacturer or importer; by
( 2 ) The total amount of the assessment for that class of tobacco for the calendar year quarter.
( b ) For purposes of determining the volume of domestic sales of each class of tobacco products and for each entity, such sales shall be based upon the reports filed by domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco with the Department of Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security and shall correspond to the quantity of the tobacco product that is removed into domestic commerce by each such entity: ( 1 ) For cigarettes and cigars, on the number of cigarettes and cigars reported on such reports;
( 2 ) For all other classes of tobacco, on the number of pounds of those products.
( c ) In determining the adjusted market share of each manufacturer or importer of a class of tobacco products, except for cigars, CCC will determine to the fourth decimal place an entity's share of excise taxes paid of that class of tobacco product during the immediately prior calendar year quarter. With respect to cigars, CCC will determine the adjusted market share for each manufacturer or importer of a class of tobacco products based on the number of such products removed into domestic commerce.
( d ) The amount of a quarterly assessment owed by a domestic manufacturer or importer of tobacco products that must be remitted to CCC by the end of a calendar year quarter is based upon the application of the manufacturer's or importer's adjusted market share to the amount of the national assessment that has been allocated to one of the six specified tobacco product sectors under § 1463.5. As provided in § 1463.3, this adjusted market share is determined by the actions of such manufacturer or importer in a prior calendar year quarter. Accordingly, this amount must be remitted to CCC whether or not the manufacturer or importer is engaged in the removal of tobacco or tobacco products into commerce in the calendar year quarter in which it receives notification of the amount of assessment owed to CCC.
[70 FR 7011, Feb. 10, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 17158, Apr. 4, 2005]
2005-0929.

#### Fairchilds v. Miami Valley Hosp., Inc.

Montgomery App. Nos. 20493 and 20542, 160 Ohio App.3d 363, 2005-Ohio-1712. On motion to dismiss appeal as improvidently accepted. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., dissents.

On motion to strike list of additional authorities. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
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

            -           Soft Skills to Pay the Bills: Mastering Soft Skills for Workplace Success      

# Soft Skills to Pay the Bills: Mastering Soft Skills for Workplace Success

The Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy released this collection of career development exercises that aim to improve the "soft skills" of young workers, including those with disabilities.

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/youth/softskills/
#### § 1230.614 Pork product.

The term *Pork product* means an edible product processed in whole or in part from pork.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of Affinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the “PeriodicReport”);

 

1.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

 

Date:  August 3,2005

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe       |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Thomas F. Wolfe           |
|   |   | Senior Vice President and |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or such other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of the written statement as required by Section 906,has been provided to Affinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained byAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Rebecca Walsky et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fairmont Arms, Inc., et al., Defendants. Alwall Construction Corp., Appellant; General Lumber Corp., Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 7, 1966, confirming the report of the Referee in a surplus money proceeding in an action to foreclose a second mortgage, adopting his conclusions and awarding the surplus moneys of about $6,000 to the assignee of the third mortgage, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The judgment of foreclosure directed that the parcel be sold subject to a prior mortgage on the premises held by a named bank, on which $400,000 had been advanced and which sum bore interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The copy of the terms provided that the premises would be sold subject to a prior mortgage held by said bank on which $400,000 had been advanced and which bore interest at the rate of 6% per annum, commencing November 10, 1963. The prior mortgagee was not named as a party in the foreclosure action. Appellant purchased the premises on a sale held on January 9,1964 and, on February 10,1964, it paid $6,000 to the prior mortgagee, as the interest due for the period from November 10, 1963 to February 9, 1964. The purchaser contends that, on the closing, it was entitled to a credit against its purchase price of the $6,000 interest on the prior mortgage which was past due and which should, under the mortgage terms, have been paid off before the buyer came to the closing, and that such $6,000 does not comprise any part of the surplus moneys, particularly in a dispute between the purchaser and the third mortgagee’s assignor whose lien has been eliminated in .this foreclosure action and whose claim is derivatively through the mortgagor. The purchaser did not assume and agree to pay the interest due on the prior mortgage (see, *672e.g., *Silverstein*v. *Brown,*153 App. Div. 677; General Obligations Law, § 5-705, formerly Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1381) but it did purchase the property subject to the prior mortgage and, in our opinion, subject to the interest due thereon. The interest on the prior mortgage was properly payable by the purchaser and not by the Referee *(Bache*v. *Doscher,*67 N. Y. 429; *Al-Dit Realty Co.,*v. *Hefferon,*225 App. Div. 567; *Keller*v. *Quad Realty Corp.,*24 Misc 2d 1051, affd. 11 A D 2d 680; *Termansen*v. *Matthews,*49 App. Div. 163). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and' Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Burton N. Pugach, Petitioner, v. Hyman Korn, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, et al., Respondents.

__Application dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, having become academic by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 17, 1967, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
{"@context": "https://wayback.archive-it.org/16698/20210520142040/http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "item": {"@id": "https:\/\/wayback.archive-it.org\/16698\/20210520142040\/http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/usnationalarchives", "name": "US National Archives"}}]}

















© 2021 Google LLC
Appeal No. 79-97.

#### Savoy Realty Corporation v. L.P.L., Inc.

This case comes before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiff s failure to file a $375,000 bond as ordered by the Superior Court, and on defendant’s motion, pursuant to Rule 16(g), to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

*897
      *Smith & Smith, Inc., Z. Hershel Smith, Edward M. Botelle*for plaintiff. *Longolucco, Lenihan ir Orsinger, James J. Longolucco*for defendant. Order #64.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to file the bond is denied as being moot. The motion pursuant to Rule 16(g) to affirm the judgment below is granted in light of our holding in *Sweetman*v. *Town of Cumberland,*117 R.I. 134, 364 A.2d 1277 (1976).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AYODELE AKINOLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

DAVID SEVERNS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15302

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00681-LRHWGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ayodele Akinola appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing 

certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging race discrimination in his 

employment with the State of Nevada’s Department of Transportation. We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-15302 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review de novo a dismissal for failure to 

state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Akinola’s Fourteenth Amendment 

equal protection claim based on a hostile work environment theory because 

Akinola failed to allege facts sufficient to show conduct severe or pervasive 

enough to alter the terms or conditions of his employment. See Manatt v. Bank of 

Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of a hostile 

work environment claim).

After considering Akinola’s response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Case 

Dismissal (Docket Entry No. 41), we decline to consider Akinola’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim because this court already considered this claim in 

Case No. 15-16066. Akinola v. Severns, --- Fed. App’x ----, 2017 WL 1089547, at 

*1 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 

1 After considering the parties’ responses to the Order to Show Cause Re: 

Jurisdiction (Docket Entry No. 30), we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction.
3 14-15302 

Akinola’s motion for leave to file a late letter brief (Docket Entry No. 38) is 

granted. The Clerk shall file the letter brief submitted by Akinola on March 1, 

2017 (Docket Entry No. 36).

AFFIRMED.
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-trusts.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-trusts.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 1738.107 Additional reporting requirements for Awardees. ( a ) Entities receiving assistance from the USDA to provide retail broadband service must submit annual reports for 3 years after project completion. The reports must include the following information: ( 1 ) The purpose of the financing, including new equipment and capacity enhancements that support high-speed broadband access for educational institutions, health care providers, and public safety service providers (including the estimated number of end users who are currently using or forecasted to use the new or upgraded infrastructure); and
( 2 ) The progress towards fulfilling the objectives for which the assistance was granted, including: ( i ) The number of service points that will receive new broadband service, existing network service improvements, and facility upgrades resulting from the Federal assistance;
( ii ) The speed of broadband services;
( iii ) The average price of the most subscribed tier of broadband service in each proposed service area; and
( iv ) The number of new subscribers generated from the project.
( b ) Awardees must provide complete, reliable, and precise geolocation information that indicates the location of new broadband service that is being provided or upgraded within the service territory supported by the assistance no later than 30 days after the earlier of the date of: ( 1 ) Completion of the project milestone established in the applicable assistance contract; or
( 2 ) Project completion.
( c ) Any other reporting requirements established by the Administrator by notice in the Federal Register before an application is submitted.
ex10-84.htm


Exhibit 10.84


 


TERMINATION AGREEMENT


 


This Termination Agreement (this “Agreement”) is effective as of the 16 day of January, 2013 (the “Termination Date”) by and between William J. Caragol, an individual (“Caragol”) and PositiveID Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“PSID”).







RECITALS


 


A.           Caragol and PSID are parties to that certain Security Agreement, dated September 7, 2012, between PSID and Caragol (the “Security Agreement”); and


 


B.           Caragol and PSID hereby desire to terminate the Security Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and the premises herein contained, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows.


 


AGREEMENTS


 


1.           Acknowledgment of Termination of Prior Agreement.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Security Agreement, each of Caragol and PSID does hereby acknowledge and agree that the Security Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety effective as of the Termination Date and that as of such date all rights and obligations of such parties under the Security Agreement shall terminate in their entirety and the Security Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. Each of Caragol and PSID acknowledge and agree that the terms, provisions, and obligations under that certain Secured Promissory Note, dated September 7, 2012, between Caragol and PSID (the “Note”), shall remain in full force and effect and that this Agreement in no way impacts, alters or amends the parties rights and obligations under such Note.


 


2.           Governing Law.  All questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement, and the performance of the obligations imposed by this Agreement, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to any principles of conflicts of laws.


 


3.           Counterparts; Delivery.  This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto and delivered to the others.  Signatures to this Agreement sent by means of a facsimile machine or other electronic transmission will be deemed original signatures.


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Termination Agreement as of the date written above.


 







 



	
William J. Caragol


 


 


By:        /s/ William Caragol                           


Name:             William Caragol                        


 

	
PositiveID Corporation


 


 


By:         /s/ Allison Tomek                                       


Name:        Allison Tomek                                         


Title:     Corporate Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

NOLAND COMPANY

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 annual Report of Noland Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lloyd U. Noland, III, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Noland Company and will be retained by Noland Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchanged Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Lloyd U. Noland, III

Lloyd U. Noland, III

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004