alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1789.158 Implementation. ( a ) Upon making a determination to go forward with Borrower funding for consulting services, RUS shall initiate a procurement request for a Consultant to provide the services. The government may either contract with a Consultant on a case by case basis or elect to use a Consultant pursuant to an outstanding Retainer Contract. The Borrower will not be informed of the Consultant selected until such time as the government provides the information set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
( b ) If the government determines to contract with a Consultant on a case by case basis, the government shall notify the Borrower of the applicable procedures.
( c ) If the government determines to contract with a Consultant under an outstanding Retainer Contract, the following procedures will normally apply: ( 1 ) Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the government will prepare a draft Task Order requesting consultant services in connection with the review of the Borrower's Application. The draft Task Order shall set forth for the Consultant's review and acceptance, a description of the services to be provided and applicable time frames for the provision of such services.
( 2 ) The government will request that the Consultant: ( i ) Notify the government as to the acceptability of the form and substance of the draft Task Order;
( ii ) Notify the government as to its ability to provide a satisfactory conflict of interest certification consistent with the requirements of the FAR (48 CFR ch. 1); and
( iii ) Provide a cost estimate for the draft Task Order.
( 3 ) When the government is satisfied with the response(s) received pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the government shall promptly provide to the Borrower: ( i ) A copy of the draft Task Order identifying the Consultant;
( ii ) The Consultant's cost estimate for the draft Task Order; and
( iii ) Contract information required to enable the Borrower to develop a Funding Agreement, an Escrow Agreement and an Indemnification Agreement (the “agreements”).
( 4 ) The Borrower shall develop and submit to the government for approval executed originals of: ( i ) The agreements; and
( ii ) A certified copy of a resolution of the board of directors authorizing the Borrower to enter into the agreements and to take such other action as is necessary to effect the purposes of the agreements.
( 5 ) Upon receiving written RUS approval of the agreements and the form and substance of the board resolution, the Borrower shall: ( i ) Establish and fund the Escrow Account; and
( ii ) Provide written notice to the government of the Escrow Account number, the funding thereof, and such other information as required pursuant to the agreements.
( 6 ) After the Borrower has funded the Escrow Account, the government shall issue Task Order(s) for consultant services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicable Retainer Contract.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28840]

[[Page 69917]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-840]

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil; Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: November 16, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse or Hector Rodriguez, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6345 or (202) 482-0629, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 27, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 22107 (Apr. 27, 
2010). The period of review is March 1, 2009, through February 28, 
2010, and the preliminary results are currently due no later than 
December 1, 2010. The review covers four producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an 
administrative review of an antidumping order within 245 days after the 
last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the 
order. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further provides, however, that 
the Department may extend the 245-day period up to 365 days if it 
determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
foregoing time period. We determine that it is not practicable to 
complete this administrative review within the time limits mandated by 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because we require more time to issue 
supplemental questionnaires to certain of the respondents and analyze 
their responses. Therefore, we have fully extended the deadline for 
completing the preliminary results until March 31, 2011. The deadline 
for the final results of the review continues to be 120 days after the 
publication of the preliminary results.
    This extension notice is published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-28840 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.22.1
 
 
WASHINGTON GROUP RETENTION AGREEMENTS

WITH NAMED EXECUTIVES
 
 
EACH DATED AS OF MARCH 14, 2001
 
George H. Juetten
Ambrose L. Schwallie
Thomas H. Zarges
 
 
DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 16, 2001
 
Stephen M. Johnson
 
NOTE:  Mr. Johnson’s Retention Agreement is identical in all materials terms to those entered into with Messrs Juetten, Schwallie and Zarges, with the exception that his Retention Bonus is prorated to allow for the time during early 2001 when he was not in the Company’s employ.  Mr. Johnson returned to the employ of the Company on November 12, 2001.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 1155 V

Filed: March 9, 2015

N ot for Publication

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AMY JUNKER *

*

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* TDaP; Shoulder Injury Related to

v. * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) ;

* Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark Theodore Sadaka

, Englewood, N.J

., for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Vowell

, Chief Special Master:

On November 26 , 2014

, Amy Junker filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

, 2 [ the

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of a Tentanus

Diphtheria

- acelluar Pertussis vaccine ( “ TDaP ” ) vaccination on December 7, 2011

, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1

. The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On M arch 7, 2015 , respondent filed a status report in which she concedes that

petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. S tatus report (ECF No. 13) at 1

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be

posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501

note (2006)) . In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), pe titioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2 006).Specifically, respondent submits “ petitioner ’ s injury is consistent with a shoulder injury

related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ). Petitioner has met the statutory

requirements by suffering the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.

Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all the legal

prerequisite s for compensation under the Act. ” Id . (internal citations omitted).

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that

petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

s/Denise K. Vowe ll

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalytical derivation and verification of zero-gyro control for the IUE satelliteThe International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) satellite was launched January 26, 1978 into a geosynchronous orbit over South America. From its stationary position, the telescope maintains continuous communication with the control centers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and at the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Villagranca del Castillo Satellite Tracking Station in Spain. Since its launch in 1978, the satellite has gradually lost four of the original six gyroscopes in the Inertial Reference Assembly (IRA). In August 1985, the fourth of the original six gyros failed and a two-gyro system developed by NASA-GSFC was uplinked to the satellite and is currently in use. A one-gyro system also developed by NASA-GSFC is ready for use in case of another gyro failure. In the event that the sixth gyro should also fail, a zero-gyro system is being developed. The goal of this system is to provide interial target pointing without the use of gyroscopes. The satellite has sun sensors to provide attitude information about two of the three axes. It relies upon the exchange of reaction wheel momenta to determine angular position and rate of the third axis.Document ID19900004451Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBowles, Tiffany*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Croft, John*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1989Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-100748NAS 1.15:100748REPT-89B00245Accession Number90N13767Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004451.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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 22, 2010, 1:30 p.m. 
to November 22, 2010, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64736.
    The meeting will be held November 29, 2010. The meeting time and 
location remain the same.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 4, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-28467 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### P. J. Breen, appellant, v. Fred Rhoads, appellee.

Gen. No. 8,263.

Opinion filed January 24, 1929.

James Vause, Jr. and Carl D. Niger, for appellant; J. I. Dilsaver, of counsel. R. S. Dyas, and Ben H. Redman, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1775.65 Eligibility. ( a ) Entities eligible for grants must be either: ( 1 ) Private nonprofit organizations with tax exempt status designated by the Internal Revenue Service. A nonprofit organization is defined as any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that: ( i ) Is operated primarily for scientific, education, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest.
( ii ) Is not organized primarily for profit.
( iii ) Uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations.
( 2 ) Public bodies.
( 3 ) Federally acknowledged or State-recognized Native American tribe or group.
( 4 ) Academic institutions.
( b ) Entities must be legally established and located within a state as defined in § 1775.2.
( c ) Organizations must be incorporated by December 31 of the year the application period occurs to be eligible for funds.
( d ) Private businesses, Federal agencies, and individuals are ineligible for these grants.
( e ) Applicants must also have the proven ability; background; experience, as evidenced by the organization's satisfactory completion of project(s) similar to those proposed; legal authority; and actual capacity to provide technical assistance and/or training on a regional basis to associations as provided in § 1775.63. To meet the requirement of actual capacity, an applicant must either: ( 1 ) Have the necessary resources to provide technical assistance and/or training to associations in rural areas through its staff, or
( 2 ) Be assisted by an affiliate or member organization which has such background and experience and which agrees, in writing, that it will provide the assistance, or
( 3 ) Contract with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the grant to provide the proposed assistance.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Davis, Brody & Wisniewski, Appellants, and Temple Emanu-el of East Meadow, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, made on reargument and dated May 19, 1966 [49 Mise 2d 1067], affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order of said court dated March 4, 1966 [49 Mise 2d 251] dismissed, without costs. That order was superseded by the order of May 19, 1966. On September 5, 1963 respondent served on appellants, a firm of architects, a demand for arbitration of disputes arising out of a contract between them concerning certain construction and alteration work, claiming damages in the sum of $50,000. That notice was served as prescribed by CPLR 7503 (subd. [c]), and contained the statement required by that section that, unless the party served apply to stay arbitration within 10 days after such service, he would thereafter be precluded from objecting that a valid agreement had not been made or complied with and from asserting in court the bar of a limitation of time. By letter dated February 11, 1965, *843respondent stated that the amount of the claimed damages would be increased to $290,435.92. In October, 1965 appellants moved to strike from respondent’s demand so much thereof “ as contains new claims ” not asserted in the original demand, on the ground that the “ new claims are time-barred by the 3-year statute of limitations.” In our opinion, appellants’ motion was properly denied. The letter of February 11, 1965 was not the assertion of a new claim, but was merely an amendment of the original claim with respect to the amount of damages allegedly sustained (cf. *Toolis*v. *Naotasi,*240 App. Div. 849). Under such circumstances, appellants could not raise the bar of the Statute of Limitations in court long after service of the original notice of intention to arbitrate (CPLR 7503, subd. [c]; cf. *Matter of Hesslein & Co.*v. *Greenfield,*281 N. Y. 26, 31; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Neithardt],*24 A D 2d 941). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
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 .*

§ 1410.41 Levels and rates for cost-share payments. ( a ) CCC will not pay more than 50 percent of either the actual or average cost of installing eligible practices specified in the conservation plan.
( b ) The average cost of performing a practice may be based on recommendations from the State Technical Committee. Such cost may be the average cost in a State, a county, or a part of a State or county.
( c ) If there is any other sources of cost-share assistance: ( 1 ) A participant may, in addition to any payment under this part, receive cost-share assistance, rental or easement payments, tax benefits, or other payments from a State or a private organization in return for enrolling lands in CRP.
( 2 ) A participant may not receive or retain CRP cost-share payments if other Federal cost-share assistance is provided for such acreage under any law.
( d ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, cost-share payments for eligible seed related to the establishment of approved cover will not exceed 50 percent of the actual cost of the eligible seed mixture.
( e ) Practice incentive payments will not exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of the actual cost of installing the eligible practice specified in the conservation plan.
#### § 1782.15 Mergers and consolidations.

Mergers and consolidations will be processed the same as a transfer and assumption, although approvals by the Agency will give consideration to the differences under the applicable law regarding the type of transaction under consideration and the unique facts involved in each transaction. Mergers occur when two or more entities combine in such a manner that only one remains in existence. Consolidations occur when two or more entities combine to form a new consolidated entity, and the original entities cease to exist. In both mergers and consolidations, the surviving or emerging entity acquires the assets and assumes the liabilities of the entity or entities that ceased to exist.
#### § 1770.25 Unusual items and contingent liabilities.

Extraordinary items, prior period adjustments and contingent liabilities shall be submitted to RUS for review before being recorded in the company's books of account. The materiality of corrections of errors in prior periods shall be measured in relation to the summary account level used for reporting purposes for Class A companies, or in relation to total operating revenues or total operating expenses for Class B companies. For Class A companies, no correction in excess of one percent of the aggregate summary account dollars or one million dollars, whichever is higher, may be recorded in current operating accounts without prior approval. For Class B companies, no correction which exceeds one percent of total operating revenues or one percent of total operating expenses, depending on the nature of the item, may be recorded in current operating accounts without prior approval.

[70 FR 25758, May 16, 2005]
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Violence Prevention 
            -           National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: Camden      

# National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: Camden

Camden recognizes we must break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness—which are often the root causes of violence—by addressing the urgent public safety issues in our community through a comprehensive, full scale, long-term approach to violence prevention.

#### Point of Contact

**Barbara Maronski**Program DirectorCenter For Family Services856-964-1990bmaronski@centerffs.org

## Resources

                        - Camden City Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Strategic Plan  (PDF, 38 pages)

## Main navigation

- Baltimore
- Cleveland
- Long Beach
- Louisville
- Boston
- Camden
- Chicago
- Detroit
- Memphis
- Minneapolis
- New Orleans
- Philadelphia
- Salinas
- San Jose
- Seattle
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 Brampton Crest International Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the six month period ending June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Norcross, Principal Executive Officer of
the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Registrant.





Date:
      August 13, 2010
              By: /s/ Bryan NorcrossBryan
      NorcrossPresident,
      Principal Executive Officer
§ 1789.167 Terms and conditions of escrow agreement. Escrow Agreements between and among the Borrower, Consultant and Third-party Commercial Institution shall be in form and substance satisfactory to RUS and provide for, among other matters, the following: ( a ) Specific reference by number to the applicable contract for services;
( b ) Specific reference by number to the applicable Task Order;
( c ) Specific reference by number to the Escrow Account into which funds are to be deposited;
( d ) Invoices to specifically identify the applicable contract and Task Order(s);
( e ) Funds to be held in the Escrow Account by the escrow agent until paid to the Consultant pursuant to the government's authorization;
( f ) The Escrow Account to be closed and all remaining funds remitted to the Borrower after payment of the Final Invoice, unless otherwise directed by the government;
( g ) The government, the Consultant and the Borrower to have the right to be informed, in a timely manner and in such form as they may reasonably request, as to the status of and activity in the Escrow Account; and
( h ) The Escrow Agreement shall not be effective unless and until approved in writing by RUS.