alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
931.205-47 Costs related to legal and other proceedings.       (h) *Costs associated with whistleblower actions.*          (1)  			Definitions for purposes of this paragraph (h):          *Covered contractors and subcontractors* means those contractors and subcontractors with contracts exceeding $5,000,000.          *Employee whistleblower action* means any action filed by an employee in Federal or state court for redress of a retaliatory act by a contractor and any administrative procedure initiated by an employee under 29 CFR part 24, 48 CFR subpart 3.9, 10 CFR part 708 or 42 U.S.C. 7239.          *Retaliatory act* means a discharge, demotion, reduction in pay, coercion, restraint, threat, intimidation or other similar negative action taken against an employee by a contractor as a result of an employee's activity protected as a whistleblower activity by a Federal or state statute or regulation.          *Settlement and award costs* means defense costs and costs arising from judicial orders, negotiated agreements, arbitration, or an order from a Federal agency or board and includes compensatory damages, underpayment for work performed, and reimbursement for a complainant employee's legal counsel.          (2) For costs associated with employee whistleblower actions where a retaliatory act is alleged against a covered contractor or subcontractor, the contracting officer -          (i) May authorize reimbursement of costs on a provisional basis, in appropriate cases;          (ii) Must consult with the Office of General Counsel whistleblower costs point of contact, who will consult with other Headquarters points of contact as appropriate, before making a final allowability determination; and          (iii) Must determine allowability of defense, settlement and award costs on a case-by-case basis after considering the terms of the contract, relevant cost regulations, and the relevant facts and circumstances, including federal law and policy prohibiting reprisal against whistleblowers, available at the conclusion of the employee whistleblower action.          (3) Covered contractors and subcontractors must segregate legal costs, including costs of in-house counsel, incurred in the defense of an employee whistleblower action so that the costs are separately identifiable.          (4) If a contracting officer provisionally disallows costs associated with an employee whistleblower action for a covered contractor or subcontractor, funds advanced by the Department may not be used to finance costs connected with the defense, settlement and award of an employee whistleblower action.          (5) Contractor defense, settlement and award costs incurred in connection with the defense of suits brought by employees under section 2 of the Major Fraud Act of 1988 are excluded from coverage of this section.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 931.2 - Contracts With Commercial Organizations
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN )

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the Government shall file a written response to the claimant’s

Motion to Strike from Consideration on Trial by Stipulation (Doc. # 39) on or before November

29, 2007.

DONE this 20th day of November, 2007. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 42 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
1514.406 Mistakes in bids.

Parent topic: Subpart 1514.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### In the Matter of Marcelino Gonzalez, Appellant, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Saul S. Sharison, Intervenor-Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements- Ho opinion. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Hunez, JJ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

____________________________________

)

JAMES CALLAHAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the deadline for filing joint stipulations of facts and individual summary

of contentions is CONTINUED from September 26, 2007, to September 28, 2007.

DONE this 26th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 121 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
Home

Getting Started

What's New

Calendar

iLibrary

Help

Feedback

Archives

# Search:

Advanced Search

My IFAP

LoginNew User RegistrationHelp with My IFAP

System & Processing Links - Application

CPS Web Applications Demo SystemFAA Access to CPS OnlineFederal School Code Search on FAFSA on the WebFederal Student Aid Download (FSAdownload)FSATech ListservNational Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) Professional AccessR2T4 on the Web

System & Processing Links - Programs

Common Origination and Disbursement (COD)Direct LoansDirect Loan Electronic Master Promissory Note (MPN)Direct Loan Servicing Online for SchoolseCampus-Based (eCB)TEACH Grant Agreement to Serve (ATS)Teacher Cancellation Low Income Directory

System & Processing Links - Transmission

Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) EnrollmentStudent Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) Mailbox Portal

Participation Links - Application

Audits & Program ReviewsDefault Prevention and ManagementElectronic Application for Approval to Participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Programs (E-App)Experimental SitesG5Quality Assurance ProgramStudent Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) EnrollmentSubmission of Financial Statements / Compliance Audits

Participation Links - Audits

Audits & Program ReviewsSubmission of Financial Statements / Compliance Audits

Participation Links - Programs

Default Prevention and ManagementExperimental SitesQuality Assurance Program

Funding Links

G5

Resource Links

Conferences for Financial Aid ProfessionalsFederal Student Aid for CounselorsFederal Student Aid GatewayFSAPubs.org Publication Ordering

Financial Partners Links

Cohort Default Rates for Lenders and Guaranty AgenciesFinancial Partners DatamartFinancial Partners PortalPostsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS)

Student & Parent Links - Application

FAFSA4casterFAFSA on the WebFederal School Code Search on FAFSA on the WebFederal Student Aid PINNational Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) Student AccessStudent Aid on the Web

Student & Parent Links - Programs

Direct Consolidation LoansDirect Loans - StudentsDirect Loan Electronic Master Promissory Note (MPN)Direct Loan Servicing OnlineFederal Student Aid OmbudsmanTEACH Grant Agreement to Serve (ATS)Teacher Cancellation Low Income Directory

ED Links

U.S. Department of EducationU.S. Department of Education Budget PageU.S. Department of Education Contacts PageU.S. Department of Education Federal Student Aid PageU.S. Department of Education Press Page

Other Links

# iLibrary - Blue Books

Accounting, recordkeeping and reporting by postsecondary educational institutions for federally funded student financial aid programs.

              To view the Blue Books for              current years, click              here.            

## Blue Books                  Archive

### By Year

            - 2001
            - 1999
            - 1995

Plugins & Viewers

Questions/Commentsabout this page?

FOIAPrivacySecurityNotices

WhiteHouse.govUSA.govED.gov

End of Page
§ 945.84 Proceedings after termination. ( a ) Upon the termination of the provisions of this subpart the then functioning members of the committee shall continue as trustees, for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of the committee, of all the funds and property then in the possession of or under control of the committee, including claims for any funds unpaid or property not delivered at the time of such termination. Action by said trusteeship shall require the concurrence of a majority of the said trustees.
( b ) The said trustees shall continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary; shall, from time to time account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of the committee and of the trustees, to such person as the Secretary may direct; and shall upon request of the Secretary execute such assignments or other instruments necessary or appropriate to vest in such person full title and right to all of the funds, property, and claims vested in the committee or the trustees pursuant thereto.
( c ) Any person to whom funds, property, or claims have been transferred or delivered by the committee or its members, pursuant to this section, shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the members of the committee and upon the said trustees.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 11 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 14 -00726- CR

RICHARD ANTHONY SCOTT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1372902

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault of a family member without an agreed punishment recommendation

. O n August 19, 2014, the t rial court sentenced appellant to confinement for sixteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to
be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief and the record was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se

response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 5 03, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Christopher, Brown and Wise

. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
# Subpart 1522.14 - Employment of the Handicapped [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 1522 - APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS
PART 734—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION       Authority:                            Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87–195, 75 Stat. 445 (22 U.S.C. 2381), as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435.                                       734.002-70 USAID policy.    **Parent topic:** SUBCHAPTER F—SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING734.002-70 USAID policy.       In order for an USAID acquisition to be considered a major system acquisition it must meet the criteria of OMB Circular A–109 and FAR part 34, and must have an estimated value of $15 million or more during the first year of the contract. All major systems acquisition must be approved in advance by the M/OAA Director.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 23 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 23 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 23 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 23-2 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 23-2 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 956.7 Registered handler.

*Registered handler* means any person with adequate facilities for preparing Walla Walla Sweet Onions for commercial market, who has requested such registration and is so recorded by the committee, or any person who has access to such facilities and has recorded with the committee the ability and willingness to assume customary obligations of preparing Walla Walla Sweet Onions for commercial market. The committee may recommend, for approval of the Secretary, procedures with respect to handler registration.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131732 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, DARE REDMOND, Personal Representative Justices of the Estate of DERRICK KELLY, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131732 COA: 265760 Washtenaw CC: 04-000036-NO CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant,

and

LOU GIANINO, JAYME TRAVIS, JENNIFER G. NAVALTA, and SCOTT STANISKY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

d1206 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 13, 2006

Clerk
Subpart 1303.1 - Safeguards

Parent topic: PART 1303 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

1303.101 Standards of conduct.

1303.101-2 Solicitation and acceptance of gratuities by

government personnel.

(a) Suspected violations of the prohibition on soliciting and accepting gratuities shall be reported to

the Office of the Inspector General in accordance with DAO 207-10, Inspector General

Investigations.

(b) To obtain legal advice regarding the solicitation and acceptance of gratuities, contact the Office

of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Ethics Law and Program Division.

1303.101-3 Agency regulations.

The Department has issued rules implementing Executive Order 11222 prescribing employee

standards of conduct (see DOC Office of General Counsel Web site).

1303.104 Procurement integrity.

1303.104-4 Disclosure, protection and marking of contractor

bid or proposal information and source selection

information.

Contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information must be protected from

unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR Parts 3, 14 and 15, and CAM 1315.3.

1303.104-7 Violations or possible violations.

Suspected violations of the Procurement Integrity Act shall be reported to the individuals designated

in CAM 1301.70.
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35-2 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 35-3 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 2904.8 - Government Contract Files

Parent topic: PART 2904 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

2904.800-70 Contents of contract files.

(a) The reports listed in appendix A to this part are applicable to the Department of Labor.

(b) HCAs must be responsible for establishing standard contract files for their contracting activities.

The HCA must provide one or more representative contract files to the Director, Division of

Acquisition Management Services, as requested for comment.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John L. Juliano, on Behalf of Evelyn Alberg, Petitioner, v Thomas Murphy, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 682]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Suffolk County indictment No. 1219N-2006.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
§ 1002.21 Description of distinguishing flag. ( a ) The base or field of the flag shall be white, and a replica of the official seal shall appear on both sides thereof.
( b ) ( 1 ) The indoor flag shall be of rayon banner, measure 4′4′′ on hoist by 5′6′′ on the fly, exclusive of heading and hems, and be fringed on three edges with yellow rayon fringe, 21 ⁄ 2′′ wide.
( 2 ) The outdoor flag shall be of heavy weight nylon, and measure either 3′ on the hoist by 5′ on the fly or 5′ on the hoist by 8′ on the fly, exclusive of heading and hems.
( c ) Each flag shall be manufactured in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Military Specification Mil-F-2692. The official seal shall be screen printed on both sides, and on each side, the lettering shall read from left to right. Headings shall be Type II in accordance with the Institute of Heraldry Drawing No. 5-1-45E.
§ 1005.10 How does the Secretary make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through its single point of contact, the Secretary either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with such written explanation of the decision, as the Secretary in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Secretary may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Secretary informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Department will not implement its decision for at least ten days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Secretary has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least ten days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of the unopposed motion for extension (Doc. No. 18),

filed by Plaintiff Leroy Williams and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that said

motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED and that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a

response to the pending motion for summary judgment is hereby EXTENDED to and

including May 8, 2007. 

DONE this 10th day of April, 2007.

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 19 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel Silk, Deceased. Garry G. Blaustein, Appellant; George H. Kaplan, Special Guardian, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to construe the residuary clause of the decedent’s will, the executor appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 27, 1968, as directs payment out of the estate of stated respective amounts to respondent Vosseler for services rendered as Referee in the proceeding and to respondents Kaplan and Eisenberg for services rendered therein as special guardians. Decree modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the allowance of $4,500 to respondent Vosseler to $3,000, by reducing the allowance of $4,000 to respondent Kaplan to $2,750, and by reducing the allowance of $3,000 to respondent Eisenberg to $2,000. As so modified, decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the respective allowances to respondents were excessive and should be reduced as above directed (cf. *Matter of Lorillard,*33 A D 2d 572; *Matter of Lipsit,*21 A D 2d 509, 515; *Matter of Rich,*8 A D 2d 730; *Matter of Wade,*270 App. Div. 712, 731, affd. 296 N. Y. 244). Rabin, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Esther Garramone, Respondent, v Blanche Bernstein, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, Respondent, and Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the State commissioner dated October 3, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed the determination of the local agency to discontinue petitioner’s medical assistance authorization, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 5,1979, which granted the petition and, *inter alia,*ordered that petitioner be given retroactive payments for benefits improperly denied. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that the amount of petitioner’s net annual income exempt from consideration in determining financial eligibility is $2,952. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The agency, in calculating petitioner’s net annual income for purposes of determining her financial eligibility for medical assistance, incorrectly held that there was exempt from consideration the net annual income of $2,900 as provided by statute at the time in question (Social Services Law, § 366, subd 2, par [a], cl [8], as amd L1977, ch 431, § 4)^Rather, it should have used the annual accumulation of the $94 basic monthly need allowance (see Social Services Law, § 131-a, subd 3; 18 NYCRR 352.3) and the $152 local maximum monthly shelter allowance with heat for New York City (see 18 NYCRR 352.3), which would have resulted in an annual exemption of *855$2,952 (see *Matter of Vailes v D’Elia,*77 AD2d 45; *Aitchison v Berger,*404 F Supp 1137, affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890). The difference of $52 per year, or $4.33 per month, must be subtracted from petitioner’s excess income as originally determined by the agency. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 3 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 1350.1 - Extraordinary Contractual Actions    **Parent topic:** PART 1350 - EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS1350.102 Delegation of and limitation on exercise of authority.1350.102-1 Delegation of authority.       (a) The designee authorized to approve requests to obligate the government in excess of $55,000 under the extraordinary emergency authority set forth in CAM 1301.70. Such authority may not be delegated below the secretarial level for requests to obligate the Government in excess of $55,000.          (b) The designee authorized to approve any amendment without consideration that increases the contract price or unit price is set forth in CAM 1301.70.          (c) The designee authorized to indemnify against unusually hazardous or nuclear risks, including extension of such indemnification to subcontracts, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.