alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 871.2 Public health and safety exemption.

The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, DOE air shipments of plutonium where the Deputy Administrator determines that rapid shipment by air is required to respond to an emergency situation involving possible loss of life, serious personal injuries, considerable property damage, or other significant threat to the public health and safety.

[42 FR 48332, Sept. 23, 1977, as amended at 71 FR 68734, Nov. 28, 2006]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anibal Reyes, Respondent, v Southern Boulevard Partners et al., Respondents, and Rental and Management Associates et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 17, 1979, which determined that a general-special employer relationship existed between Rental and Management Associates and Southern Boulevard Partners with responsibility equal between both employers and that Rental and Management Associates was one of the employers of the claimant. The claimant was hired as a building superintendent, to perform general maintenance duties in an apartment project owned by the respondent Southern Boulevard Partners (SBP), by a Philip Schorr, one of two general partners of SBP. Mr. Schorr was also the president of the appellant Rental and Management Associates (RMA) which was the general managing agent of the project. Inasmuch as the project was located in a high crime area the claimant was additionally engaged by Schorr to perform security duties. As a building superintendent the claimant received $220 per week and was furnished with an apartment in one of the buildings. As a security guard the claimant received $100 per month extra. The claimant’s paycheck contained the names of both SBP and RMA. The claimant was injured in the course of his employment on March 27, 1977. While in his apartment, he was summoned by a tenant in another building *747of the project where four men were reported loitering. Upon his arrival the claimant escorted two of the four men to their apartment located upstairs in that building. The other two men apparently left the building. While the claimant was leaving the building he was shot by one of the two men who had left. An agreement between SBP and RMA provided that all maintenance employees were to be considered in the employ of the owner SBP. The appellant relies on this provision of the agreement and additionally urges that any hiring done by RMA was done in its capacity as agent for SBP, which should make the claimant the employee of SBP solely. The appellant, therefore, contends the determination made by the board lacks a substantial evidentiary basis. Despite the agreement between RMA and SBP, the dual capacity of Mr. Schorr in relation to both the appellant and respondent, the overlapping of the claimant’s duties in both positions and the names of both employers on his paychecks, as well as the circumstances surrounding his injury, supplied adequate basis for the award made. Neither usage with respect to coverage nor a specific agreement is controlling upon the issue of employment *(Matter of Donoghue v De Carolis,*15 AD2d 602). The decision should be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondent employer and its insurance carrier against the appellant employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
§ 1128.635 Valuation of third-party in-kind contributions. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.306(e) through (j) and 2 CFR 200.434(b) through (g) specifies how to value and document various types of third-party in-kind contributions for cost sharing or matching purposes.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* To implement the OMB guidance described in paragraph (a) of this section as it applies to valuation and documentation of third-party in-kind contributions, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording Section VI of appendix F to this part provides as Section F of FMS Article VI.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions may reserve any paragraph of the wording appendix F to this part provides for Section F of FMS Article VI if the DoD Component determines that there will be no possibility of third-party in-kind contributions under awards using those terms and conditions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SITI-SITES.COM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,094
<SECURITIES>                                     506
<RECEIVABLES>                                     44
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,644
<PP&E>                                           135
<DEPRECIATION>                                    26
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            109
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          15
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,933
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  46
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (917)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (917)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (917)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.071)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.071)



</TABLE>
#### § 780.23 Hearing and decision.

If a timely request for a hearing is made by any party, the Board will proceed with a hearing and decision. If a hearing is not requested, the Board shall prepare and issue its decision on the record.
## ATTACHMENT B: IEPS REPORTING SYSTEM PROPOSED SCREENS 

# FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES **FELLOWSHIPS (FLAS) POSTGRADUATE**  **AGGREGATE DATA**

CFDA NUMBER: 84.015B

IEPS REPORTING SYSTEM PROPOSED SCREENS

## FLAS Project Director - Postgraduate Aggregate Data for Award Number: _________

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 requires that the Secretary of Educatio n assist grantees in developing a survey to administer to students to determine postgraduate employment, education, or training. Grantees are required to administer the survey once every two years and report the results to the Secretary. Click on the Post Aggregate Data link below to access the screen to enter your survey data. Click here to view sample survey questions that you may use. You are welcome to add questions to the survey. The survey will not be administered via IRIS. You should use your own survey process for reaching former fellows. Only the aggregate results of your survey will be reported in IRIS. Click on the List of Fellow s li nk to download an Excel spreadsheet of your fellows. Note that the spreadsheet is a cumulative list of f ellows for successive reporting periods.

Action Award Period Due Date Download Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2010-2011 10/1/2012 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2010-2013 10/1/2014 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2010-2015 10/1/2016 List of Fellows Postgraduate Aggregate Data 2010-2017 10/1/2018 List of Fellows 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)

## FLAS Postgraduate Aggregate Data

Please complete the information below. Click here to view a list of suggested survey questions.
Employment: How many fellows did you contact?
How many responded?
How many are currently employed?
Of the number employed, how many indicated they are using the training they rece ived during their FLAS fellowship?

Please fill in the fellows’ employment sectors in the table below.

Sector Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Elementary or secondary education Federal government Foreign government Graduate study Higher education International organization (in U.S.) International organization (outside U.S.) Private sector (for profit) Private sector (non-profit) State or local government Unemployed or out of job market Unknown U.S. military Total Students Placed Total Students Awarded Degrees 0 0 0 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)Please indicate the languages studies by the fellows who responded to the survey. Language Number of Fellows

Education or

Training: Which degrees did the fellows receive as a result of a FLAS sup p ort ?

Discipline Bachelor's Master's Doctorate

How many received additional degrees or certificates? Bachelor's Master's Doctorate
How many additional degrees or certificates had a language component? How many additional degrees or certificates had an area or international studies component? 

### IEPS - International Resource Information System (IRIS)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN DARRYL PEFLEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL F. GOWER; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35361

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01103-BR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Former Oregon state prisoner Stephen Darryl Pefley appeals pro se from the

district court’s orders denying his post-judgment motions for reconsideration in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

FILED

AUG 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Pefley’s

motions for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) because

Pefley failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263

(setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the underlying merits because Pefley failed

to file a timely notice of appeal from district court’s entry of judgment. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal, including Pefley’s contentions regarding the prison mail system, his

custody status, his military service, or his health problems and nutrition. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-35361
#### Betts *v.*Nichols *et al.*

*Rill in Equity to Remove Cloud on Title.*

1. *Cloud on title; fraudulent conveyance.*— A purchaser at an execution sale of lands fraudulently conveyed by the judgment debtor has a plain and adequate remedy at law, and, when out of possession, cannot come into equity to obtain the cancellation of the conveyaoce as a cloud on his title.

Appeal from Conecuh Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. John A. Poster.

G. R. Earnham, for appellant.

Stallworth & Burnett, and John Gamble, *contra.*

CLOPTON, J.

The appellant, who brings the bill, purchased the land in controversy in January, 1887, at a sheriff’s sale, under an execution issued on a judgment rendered in his favor against Mary A. Crawford by the circuit court. The bill seeks to have certain conveyances made by the debtor prior to the rendition of the judgment declared fraudulent; that the land is subject to the debt of complainant; and that the conveyances be delivered up and cancelled. It has been so frequently held by this court, as to be placed beyond further discussion, that a purchaser at an execution sale of lands fraudulently conveyed by the judgment debtor has a plain and adequate remedy at law, and when out of possession, cannot come into equity to obtain the cancellation of the conveyance as a cloud on his *title.*— Smith *v.*
      *279
      *Cockrell,*66 Ala. 64; *Grigg v. Swindal,*67 Ala. 187; *Pettus v. Glover,*68 Ala. 417. In sucli case, the judgment creditor has an election of two modes of procedure, by bill in equity to test the *bona jides*of the conveyance, or by levy and sale under the execution, and test the validity of the deed by an action of ejectment. The chancellor held the conveyance to be valid. As to this we express no opinion. The decree must be affirmed on the authority of the cases cited above, on the ground that there is no equity in the bill.

Affirmed.
§ 600.161 Termination. ( a ) Awards may be terminated in whole or in part only if paragraph (a) (1), (2) or (3) of this section apply. ( 1 ) By DOE, if a recipient materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an award.
( 2 ) By DOE with the consent of the recipient, in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated.
( 3 ) By the recipient upon sending to DOE written notification setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. However, if DOE determines in the case of partial termination that the reduced or modified portion of the award will not accomplish the purposes for which the award was made, it may terminate the award in its entirety under either paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section.
( b ) If costs are allowed under an award, the responsibilities of the recipient referred to in § 600.171(a), including those for property management as applicable, shall be considered in the termination of the award, and provision shall be made for continuing responsibilities of the recipient after termination, as appropriate.
228 So.2d 313

#### Ulylesses ROBINSON v. Frank J. SHEA, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 50226.

Dec. 2, 1969.

In re: Ulylesses Robinson applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

The application is denied. — On the showing made the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 756 

Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of Representatives 

to the professionalism and dedication of the United States Capitol Police. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida (for himself, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MILLER

of Florida, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, and Mrs. MILLER of 

Michigan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of 

Representatives to the professionalism and dedication of 

the United States Capitol Police. 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police force consists of 

over 1,500 officers who are dedicated to the protection 

and security of the Capitol Complex and its employees 

and visitors; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police continually sacrifice 

to provide safety and security to the Members, staff, and 

nearly 3 million visitors each year to the Capitol Complex; 

Whereas while the United States Capitol Police endure physical and verbal assaults in some extreme cases, the offiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 Apr 05, 2006 Jkt 049196 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR756.IH HR756

CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 756 IH 

cers continue to provide courteous, responsible, and diligent services in an unbiased and nonpartisan manner; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police face many threats 

to their safety and must remain constantly alert for suspicious actions or for failure to respond to requests and 

instructions; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police, as the first line of 

the defense of the Capitol, has shared in the ultimate 

sacrifice in law enforcement; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police are on the front 

lines of the War on Terrorism and remain on constant 

alert against unauthorized access to Capitol buildings, 

terrorism, and other threats to the Capitol Complex; 

Whereas Capitol Police officers stationed throughout the Capitol Complex act in a professional manner and treat 

Members, staff, and visitors with dignity and respect; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police consistently apply 

security and safety measures to all, including Members of 

Congress; and 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police is one of the best 

trained, most highly respected law enforcement agencies 

in the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses its gratitude and appreciation for 

3 the professional manner in which the United States 

4 Capitol Police carry out their diverse missions; 

5 (2) expresses appreciation for the dedication 

6 United States Capitol Police officers have for pro7 tecting the Capitol Complex; and 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 756 IH 

1 (3) commends the United States Capitol Police 

2 for their continued courage and professionalism in 

3 protecting the Capitol Complex and its employees 

4 and visitors. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
EX-4.I.A



 







Exhibit 4(i)(A)




Qimonda AG




München




GLOBALURKUNDE




über




300,000,000 (in Worten dreihundert Millionen)




auf den Namen lautende Stückaktien mit einem rechnerischen Anteil am Grundkapital von je € 2




insgesamt € 600,000,000,00




Nr. 1 bis 300,000,000




	 	 	 	 	 
	München, im Juli 2006	 	Qimonda AG

	 

	 	
	 	
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Loh
	 	Dr. Majerus
INSIGNIA COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC.
                         2626 Cole Avenue - Suite 300
                           Dallas, Texas  75204-1072

                                        September 8, 1997

Factory Outlet Centre Limited Liability Company
c/o The Balcor Company
Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza
2355 Waukegan Road
Suite A-200
Bannockburn, Illinois  60015

     Re:  Agreement of Sale dated as of August 25, 1997 between Insignia 
          Commercial Investments Group Inc. ("Purchaser") and Factory Outlet 
          Centre Limited Liability Company ("Seller") for the purchase and sale
          of property known as the Factory Outlet Center in Kenosha, Wisconsin
          ("Property")

Dear Madam or Sir:

     Under the above referenced Agreement of Sale, the Inspection Period, as
defined therein, expires on September 15, 1997 and the Closing Date, as defined
therein, was set to be October 16, 1997.

     This letter shall confirm that Seller has agreed to provide Purchaser
with additional time to conduct tests, investigations and studies of the
Property, for the purpose and in consideration of deciding, in Purchaser's sole
discretion, whether to elect to purchase the Property, or to terminate the
Agreement of Sale, as provided in Article 7 thereof.

     The Inspection Period shall be revised to end at 5:00 p.m. Chicago time on
October 8, 1997 and the Closing Date shall be revised to be on November 12,
1997.

     Except as provided herein, the Agreement of Sale shall remain unmodified
and in full force and effect.

     If the amendments to the Agreement of Sale provided in this letter are
acceptable, please indicate your agreements on behalf of Seller, where
indicated below.

                         Sincerely,

                         /s/ Michael Horowitz
                         Michael Horowitz
                         President
<PAGE>
Agreed to and Accepted this
  8th day of September, 1997

Factory Outlet Centre Limited Liability Company

By:  Outlet Centre Investors, a member

     By:  Balcor Partners-XXI, its general partner

          By:  The Balcor Company, its general partner

               By:  /s/ Beth Goldstein
                      ----------------------------------
               Name:  Beth Goldstein
               Its:   Authorized Representative
                
<PAGE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of EUREKA R01s.                    

*Date:*                         February 23, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Natl. Inst. of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 664, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859,                         *horsforj@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 20, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-32748 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P