alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### U.S. Department of Education **Historically Black Colleges and Universities Master’s Degree Program**

**Annual Performance Report FY**  **2014 Academic Year 2012 -**  **2013** 1 . PR/Award #: _______________________________________ 2. Name of Grantee:

______________

____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Grantee Address:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Name of Project Director/Contact Person:______

_________________________________________________________ Phone: ( ) ________ - __________ Ext: ( ) Fax: ( ) ________ - __________ Email Address: __________________________________________________ 5. Name of Certifyi ng Official:__________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ( ) ________ - __________ Ext: ( ) Fax: ( ) ________ - __________ Email Address: __________________________________________

________ 6 . Reporting Period: From : ____ _/_____/_______ To: _____/_____/_______ (Month/ Day

/ Year ) (Month/Day/Year) To the best of our knowledge and belief, all data in this performance report are true and correct and the report ful ly discloses all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data. Nam e of Project Director (Print): ____________________________________________________________ Signature:

_____________________________________________ ________ Date: _____/_____/_______ Nam e of Certifying Official (Print): ___________________________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date: _____/_____/_______ OMB No. 18 4 0 - 0 813 Exp.

According to the Paperw ork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a val id OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1840 - 0813. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search e xisting data sources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. **If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the tim**  **e estim ate(s) or suggestions for improving this form**  **, please write to**  : U.S. Department of Educatio n, Washington, DC 20202 - 4651. **If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of the form**  **, write directly to** : Frederick Winter, HBCU Master’s Degree Program, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, N.W., Suit e 6153 , Washington, DC 20006 - 854 4.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Johnny Ray

*Johnny Bay,*pro se, on the motions.

Submitted April 9

decided May 6, 1969

The motion by the defendant to stay the proceedings in his appeal from the Superior Court in Pair-field County pending the disposition of other motions related to his appeal is denied.

The motion by the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County for this court to review the action of the trial court in modifying bail is denied.

The motion by the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County for this court to review the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the public defender is denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Richard J. Baum, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 16, 2004         | /s/ Richard J. Baum |   |
|--------|-------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   | Richard J. Baum         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
PUBLIC LAW 115–289—DEC. 6, 2018 132 STAT. 4373 

★ (Star Print) 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4946: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

July 16, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–289 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1075 North 

Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. Win’E Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST TREVOR A. WIN’E POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. Win’E 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. Win’E Post Office’’. 

Approved December 6, 2018. 

Dec. 6, 2018 

[H.R. 4946] 


dkrause on LAP5T8D0R2PROD with PUBLAWS
# C_2015034EN.01001001.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

(Case C-511/14)

(2015/C 034/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pebros Servizi s.r.l.

Applicant:

Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the case of a judgment in default (of appearance), given against the defendant in default of appearance/failing to appear without, moreover, there being any express acknowledgement of the law by the defendant in default/failing to appear;

Is it for national law to decide whether such procedural conduct amounts to non-contestation, for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004/EC of 21 April 2004 (1), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 30 April 2004, which could possibly, under national law, negate the uncontested nature of the claim

1

or

or

Does a judgment in default of appearance constitute, by reason of its very nature alone, on the basis of EU law, non-contestation, with the result that Regulation No 805/2004 applies, irrespective of the assessment of the national court?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).

1

---
# C_2015190EN.01003301.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission

(Case F-131/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of contractual staff - Remuneration - Salary statement - Confirmative in nature - Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary - No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement - Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2015/C 190/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: David Bensai (Müllendorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contractual staff, following the increase in working hours to 40 hours a week as a result of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Bensai shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Bensai shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.

---
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2646 Bronze powder. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive bronze powder shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.1646 (a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* Bronze powder may be safely used in coloring cosmetics generally, including cosmetics intended for use in the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling.* The color additive and any mixture prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of the color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[42 FR 33724, July 1, 1977]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Roger Juhnke, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Tonga Capital
Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 2, 2003


/s/ Roger Juhnke
- -----------------------
 Roger Juhnke, CEO and CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          30,374                  30,374
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  877,807                 877,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,013                  37,013
<INVENTORY>                                  1,364,847               1,364,847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,519,011               2,519,011
<PP&E>                                       1,093,676               1,093,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                 991,352                 991,352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,660,068               2,660,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,942,127               1,942,127
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        29,431                  29,431
<OTHER-SE>                                     688,510                 688,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,660,068               2,660,068
<SALES>                                      1,742,893               3,286,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,809,756               3,355,554
<CGS>                                          825,298               1,554,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  825,298               1,554,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,031,455               2,053,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,912                  51,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (76,909)               (303,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (76,909)               (303,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (76,909)               (303,637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)                   (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)                   (.10)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017144EN.01006101.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-13/14) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/86)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

1

---
#### § 82.1260 D&C Orange No. 10.

The color additive D&C Orange No. 10 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements to § 74.1260(a)(1) and (b) of this chapter. D&C Orange No. 10 is restricted to use in externally applied drugs and cosmetics.

[46 FR 18954, Mar. 27, 1981]
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 201.129 Drugs; exemption for radioactive drugs for research use.

A radioactive drug intended for administration to human research subjects during the course of a research project intended to obtain basic research information regarding metabolism (including kinetics, distribution, and localization) of a radioactively labeled drug or regarding human physiology, pathophysiology, or biochemistry (but not intended for immediate therapeutic, diagnostic, or similar purposes), under the conditions set forth in § 361.1 of this chapter, shall be exempt from section 502(f)(1) of the act if the packaging, label, and labeling are in compliance with § 361.1(f) of this chapter.

[41 FR 6911, Feb. 13, 1976]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENYATTA SYKES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (4:09-cr-00015-F-1) 

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenyatta Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Joshua 

Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen 

Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenyatta Sykes appeals from the district court’s 

October 6, 2014 orders denying his letter motions and motions 

for reconsideration and for other relief and its October 7, 2014 

order adjudicating his motion to amend a prior reconsideration 

motion and for other relief. On appeal, we confine our review 

to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Sykes’ informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s dispositions, Sykes has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s orders.* Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * In his informal brief, Sykes challenges the district 

court’s September 11, 2014 order denying his motion for 

reduction of sentence. To the extent Sykes seeks appellate 

review of that order, we may not review it because Sykes did not 

designate the order as an order for which he sought appellate 

review in his notice of appeal. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 

___ F.3d ___, No. 13-7291, slip op. at 10-14 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 

2014).
39114.

#### BRANDWEIN v. GREENFIELD *et al.*

Decided October 11, 1961.

*609
      *Saul Blau,*for plaintiff in error.

*Moms Janko, W. E. Slade,*contra.

Eberhabut, Judge.

While it would appear from a reading of the petition that if the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants, it had not accrued at the time of the filing of the suit *(Code*§ 67-2002 (3), as amended; *Allen v. Stephens,*102 Ga. 596, 29 SE 443); yet, this is a matter that can be invoked only by specific demurrer or by plea in abatement where it appears on the face of the petition, or by plea in abatement if it does not so appear, or by motion for nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. It is not a matter that will make the petition subject to a general demurrer. *Beavers v. LeSueur,*188 Ga. 393, 404 (4) (3 SE2d 667); *Massee v. Stetson,*27 Ga. App. 89 (1) (107 SE 362). And see *Goodrich v. Atlanta Nat. Bldg. &c. Assn.,*96 Ga. 803 (1) (22 SE 585); *Realty Co. v. Ellis,*4 Ga. App. 402 (2) (61 SE 832); *Cooper v. Ricketson,*14 Ga. App. 63 (2) (80 SE 217); *Nix v. Baxter,*46 Ga. App. 153 (2) (167 SE 115); *610
      *Baker v. Tillman,*84 Ga. 401 (11 SE 355). Consequently, the sustaining of the general demurrer here, which did not point out the prematurity of the action, was error, although in sustaining it the trial judge stated that he did so for the reason that “the suit was brought prematurely . . . and for this reason only, and for no other reason.”

Anything that may have been said in *Rainbow Realty Corp. v. Porter,*104 Ga. App. 420 (121 SE2d 791), concerning the procedure applicable to such a situation as is presented here and which is in conflict with the decisions cited supra will not be followed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*