alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51c.106 Amount of grant. ( a ) The amount of any award under this part will be determined by the Secretary on the basis of his estimate of the sum necessary for a designated portion of direct project costs plus an additional amount for indirect costs, if any, which will be calculated by the Secretary either: ( 1 ) On the basis of the estimate of the actual indirect costs reasonably related to the project; or
( 2 ) On the basis of a percentage of all, or a portion of, the estimated direct costs of the project when there are reasonable assurances that the use of such percentage will not exceed the approximate actual indirect costs. Such award may include an estimated provisional amount for indirect costs or for designated direct costs (such as fringe benefit rates) subject to upward (within the limits of available funds) as well as downward adjustments to actual costs when the amount properly expended by the grantee for provisional items has been determined by the Secretary: *Provided, however,* That no grant shall be made for an amount in excess of the total cost found necessary by the Secretary to carry out the project. ( i ) In determining the percentage of project costs to be borne by the grantee, factors which the Secretary will take into consideration will include the following: ( A ) The ability of the grantee to finance its share of project costs from non-Federal sources;
( B ) The need in the area served by the project for the services to be provided; and
( C ) The extent to which the project will provide services in an innovative manner which the Secretary desires to stimulate in the interest of developing more effective health service delivery systems on a regional or national basis.
( ii ) At any time after approval of an application under this part, the Secretary may retroactively agree to a percentage of project costs to be borne by the grantee lower than that determined pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section where he finds that changed circumstances justify a smaller contribution.
( iii ) In determining the grantee's share of project costs, costs borne by Federal grant funds, or costs used to match other Federal grants, may not be included except as otherwise provided by law or regulations.
( b ) All grant awards shall be in writing, and shall set forth the amount of funds granted and the period for which support is recommended.
( c ) Neither the approval of any project nor any grant award shall commit or obligate the United States in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved project or portion thereof. For continuation support, grantees must make separate application.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00065

- CR

Charles James Snyder

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 8

o f Tarr ant County (1295355 )

October 2 , 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s

judgment and render a judgment of acquittal. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 43.2(c), 43.3,

51.2(d).

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

________________ Justice Bob McCoy
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     EXHIBIT 27 - 10Q FOR QUARTER ENDED 09/30/96
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0000728376                   
<NAME>     DH TECHNOLOGY, INC.                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         24,036
<SECURITIES>                                   15,080
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,254
<INVENTORY>                                    14,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               72,103
<PP&E>                                         21,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 94,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,301
<BONDS>                                         1,799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       12,978
<OTHER-SE>                                     65,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   94,352
<SALES>                                        87,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               87,257
<CGS>                                          56,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  56,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   80
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                15,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                    5,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             9,705
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    9,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.14
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN PATRICK MCSHEFFREY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-92-76-N)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Patrick McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order closing

his criminal and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)

actions and imposing a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. McSheffrey, No. CR-92-76-N (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 1997). We

deny all of Appellant’s outstanding motions, including his motions

to appoint counsel, for sanctions, to construe this case as a

direct appeal, to clarify, for retention of the record, and to

place this case in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32760

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Colton R. FAULKNER

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 28 August 2024

________________________

Military Judge: Tyler B. Musselman.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 20 July 2023 by SpCM convened at Dover 

Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on 24 August 2023: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 7 months, and reduction to E-1.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jarett Merk, USAF; Captain Michael

J. Bruzik, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel J. Peter Ferrell, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before RICHARDSON, MASON, and KEARLEY Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) 

and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d)
United States v. Faulkner, No. ACM S32760

2

(Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.)). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48927-48932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-44]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-44 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 48928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.052


[[Page 48929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.053


[[Page 48930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.054


[[Page 48931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.055


[[Page 48932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.056

[FR Doc. E9-22947 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Public Designation of Former Namibian Public Officials for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Public Designation of Former Namibian Public Officials for Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Office of the Spokesperson

June 15, 2021

We are announcing today the public designation of former Namibian government officials Bernhardt Esau and Sakeus Shanghala, due to their involvement in significant corruption.  In their official capacities as Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Esau) and Minister of Justice (Shanghala), they were involved in corrupt acts that undermined rule of law and the Namibian public’s faith in their government’s democratic institutions and public processes, including by using their political influence and official power for their personal benefit.

This designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021.  This action renders Esau and Sanghala ineligible for entry into the United States.

The authority also requires the designation of a principal’s immediate family members.  Accordingly, in addition to Esau and Shanghala, we are publicly designating the following members of Bernhardt Esau’s family, who are now also ineligible for entry into the United States: his wife, Swamma Esau, and his son, Philippus Esau.

This designation reaffirms the U.S. commitment to supporting anticorruption reforms that are key to Namibia’s successful future.  The United States continues to stand with all Namibians in support of democracy and the rule of law, and against those who would undermine these principles for personal gain.  The Department will continue to use authorities like this to promote accountability for corrupt actors in this region and globally.

For more information, please contact  INL-PAPD@state.gov.

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of African AffairsBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCorruptionHuman RightsNamibiaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0192

SAT Date: 1/11/2013

Print Date: 5/1/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 3 1 PMN

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: No exposures needed

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0192

FATE: Estimations for typical x=2, y=0, z=0 MW 266 

Solid with MP = 98 C (E)

log Kow = 6.27 (E) 

S = 0.025 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP = 1.0E-4 torr at 25 C (E)

BP = 338 C (E)

H = 9.11E-2 (E)

log Koc = 5.76 (E)

log Fish BCF = 3.81 (E)

log Fish BAF = 6.21 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 90-99 via sorption and stripping

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.96 hr via OH radical

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.70 hr via ozone

PBT Potential: P3B3

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes as the neat material (pchem); 

poor all routes if in solution (pchem); expect very poor oxidation of the terminal double bonds 

because of the low water solubility. No significant health concerns.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value 0.001

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.001

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Neutral Organics; SAR class = 

Neutral Organics; MW 270; log Kow = 7.3; S = 0.00002 g/L at 20 C; pH7; liquid with unknown 

mp (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured concentrations; 

hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs Neutral Organics

SAR Class Neutral Organics

Ecotox Category Neutral Organics

Ecotox Factors Comments: 
 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                        DEP CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except per share data)
                                  (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
                                                          Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended 
                                                              January 31,                   January 31,   
                                                        ----------------------        ----------------------
                                                          1996           1995          1996            1995
                                                        -------         ------        -------         ------

<S>                                                     <C>             <C>           <C>             <C>
Net Loss..............................................  ($1,807)         ($779)       ($2,190)         ($745)
                                                        =======         ======        =======         ======
Shares:                                                 
 Weighted average shares outstanding                      6,251          6,245          6,251          6,243
 Shares issuable from assumed exercise of
   outstanding options................................        -              -              -              -
                                                        -------         ------        -------         ------
Adjusted weighted average shares outstanding..........    6,251          6,245          6,251          6,243
                                                        =======         ======        =======         ======
Loss per share........................................   ($0.29)        ($0.12)        ($0.35)        ($0.12)
                                                        =======         ======        =======         ======
</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.185 Correcting deficiencies in renewal application.

(a) If the renewal application is filed within the time periods set forth in section 9(a) of the Act, deficiencies may be corrected after notification from the Office, as follows:

(1) *Correcting deficiencies in renewal applications filed within one year before the expiration date of the registration.* If the renewal application is filed within one year before the expiration date of the registration, deficiencies may be corrected before the expiration date of the registration without paying a deficiency surcharge. Deficiencies may be corrected after the expiration date of the registration with payment of the deficiency surcharge required by section 9(a) of the Act and § 2.6.

(2) *Correcting deficiencies in renewal applications filed during the grace period.* If the renewal application is filed during the six-month grace period, deficiencies may be corrected before the expiration of the grace period without paying a deficiency surcharge. Deficiencies may be corrected after the expiration of the grace period with payment of the deficiency surcharge required by section 9(a) of the Act and § 2.6.

(b) If the renewal application is not filed within the time periods set forth in section 9(a) of the Act, the registration will expire. This deficiency cannot be cured.

[64 FR 48926, Sept. 8, 1999, as amended at 80 FR 2312, Jan. 16, 2015]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  7
<CIK>                      0000727892
<NAME>                     IDS Life Insurance Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                                       <C>    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         12472475
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                         9537884
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                           9905788
<EQUITIES>                                       3278
<MORTGAGE>                                    3605715
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  108724
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               26401655
<CASH>                                         239039
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                773
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                        2435719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               52924650
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              26079096
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                      0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           71830
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                     0
<COMMON>                                         3000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    2776648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 52924650
<PREMIUMS>                                     151410
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                           1483508
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1785
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 500983
<BENEFITS>                                    1196676
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    234793
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           186389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                519828
<INCOME-TAX>                                   157207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            362621
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   362621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  26387
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            108164
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             106757
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                    0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 27794
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                             0
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-14625 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01072-ACC-GJK

PETER E. WICHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 

 Defendants,

JOHN DOES, 1-5, 

ROBERT E. HANSELL,

Sheriff of Osceola County,

lllllllll Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(January 7, 2013)

Case: 11-14625 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
Before JORDAN, HILL, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of

plaintiff/appellant’s, Peter E. Wicher’s, verified amended complaint filed against

defendants/appellees, Osceola County Sheriff’s Office, Joseph Esposito, John

Does 1-5, Robert E. Hansell, Sheriff of Osceola County, on Wicher’s claims for

substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, his free

speech claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and his state law

claims for violations of Fla. Stats. §§ 112.532.33 (2010).

We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs, and the arguments of

counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-14625 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 2 of 2