alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 17 
          - [FAR Case 99-004] 
          - RIN 9000-AI42 

# AGENCIES:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                            The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) agreed to withdraw FAR case 99-004, Executive Agent, because it is no longer necessary. The proposed rule was published in the                             **Federal Register**                             at 64 FR 44100, August 12, 1999.                         

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ralph De Stefano, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-1758. Please cite FAR case 99-004, withdrawal. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## A. Background

                        The rule which was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         at 64 FR 44100, August 12, 1999, proposed amending FAR part 17 to add another example of an interagency acquisition that is not subject to the Economy Act. This rule is being withdrawn because it is no longer necessary.                     

# List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 17

      - Government procurement

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Edward C. Loeb, 

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 00-12868 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-U
Submitted on record and briefs December 16, 1992,

reversed and remanded February 3, 1993

#### EDWARD E. ALLEN, *Appellant, v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(92C11365; CA A76017)

848 P2d 616

Garrett A. Richardson, Multnomah Defenders, Inc., Portland, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*106PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The state concedes that the court erred. We accept the state’s concession.

Reversed and remanded.
1 | Regional Standards Enforcement Working Group DiscussionRegional StandardsEnforcement Working GroupProhibited Act2 | Regional Standards Enforcement Working Group DiscussionEISA added prohibited actItshallbeunlawfulforanymanufacturerorprivatelabelertoknowinglysellaproducttoadistributor,contractor,ordealerwithknowledgethattheentityroutinelyviolatesanyregionalstandardapplicabletotheproduct.42USC§ 6302(a)(6)3 | Regional Standards Enforcement Working Group Discussion(1) thehavingofactualknowledge,or(2)thepresumedhavingofknowledgedeemedtobepossessedbyareasonablemanwhoactsinthecircumstances,includingknowledgeobtainableupontheexerciseofduecare.See42USC§ 6303(b)“Knowingly” defined in EPCA4 | Regional Standards Enforcement Working Group Discussion• “routinely”• “violates”“routinely violates”5 | Regional Standards Enforcement Working Group DiscussionEnforcement ideas
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-156144, 333-153080, 333-118269, 333-118245, 333-88076, 333-53715, 333-87775, 333-87803, 333-49106, and 333-110243 on Form S-8 and 333-73157 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 26, 2009,relating to the consolidated financial statements of Louisiana-Pacific Corporations (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 157, *Fair Value Measurements,* as of January 1, 2008 with respect to the Company’s recurring financial assets and liabilities, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting forDefined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)* as of December 31, 2008 for the measurement date provisions and as of December 31, 2006 for the recognition anddisclosure provisions, Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109* on January 1, 2007, and Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment* on January 1, 2006), and our report dated February 26, 2009 relating to the effectiveness of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 

Nashville, Tennessee 

February 26, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Statement of Operations and Balance Sheet and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             265
<SECURITIES>                                   119,896
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,535
<INVENTORY>                                     45,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,846
<PP&E>                                         418,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,454
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,692
<OTHER-SE>                                     298,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,514
<SALES>                                        347,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               365,857
<CGS>                                          200,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  248,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,142
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.88
        

</TABLE>
§ 531.5 Making determinations of “fair value.” ( a ) *Procedure.* The procedures governing the making of determinations of the “fair value” of board, lodging, or other facilities for defined classes of employees and in defined areas under section 3(m) of the Act shall be the same as that prescribed in § 531.4 with respect to determinations of “reasonable cost.”
( b ) *Petitions of interested persons.* Any petition by an employee or an authorized representative of employees, an employer or group of employers, or other interested persons for a determination of “fair value” under section 3(m) of the Act shall contain the information required under paragraph (b) of § 531.4, and in addition, to the extent possible, the following: ( 1 ) A proposed definition of the class or classes of employees involved;
( 2 ) A proposed definition of the area to which any requested determination would apply;
( 3 ) Any measure of “fair value” of the furnished facilities which may be appropriate in addition to the cost of such facilities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,280,959
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      171,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (24,524)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,536,341
<PP&E>                                             729,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (184,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,597,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              752,972
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            47,063
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,797,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,597,211
<SALES>                                            483,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   483,911
<CGS>                                              243,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,276,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (877)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (646,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (646,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (646,963)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.12)


</TABLE>
#### § 507.1 Cross-reference.

Regulations governing labor condition applications requirements for employers using nonimmigrants on H-1B specialty visas in specialty occupations and as fashion models are found at 20 CFR part 655, subparts H and I.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40820

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO SALCIDO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-1011-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Salcido appeals his 135-month sentence for conspiracy to possess

cocaine with intent to distribute. Salcido argues that the district court erred in

refusing to grant a downward adjustment for his minor or minimal role in the

offense. He contends that he was on the bottom rung of the conspiracy ladder

and that he was merely a delivery man. In the district court, Salcido sought only

a two-level reduction for his minor role in the offense. His preserved objection

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40820

2

to the denial of a minor role adjustment is reviewed for clear error. United

States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 n.12 (5th Cir. 2008). He did not

seek a minimal role adjustment in the district court. Issues raised for the first

time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. Id. at 272. 

“[I]n order to qualify as a minor participant, a defendant must have been

peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.” United States v.

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The facts contained in the presentence report and admitted by Salcido

establish that he was not peripheral to the conspiracy: he brokered the deal; he

possessed a key to the stash house; a utility bill for the stash house and a drug

ledger were found in his residence; and he was driving a vehicle which had a

gate pass to access the private subdivision where the stash house was located.

Because the district court did not clearly err in denying the minor role

adjustment, it necessarily did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in denying

a minimal role adjustment, which applies to participants having less than a

minor role in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.4. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 778.107 General standard for overtime pay.

The general overtime pay standard in section 7(a) requires that overtime must be compensated at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the employee is actually employed. The regular rate of pay at which the employee is employed may in no event be less than the statutory minimum. (The statutory minimum is the specified minimum wage applicable under section 6 of the Act, except in the case of workers specially provided for in section 14 and workers in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa who are covered by wage orders issued pursuant to section 8 of the Act.) If the employee's regular rate of pay is higher than the statutory minimum, his overtime compensation must be computed at a rate not less than one and one-half times such higher rate. Under certain conditions prescribed in section 7 (f), (g), and (j), the Act provides limited exceptions to the application of the general standard of section 7(a) for computing overtime pay based on the regular rate. With respect to these, see §§ 778.400 through 778.421 and 778.601 and part 548 of this chapter. The Act also provides, in section 7(b), (i), (k) and (m) and in section 13, certain partial and total exemptions from the application of section 7(a) to certain employees and under certain conditions. Regulations and interpretations concerning these exemptions are outside the scope of this part 778 and reference should be made to other applicable parts of this chapter.

[46 FR 7309, Jan. 23, 1981]
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Special Education /
              - 11.7 Special Education—Dropout Rate among Students Ages 14-21 Served under IDEA, Part B

## Table 11.7: Special Education—Dropout Rate[1] among Students Ages 14 to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B: 2010-2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-79899), Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 333-29045), Form S-3 Registration Statement, as
amended (File No. 333-34309), Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 2-
79563), Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-46109), Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-46110), Form S-8 Registration Statement
(File No. 33-48124), Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-59947) and
Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-59945).




                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN  LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 16, 2001
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7406 ROBERT EARL VANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PHILLIP MCCLOUD; RANDALL; PATRICIA WILLIAMS; AMY ENLOE, Defendants - Appellees, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-3515) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Vance appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vance v. McCloud , No. CA-03-3515 (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 2200.64 Failure to appear. ( a ) *Attendance at hearing.* The failure of a party to appear in person or by a duly authorized representative at the hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing. A failure of the Secretary to appear constitutes abandonment of the case. A failure of the Respondent to appear is deemed an admission of the facts alleged and consent to the relief sought in the Complaint (or, in Simplified Proceedings, the citation and notification of proposed penalty). The Judge may default the non-appearing party without further proceeding or notice.
( b ) *Requests for reinstatement.* Requests for reinstatement must be made, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, within 7 days after the scheduled hearing date. See § 2200.90(c).
( c ) *Rescheduling hearing.* The Commission or the Judge, upon a showing of good cause, may excuse such failure to appear. In such event, the hearing will be rescheduled as expeditiously as possible from the issuance of the Judge's order.
[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019; 84 FR 53053, Oct. 4, 2019]