alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.965 Cow Bayou.

The draws of the Orange County highway bridge, mile 2.9 at West Orange, and the S87 bridge, mile 4.5 at Bridge City, shall open on signal if at least six hours notice is given.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by USCG-2012-0306, 77 FR 37315, June 21, 2012]
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on June 13, 2011, AMRI 
Rensselaer, Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of 
controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Lisdexamfetamine (1205)....................  II
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Pentobarbital (2270).......................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
4-Anilino-N-Phenethyl-4-Piperidine (8333)..  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use 
in product development and for distribution to its customers.
    In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to 
bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This 
controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a 
synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is 
authorized for this registration.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than October 17, 2011.

    Dated: August 10, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
 Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-21118 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
B-158766

Comptroller General

of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20548

LAREN GE

LLER

ORTP MOC OF THE UN ITED S TATES

January 31, 1996

The Honorable Newt Gingrich

Speaker of the House

 of Representatives

Dear Mr. Speaker:

This letter responds to the requirement of the Competition in Contracting Act of

1984 that the Comptroller General report to the Congress each instance in which a

federal agency did not fully implement a recommendation made by our Office in

connection with a bid protest decided the prior fiscal year. We are pleased to

report no such occurrence during fiscal year 1995. 

During the fiscal year we received 2,334 protests and 195 requests for

reconsideration for a total of 2,529 cases. We closed 2,736 cases, including 2,528

protests and 208 requests for reconsideration. Enclosed for your information are

some statistics concerning suspensions of contract awards and performance as a

result of bid protests.

A copy of this report and the attached enclosure are being furnished to the House

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. An identical report is being

furnished to the President of the Senate. 

Sincerely yours,

Comptroller General

of the United States

Enclosure
Enclosure 

Page 1 of 2

Suspension of Award/Performance Data

BACKGROUND

CICA contains several provisions whose purpose is to enhance the

likelihood that protests can be decided before contract performance

reaches a stage at which corrective action is effectively precluded. 

Where an agency is notified of a protest before award, CICA

precludes an award unless the head of the procuring activity makes

certain findings justifying the award. In cases where notice is

received within 10 days following the date of award, CICA requires

the suspension of performance unless the head of the procuring

activity makes certain other findings justifying the continuance of

performance despite the protest.

DATA

The following tables present data regarding the number of contracts

awarded after a protest was filed (table A), the number of protests in

table A in which GAO sustained the protest (table B), the number of

contracts in which performance was not suspended following a protest

(table C), and the number of cases sustained by GAO in which

performance was not suspended (table D). 

Table A 

Protests Filed Before Award--

Contracts Awarded After Protest Filing

Defense Agencies Civilian Agencies

7 8

Table B

Protests Filed Before Award--

Protest Sustained Where Contract Awarded After Protest Filing

Defense Agencies Civilian Agencies

0 0
Enclosure 

Page 2 of 2

Table C

Protests Filed After Award--

Contracts in Which Performance Was Continued 

Defense Agencies Civilian Agencies

Where agency determined

that urgency justified

continued performance 10 8

Where agency found that

continued performance was

in Government's best

interest

8 8

Table D

Protests Filed After Award--

Protests Sustained Where Performance Was Continued

Defense Agencies Civilian Agencies

Where agency determined

that urgency justified

continued performance 3 1

Where agency found that

continued performance was

in Government's best

interest

2 0
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wizzard Software Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer and John Busshaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.   Date:5/9/08By:/s/Christopher J. SpencerChristopher J. SpencerChief Executive Officer and President   Date:5/9/08By:/s/John BusshausJohn BusshausChief Financial Officer
ACL State Grants for Assistive Technology Awards (ATSG) for the States/Territories

FY 2020 Final Allocation

8/6/2020

State/Territory

State Grants for 

Assistive 

Technology (ATSG)

Alabama $492,455

Alaska $458,722

Arizona $669,110

Arkansas $509,681

California $1,267,323

Colorado $519,910

Connecticut $445,611

Delaware $443,884

District of Columbia $400,520

Florida $816,871

Georgia $667,494

Hawaii $479,481

Idaho $455,683

Illinois $679,978

Indiana $527,588

Iowa $484,290

Kansas $443,831

Kentucky $512,837

Louisiana $540,848

Maine $492,014

Maryland $545,358

Massachusetts $569,743

Michigan $722,379

Minnesota $537,301

Mississippi $428,542

Missouri $603,736

Montana $473,440

Nebraska $488,306

Nevada $454,921

New Hampshire $460,058

New Jersey $546,122

New Mexico $477,118

New York $801,852

North Carolina $619,808

North Dakota $399,052

Ohio $635,782

Oklahoma $472,476

Oregon $467,972

Pennsylvania $767,598

Rhode Island $398,690

South Carolina $565,523

South Dakota $448,176

Tennessee $499,981

Texas $1,038,080

Utah $495,441

Vermont $434,426

Virginia $560,265

Washington $542,482

West Virginia $454,450

Wisconsin $517,338

Wyoming $390,325

American Samoa $125,676

Guam $127,233

Northern Mariana Islands $125,692

Puerto Rico $461,005

Virgin Islands $126,424

TOTAL $29,090,902
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0630 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-010-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France EC130B4 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 87 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions in this AD are intended to detect a crack in the blending radii of the center 

windscreen to prevent failure of the windscreen, injury to the flight crew, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $6,037 for replacing the windscreen

Labor per Helicopter

(0.25 x $85/work-hour for 

the pre-flight check)

(20 x $85/work-hour for 

replacing the windscreen)

$21.25 per check

$1,700

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $21.25 for the visual check; $7,737 to replace 

the windscreen.

Total US Fleet Cost $1,849 for the visual check; $673,119 if all 

windscreens need replacement.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
79–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–25 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION (H.J. RES. 38) MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

MARCH 6, 2009.—Referred to the House and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 219] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 219, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 38, making 

further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2009, and for 

other purposes, under a closed rule. The resolution provides one 

hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Appropriations. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the joint resolution (except for clause 10 of rule XXI). The resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution. The resolution also provides that the joint resolution shall be 

considered as read. The resolution provides one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the joint resolution contains no earmarks, the waiver 

of all points of order (except for clause 10 of rule XXI) against consideration of the joint resolution includes a waiver of clause 9 of 

rule XXI. Although the rule waives all points of order against proVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:10 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR025.XXX HR025

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

visions in the joint resolution, the Committee is not aware of any 

points of order. The waiver is prophylactic. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.407 Must fire extinguishers be on the deepwater port at all times? ( a ) The fire extinguishers required by § 149.409 of this part must be on all manned deepwater ports at all times.
( b ) The fire extinguishers required by § 149.409 of this part need be on unmanned deepwater ports only when personnel are working on the deepwater port during cargo transfer operations, or performing maintenance duties.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39179, July 1, 2013]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TYRONE CUMMINGS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1034

[December 1, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 501989CF013783AXXXMB.

Lydia Pittaway of Pittaway Law, PLLC, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Sherwood v. State, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1 NO . 03-14-00802- CR PEDRO ELIZONDO MARTINEZ JR. § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS § v. § THIRD DISTRICT § STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN , TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF NOW COMES THE STATE OF TEXA S, Appellee, by and through her Assistant Distr ict Attorney , John C. Prezas, and moves the Court, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d), to extend the deadli ne for filing the State’s brief

. In support of its motion, the State would show the Court the following: 1. The State’s Brief in thi s case is due on August 10, 2015. 2. No previous extensions of time hav e been requested by the State or granted by this Court. 3. Appellant’s brief was filed in this Court on July 10, 2015. 4. Mr. Prezas plans to file proposed findings of fact and conclusion of la w in Ex Parte Wendi Ann Tillman 06-1062- K368 on August 14, 2015, a response to the trial court regarding a request for DNA testing in State vs. Charles Lee 03-798- K277 on August 18, 2015, a State’s brief in State vs. James Allen Weatherford 03

- 14

- 00527

- CR on August 31, 2015, and a State’s brief in State vs. Jim Jack Thompson 03-14- 00371-CR on September 15, 2015. ACCEPTED 03-14-00802-CR 6433464 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/10/2015 4:56:14 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 5. Since the previous extension was granted Mr. Prezas has made progress on researching the legal issues raised by Appellant in the instant case while also filing a State’s brief in response to Appellant’s pro se brief in cause State vs. James Allen Weatherford 03

- 14

- 00528

- CR on August 3, 2015, answers and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in Ex Parte Samuel Jedediah Burleson 05

- 265

- K277D and Ex Parte Samuel Jedediah Burleson 08

- 684

- K26C, proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law in Ex Parte Steven M. Ruiz 12

- 1097

- K26A , and answers in Ex Parte Joseph Paul Mayzone 93

- 070

- K277A , Ex Parte Joseph Paul Mayzone 93

- 069

- K277A , Ex Parte Victo r Manuel Soto 13

- 1581

- K26A , Ex Parte Edwin Gus Schneider 10

- 960

- K26A , Ex Parte Timothy Jerrold Kipp 13

- 0658

- K277A , and Ex Parte Timothy Jerrold Kipp 13

- 0622

- K277A 6. For the foregoing reasons, T he State respectfully request s that the deadline for filing its b rief in the above stated cause be extended for an additional six ty (6 0) days from the current due date of A ugust 10 , 2015 , to O ctober 9 , 2015

.3 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texa s respectfully requests that this Court grant its motio n for an exte nsion of time and extend the State’s deadline to file its brief to O ctober 9 , 2015

. Respectfully submitted, Jana Duty District Attorney Williamson County, Texas

/s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas Assistant District Attorney State Bar Number 240417 22 405 Martin Luther King #1 Georgetown, Texas 78626 (512) 943

- 1248 (512) 943

- 1255 (fax) jprezas@wilco.org

Certificate of Service This is to certify that on A ugust 10 , 2015 , a copy of the foregoing mot ion ha s be en s ent to A ppellant ’ s attorney of record , Ellic Sahualla, 600 W. 13 th St., Austin, TX 78701 , by eservice at ellic@sahuallalaw.com

. /s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00179

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.K.O
. , K.Z.B

. , Q.K.B

. , and A.E.B., Children
From the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 02560 Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ , JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE WATKINS In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.
SIGNED September 8, 2021.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2585

LAWRENCE H. SUID, PH.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-170-A) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence H. Suid, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Erwin Peabody, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Lawrence Suid appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Suid v. Secretary of Navy , No. CA-98-170-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 1998). 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY TURNER and SUSAN TURNER

, Appellant s

,

v.

COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP.,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 535

[ December 7, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit ; Howard

H. Harrison , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502007CA021156XXXXMBAW

.

Thomas P. Murphy of T.P. Murphy’s Law, P.A., Miami, for appellant

Susan Turner.

Mary J. Walter of Leibler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami , for appellee

Bank of America, N.A

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., L EVINE

, and S INGHAL

, R AAG

, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.458 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans. ( a ) The draws of the SR 46 (St. Claude Avenue) bridge, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile 6.2 East of Harvey Lock), the SR 39 (Judge Seeber/Claiborne Avenue) bridge, mile 0.9 (GIWW mile 6.7 East of Harvey Lock), and the Florida Avenue bridge, mile 1.7 (GIWW mile 7.5 East of Harvey Lock), shall open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, the draws need not open for the passage of vessels. The draws shall open at any time for a vessel in distress.
( b ) The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge, mile 3.1, shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given; except that the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
( c ) The draw of the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) Bridge, mile 4.6, shall open on signal from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; except that the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. From 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given.
[CGD8-89-05, 54 FR 36305, Sept. 1, 1989, as amended by CGD08-01-002, 66 FR 27026, May 16, 2001; GCD08-03-030, 68 FR 69609, Dec. 15, 2003; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 49411, Aug. 13, 2010; USCG-2013-0562, 79 FR 8269, Feb. 12, 2014]
1 

Dietary Reference Intakes: Too 

Little, Too Much?

What are Dietary Reference Intakes?

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are a comprehensive set of nutrient reference 

values used by nutrition and health professionals. There is a set of different values for 

each nutrient. Each type of DRI refers to the average daily nutrient intake for the 

general population over time. The Older Americans Act requires that each meal 

served contains one-third of each nutrient’s DRI.

Can the meal provide MORE or LESS than 1/3 of a DRI?

● Follow your state guidelines! 

● State guidelines may include maximum amounts per meal for certain 

nutrients like sodium that are shown to have harmful effects when we 

consume too much. 

● State guidelines may also include minimum amounts per meal for nutrients 

that many of us need to consume more of, like fiber or potassium.

Example: Sodium

● The DRI for sodium for the older adult population is 2300 mg/day. 

● Excess sodium is shown to have harmful effects on older adults. 

● Also consider that other meals your participants may be consuming may be 

pre-packaged meals containing high amounts of sodium. 

● Therefore, you should not provide more than one-third of the DRI for sodium – 

and it’s okay to provide less than 1/3 of this DRI! 

● Most states will allow for some flexibility, but within reason. 
2

Example: Fiber

● The DRI for fiber is 21 g/day for older adult females and 30 g/day for older adult 

males. 

● Additional fiber is shown to have health benefits for older adults.

● Thus, you could provide more than one-third of the DRI for fiber.

Check Your State’s Requirements!

● Each state has their own requirements and will often have acceptable ranges 

for each nutrient. 

Further Resources

● Health.gov, “Dietary Reference Intakes”

● National Institutes of Health, “Nutrient Recommendations and Databases”

This project was supported in part by grant number 90PPNU0002 from the Administration for 

Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 20201. 

Grantees undertaking projects with government sponsorship are encouraged to express 

freely their findings and conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily 

represent official ACL policy.

Created in partnership with the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services 

Programs. For more information on NANASP, visit nanasp.org.
ACL/AoD Protection and Advocacy (PADD) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2022 Annual Allocation

5/9/2022

State/Territory

State Protection & 

Advocacy Systems 

(PADD)

Alabama $525,886

Alaska $414,977

Arizona $790,779

Arkansas $414,977

California $4,326,849

Colorado $610,675

Connecticut $429,327

Delaware $414,977

District of Columbia $414,977

Florida $2,282,687

Georgia $1,072,495

Hawaii $414,977

Idaho $414,977

Illinois $1,298,529

Indiana $673,998

Iowa $414,977

Kansas $414,977

Kentucky $477,475

Louisiana $521,082

Maine $414,977

Maryland $620,525

Massachusetts $671,948

Michigan $994,563

Minnesota $528,959

Mississippi $425,434

Missouri $599,658

Montana $414,977

Nebraska $414,977

Nevada $421,561

New Hampshire $414,977

New Jersey $926,758

New Mexico $414,977

New York $2,146,172

North Carolina $1,096,601

North Dakota $414,977

Ohio $1,227,350

Oklahoma $444,131

Oregon $434,715

Pennsylvania $1,351,657

Rhode Island $414,977

South Carolina $537,152

South Dakota $414,977

Tennessee $716,344

Texas $3,237,856

Utah $414,977

Vermont $414,977

Virginia $791,789

Washington $746,662

West Virginia $414,977

Wisconsin $541,426

Wyoming $414,977

American Samoa $222,010

Guam $222,010

Northern Mariana Islands $222,010

Puerto Rico $833,767

Virgin Islands $222,010

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $222,010

TOTAL $41,714,400