alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip to main contentSkip to main navigationGet instructions for navigating this site Announcements A - Z Browse Search
 OAM HomeMaterialsActivity IdeasSocial MediaHistoryOAM History202320222021202020192018Earlier Years
 Go to ACL.gov
 Older Americans Month 2014 Posters
 Posters
The following posters celebrating Older Americans Month may be reproduced and used electronically and in hard copy. Two poster sizes are provided, and for each size, two options are supplied. One file is a typical PDF that is ready to post and print. The other includes crop marks and ink bleeds, and should be used for professional printing only.
**Ready-to-Use Posters**8.5" x 11" OAM 2014 Poster (PDF, 1.76MB)18" x 24" OAM 2014 Poster (PDF, 5.45MB)
**Professional Printing Poster Files**8.5" x 11" OAM 2014 Poster (PDF, 1.78MB)18" x 24" OAM 2014 Poster (PDF, 5.68MB)
2014 Materials
Logos
Web Banners (JPG format): 120x240 px | 611x655px
Sample Article: PDF (20KB) | DOCX (17KB)
Sample Proclamation: PDF (22KB) | DOCX (18KB)
Sample Event Flyer Templates (DOCX): 1 (641KB) | 2 (309KB) | 3 (389KB)
Activity Guide (PDF, 1.37MB)
Social Media Tip Sheet (PDF, 342KB)
Safety Tip Sheet (PDF, 600KB)

                    *Last modified on 02/03/2019*
 Back to Top    What We Do and Why We Do It
ACL was created around the fundamental principle that all people, regardless of age or disability, should be able to live independently and fully participate fully in their communities. Learn more about community living.

FacebookYouTubeTwitter x logo  XLinkedInShare on Other PlatformsSite Support
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Disclaimers
                      Contact Us
                      Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                      Privacy Policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers & Players
                      Vulnerability Disclosure PolicyOther ACL Sites
  

        
      Disability Assistance and Information Line
                      Eldercare Locator
                      ElderJustice.acl.gov
                      LongTermCare.gov
                      OlderIndians.govRelated Sites
  

        
      Grants.gov
                      HHS.gov
                      No Fear Act
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      WhiteHouse.gov
                      Vote.gov**Sign up for ACL Updates**
Subscribe **
      *Advancing independence, integration, and inclusion throughout life*
        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.11 Unnecessary opening of the draw. No vessel owner or operator shall— ( a ) Signal a drawbridge to open if the vertical clearance is sufficient to allow the vessel, after all lowerable nonstructural vessel appurtenances that are not essential to navigation have been lowered, to safely pass under the drawbridge in the closed position; or
( b ) Signal a drawbridge to open for any purpose other than to pass through the drawbridge opening.
[CGD 91-059, 59 FR 16563, Apr. 7, 1994]
Nutrition Services Incentive Program for the States/Territories

FY 2014 Final Cash Allocation

7/17/2014

State/Territory

Nutrition Services 

Incentive Program

Alabama $3,035,666

Alaska $426,164

Arizona $1,845,223

Arkansas $2,627,043

California $12,480,105

Colorado $1,335,432

Connecticut $1,460,498

Delaware $466,497

District of Columbia $495,255

Florida $6,235,977

Georgia $2,769,753

Hawaii $393,248

Idaho $687,313

Illinois $6,060,437

Indiana $1,770,859

Iowa $1,929,436

Kansas $1,953,722

Kentucky $1,831,511

Louisiana $3,316,973

Maine $602,546

Maryland $1,562,235

Massachusetts $4,448,133

Michigan $7,434,636

Minnesota $1,935,940

Mississippi $1,623,757

Missouri $4,031,525

Montana $974,923

Nebraska $1,309,566

Nevada $1,053,945

New Hampshire $1,136,133

New Jersey $3,656,313

New Mexico $2,094,050

New York $15,833,848

North Carolina $3,363,269

North Dakota $804,666

Ohio $5,559,215

Oklahoma $2,142,370

Oregon $1,845,650

Pennsylvania $5,883,282

Rhode Island $423,849

South Carolina $1,409,733

South Dakota $890,188

Tennessee $1,568,871

Texas $11,715,933

Utah $1,370,903

Vermont $791,340

Virginia $2,068,902

Washington $2,130,829

West Virginia $1,677,726

Wisconsin $2,718,926

Wyoming $844,818

Guam $330,851

Northern Mariana Islands $58,093

Puerto Rico $3,004,666

Virgin Islands $185,407

TOTAL $149,608,149
Nutrition Services Incentive Program for the States/Territories 9/8/2010 

FY 2010 Final Cash Allocation 

State/Territory 

Nutrition Services 

Incentive Program 

Alabama $2,724,877 

Alaska $320,721 

Arizona $2,266,704 

Arkansas $2,638,692 

California $12,346,182 

Colorado $1,379,870 

Connecticut $1,441,385 

Delaware $493,229 

District of Columbia $639,886 

Florida $6,978,546 

Georgia $2,725,424 

Hawaii $487,594 

Idaho $624,476 

Illinois $7,030,610 

Indiana $1,856,248 

Iowa $1,684,532 

Kansas $1,954,524 

Kentucky $1,809,827 

Louisiana $3,213,739 

Maine $524,039 

Maryland $1,843,421 

Massachusetts $4,345,685 

Michigan $7,439,014 

Minnesota $1,984,038 

Mississippi $2,113,771 

Missouri $4,199,819 

Montana $871,753 

Nebraska $1,351,963 

Nevada $869,620 

New Hampshire $1,114,365 

New Jersey $3,946,325 

New Mexico $2,054,916 

New York $16,923,613 

North Carolina $3,322,232 

North Dakota $809,231 

Ohio $5,716,593 

Oklahoma $2,556,199 

Oregon $1,765,224 

Pennsylvania $5,980,007 

Rhode Island $501,008 

South Carolina $1,612,591 

South Dakota $986,347 

Tennessee $1,695,578 

Texas $12,180,903 

Utah $1,426,187 

Vermont $730,946 

Virginia $2,299,971 

Washington $1,913,507 

West Virginia $1,724,020 

Wisconsin $2,709,222 

Wyoming $760,086 

Guam $358,586 

Northern Mariana Islands $61,433 

Puerto Rico $2,775,055 

Virgin Islands $173,105 

TOTAL $154,257,439
#### § 94.610 Controlled substance.

*Controlled substance* means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812), and as further defined by regulation at 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15.
§ 825.801 Special rules for airline flight crew employees, hours of service requirement. ( a ) An airline flight crew employee's eligibility for FMLA leave is to be determined in accordance with § 825.110 except that whether an airline flight crew employee meets the hours of service requirement is to be determined as provided below.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, whether an airline flight crew employee meets the hours of service requirement is determined by assessing the number of hours the employee has worked or been paid over the previous 12 months. An airline flight crew employee will meet the hours of service requirement during the previous 12-month period if he or she has worked or been paid for not less than 60 percent of the employee's applicable monthly guarantee and has worked or been paid for not less than 504 hours. ( 1 ) The *applicable monthly guarantee* for an airline flight crew employee who is not on reserve status is the minimum number of hours for which an employer has agreed to schedule such employee for any given month. The *applicable monthly guarantee* for an airline flight crew employee who is on reserve status is the number of hours for which an employer has agreed to pay the employee for any given month.
( 2 ) The hours an airline flight crew employee has worked for purposes of the hours of service requirement is the employee's duty hours during the previous 12-month period. The hours an airline flight crew employee has been paid is the number of hours for which an employee received wages during the previous 12-month period. The 504 hours do not include personal commute time or time spent on vacation, medical, or sick leave.
( c ) An airline flight crew employee returning from USERRA-covered service shall be credited with the hours of service that would have been performed but for the period of absence from work due to or necessitated by USERRA-covered service in determining the employee's eligibility for FMLA-qualifying leave. Accordingly, an airline flight crew employee re-employed following USERRA-covered service has the hours that would have been worked for or paid by the employer added to any hours actually worked or paid during the previous 12-month period to meet the hours of service requirement. In order to determine the hours that would have been worked or paid during the period of absence from work due to or necessitated by USERRA-covered service, the employee's pre-service work schedule can generally be used for calculations.
( d ) In the event an employer of airline flight crew employees does not maintain an accurate record of hours worked or hours paid, the employer has the burden of showing that the employee has not worked or been paid for the requisite hours. Specifically, an employer must be able to clearly demonstrate that an airline flight crew employee has not worked or been paid for 60 percent of his or her applicable monthly guarantee or for 504 hours during the previous 12 months in order to claim that the airline flight crew employee is not eligible for FMLA leave.
From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ

Wa yland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, "Laity, Jim"

<James_A._Laity@omb.eop.g ov> Date: 03/26/2012 11:27 AM Subject: Interagency Comments Under EO 12866/13563

-- GHG NSPS proposed rule



### Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866/13563 regarding the EGU GHG NSPS proposed rule. Please let me know if you h ave any questions.

Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 13563__EGU NSPS_3.26.docx

Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866_13563 EGU NSPS preamble redline 032612.docx
**[Program Name] Participant Information Form**

Today’s date:  / /

M  M	D  D	Y	Y	Y   Y

Participant I.D. __ __ /__ __/ __ __ (first two letters of your first name, first two letters of your last name, last two numbers of your birth year) 

1. Did your doctor, nurse, physical therapist or other health care provider suggest that you take this program?

O Yes	O No

2. How old are you today? years

3. Do you live alone?	O Yes	O No

4. Are you:	O Male  or O Female?

5. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?	O Yes	O No

6. What is your race? **Check all that apply**.

O  American Indian or Alaska Native

O  Asian

O  Black or African American

O  Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

O White

7. What is the highest grade or level of school that you have completed?

O  Less than high school

O  Some high school

             O  High school graduate or GED

O  Some college or vocational school

O  College graduate or higher

8.  Has a health care provider ever told you that you have any of the following chronic conditions (i.e., one that has lasted for three months or more)? **Check Yes or No.**

****

9. Are you limited in any way in any activities because of physical, mental, or  

   emotional problems?    O Yes	O No

***Please turn this paper over and fill out the other side.*****

10. In general, would you say that your health is:

  Excellent	Very good	Good	Fair	Poor

***The next few questions ask about falls. By a fall, we mean when a person unintentionally comes to rest on the ground or another lower level.***

11. In the past 3 months, how many times have you fallen? O none	O times

***If you fell in the past 3 months:***

a.  how many of these falls caused an injury? *(By an injury we mean the fall caused you to limit your regular activities for at least a day or to go see a doctor.)*

number of falls causing an injury

b. where did the fall(s) occur (*Please check all that apply)**?***

 Indoors	 Outdoors	 Both indoors and outdoors 

c. what happened after you fell and had an injury? *(Please check all that apply)*****

Went to the Emergency Room		 Was admitted to the hospital  

Visited my Primary Care Physician 	 Other: ___________ ____ None ________

12. How fearful are you of falling?

Not at all	 A little	Somewhat	A lot

13. Please mark the circle that tells us how sure you are that you can do the following activities.

**How sure are you that:**

14. During the last 4 weeks, to what extent has your concern about falling interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors or groups?

Extremely	Quite a bit	Moderately	Slightly	Not at all

15. I have made some modifications at home, such as securing loose rugs, to reduce my risk of falling.  __ True  __ False

   16. What best describes your activity level? 

O Vigorously active for at least 30 min, 3 times per week

O Moderately active at least 3 times per week

              O Seldom active, preferring sedentary activities
§ 110.193 Tampa Bay, Fla. ( a ) *The anchorage grounds* — ( 1 ) *Explosives anchorage east of Mullet Key.* A rectangular area in Tampa Bay, approximately 4,459 yards long and 1,419 yards wide, beginning at latitude 27°38′30′′, longitude 82°39′09′′, and extending northeasterly to latitude 27°39′48′′, longitude 82°37′15′′; thence southeasterly to latitude 27°39′17′′, longitude 82°36′46′′; thence southwesterly to latitude 27°37′52′′, longitude 82°38′38′′; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning.
( 2 ) *Temporary explosives anchorage south of Interbay Peninsula.* Beginning at a point bearing 107°, 1,750 yards from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 125°, 2,050 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 180°, 1,725 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 222°, 2,180 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 251°, 1,540 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; and thence to the point of beginning.
( 3 ) *Temporary explosives anchorage off Port Tampa.* A circular area with a radius of 200 yards with the point at latitude 27°50′22′′, longitude 82°34′15′′.
( 4 ) *Quarantine Anchorage.* Southeast of the temporary explosive anchorage, beginning at a point bearing 97° true, 4,370 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 113°30′, 5,370 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 161°30′, 3,770 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to a point bearing 163°30′, 2,070 yards, from Cut “F” Range Front Light; thence to the point of beginning.
( 5 ) *Barge Fleeting Area, Hillsborough Bay.* Located 400 feet west of Cut “D” Channel at a point beginning at latitude 27°54′34′′, longitude 82°26′35′′; thence northerly 1,000 feet to latitude 27°54′43′′, longitude 82°26′40′′; thence westerly 500 feet to latitude 27°54′41′′, longitude 82°26′45′′; thence southerly 1,000 feet to latitude 27°54′32′′, longitude 82°26′40′′; thence easterly 500 feet to the point of beginning. Note:
This area is reserved for transient barges only. Barges shall not occupy this anchorage for a period longer than 96 hours unless permission is obtained from the Captain of the Port for this purpose.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) The explosives anchorage east of Mullet Key shall be used by vessels awaiting loading or unloading at Port Tampa that have explosives actually on board and where the duration of anchorage will exceed 72 hours.
( 2 ) The temporary explosives anchorages south of Interbay Peninsula and off Port Tampa shall be used for vessels engaged in loading explosives when the duration of the anchorage is less than 72 hours.
[CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGFR 69-62, 34 FR 11582, July 15, 1969; 34 FR 12255, July 15, 1969]
#### § 114.10 General policies on issuance of permits and drawbridge operation regulations.

The several bridge laws referenced in the Authority for part 114, are intended to prevent any interference with navigable waters of the United States whether by bridges, dams, dikes or other obstructions to navigation except by express permission of the United States. The decision as to whether a bridge permit or a drawbridge operation regulation will be issued or promulgated must rest primarily upon the effect of the proposed action on navigation to assure that the action provides for the reasonable needs of navigation after full consideration of the effect of the proposed action on the human environment. The Coast Guard is not responsible for any other permits that the applicant may need from other federal, state, or local agencies and issuance of a bridge permit does not affect flood control projects or other governmental programs.

[CGD 82-006, 47 FR 36640, Aug. 23, 1982, as amended by USCG-2000-7223, 65 FR 40056, June 29, 2000; USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39174, July 1, 2013]
## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00198

- CR

EDWIN ANTONIO OSORIO

- LOPEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. 17927

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion on Remand by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND F ollowing a retrospective competency trial , the trial court determined that Edwin Antonio Osorio

- Lopez was compete n t at his tria l of convict i on. 1 On appeal before this Court, we determined that the right to self

- representation did not apply at the retrospective competency trial and that, as a r esult, the trial court erred in permitting Osorio

- Lope z ’s attorney t o withdraw

w ithout appointing ne w counsel to represent him at the r etrospective competency trial

. Osorio

Lopez v. State , 629 S.W.3d 487, 493 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2021), rev’d , 2022 WL 233 5394 (Tex. Crim. App. June 29, 2022). The Texas Court of Cr i minal Appeals held that this Court

erre d in reaching the self

- representation iss ue be cause the trial court did not deny Osorio

Lopez ’ s request to represent himself. Osorio

- Lopez v. State , 2022 WL 2335394, at * 1

. Having so concluded, and having rejected Osorio

- Lopez ’ s statu tory arguments, the Texas C ourt of Criminal Appeals remanded t o thi s Court to de termin e “ w hether Appellant was competent to waive counsel , and if so, w h ether he did so voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. ” The court continued, “ Part of the latter in quiry requires ex ami ning the self

represen tation wa rnings. If they are insufficient, we ha ve suggested that error might be subject to a harm analysis. ” Id

. at *5 (citing Williams v. State , 252 S.W.3 d 3 53, 358 n.38 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2008) )

.

1 Osorio

- Lopez was convicted of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle a nd aggravated assau l t with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to concurrent te n - yea r an d twenty

- year se ntences, respe ctively. See T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 38.04(b)(2)(A) , § 22.02 (S upp.) I n companion cause number 06

- 18

- 0019 7

- CR, Osorio

- Lopez appeals the tr i al court ’ s r etrospe c t ive competency determination in connec tion with his convictio n o f evading arrest or detention with a vehicle.3

We addressed these issues i n our opinion in Osorio

- Lopez ’ s companion appeal, cause number 06

- 18

- 0 0197

- CR , styled Edwin Antonio Osorio

- Lopez v . The State of Texas

. For the reasons expressed in that opinion, we f ind that, in this case, O sorio

- Lopez is, likewise, entitl ed to a new retrospe ctive competenc y trial

. We reverse the trial court ’ s competency d eter mination and remand for a new retrosp ective competenc y trial

. T he trial court is in structed to appoint cou nsel

— who will not be a p otential witness at that trial

— to r e present Osorio

- Lopez at the retrospective competen cy trial

.

Charles van Cle ef Justice Date Submitted: March 28, 2023 D ate Deci ded: A pril 28 , 202 3 Do N ot Publish
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1193

BARBARA J. WINGATE; STEPHANIE D. WINGATE; TRACY A. WINGATE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus WAL-MART STORE #630; ROBERT BROWNING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-2861-4-12; CA-02-4114-4-12; CA-02-4115-4-12) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. * Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara J. Wingate, Stephanie D. Wingate, Tracy A. Wingate, Appellants Pro Se. Ronald Barton Diegel, Adam Joseph Neil, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their state tort action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Wingate v. Wal-Mart Store #630 , Nos. CA-02-2861-4-12; CA-02-4114-4-12; CA-02-4115-4-12 (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2003). We deny Appellants’ “Motion for Stay of Action on Appeal and Change of Venue.” 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
§ 547.0 Scope and effect of part. ( a ) The regulations in this part set forth the requirements of a “bona fide thrift or savings plan” under section 7(e)(3)(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (hereinafter called the Act). In determining the total remuneration for employment which section 7(e) of the Act requires to be included in the regular rate at which an employee is employed, it is not necessary to include any sums paid to or on behalf of such employee, in recognition of services performed by him during a given period, which are paid pursuant to a bona fide thrift or savings plan meeting the requirements set forth herein. In the formulation of these regulations due regard has been given to the factors and standards set forth in section 7(e)(3)(b) of the Act.
( b ) Where a thrift or savings plan is combined in a single program (whether in one or more documents) with a plan or trust for providing profit-sharing payments to employees, or with a plan or trust for providing old age, retirement, life, accident or health insurance or similar benefits for employees, contributions made by the employer pursuant to such thrift or savings plan may be excluded from the regular rate if the plan meets the requirements of the regulation in this part and the contributions made for the other purposes may be excluded from the regular rate if they meet the tests set forth in regulations. Part 549, or the tests set forth in Interpretative Bulletin, part 778 of this chapter, §§ 778.214 and 778.215, as the case may be.