alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Request for EIN Change

An EIN (Employee Identification Number) is a nine-digit number assigned by the IRS to identify the tax accounts of employers and certain others.  When the grantee organization has changed the EIN associated with the award, it is necessary that the grant award, records and pay accounts are updated.

**Documents Required**

· A dated cover letter signed by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) that includes:

· Grant Award Number and Grantee Organization Name 

· Explanation of the EIN change 

· Desired EIN suffix if known.  

· Effective date of change

· IRS Determination Letter with current name and new EIN, if applicable.

Things to Check:

· ACL will verify with SAM.gov that the grantee has an active registration and the EIN is associated with the current DUNS. Please ensure the grantee’s DUNS registration is current and active on www.sam.gov.  

**How to Submit Your Request:**

All requests for EIN Change should be submitted by the grantee in Grants Management Module as a new amendment by accessing “Manage Amendments”, click “New”, select “ACL Change in EIN  (Type 8)” and “Create Amendment”.   

GrantSolutions has a training video showing grantees how to request and manage grant amendments – which include no-cost extension requests.  This video is at the bottom of this page.”

	Version 10.2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001074771
<NAME> TRIAD HOSPITALS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              82
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      275
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                         33
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   356
<PP&E>                                           1,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                     550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              121
<BONDS>                                            544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,315
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   614
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     18
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (9)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  9
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
#### § 780.512 “Employed in the growing and harvesting.”

Section 13(a)(14) exempts processing operations on shade-grown tobacco only when performed by agricultural employees “employed in the growing and harvesting” of such tobacco. The use of the term “and” in the phrase “growing and harvesting” may be in recognition of the fact that in the raising of shade-grown tobacco the two operations are typically intermingled; however, it is not considered that the word “and” would preclude a determination on the particular facts that an employee is qualified for the exemption if he is employed only in “growing” or only in “harvesting.” Employment in work other than growing and harvesting of shade-grown tobacco will not satisfy the requirement that the employee be employed in growing and harvesting, even if such work is on shade-grown tobacco and constitutes “agriculture” as defined in section 3(f) of the Act. For example, delivery of the tobacco by an employee of the farmer to the receiving platform of the bulking plant would be a “delivery to market” included in “agriculture” when performed by the farmer as an incident to or in conjunction with his farming operations (*Mitchell* v. *Budd,* 350 U.S. 473), but it would not be part of “growing and harvesting.”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6827

DANIEL LEE BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-716-3) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Daniel Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding the certificate of appealability standard applies to denials of motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
NUMBER 13-11-00105-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PABLO SANCHEZ AND CHURCH OF GOD 

THE APOSTOLIC FAITH LATIN CONFERENCE, INC., Appellants,

v.

IGLESIA CRISTIANA CRISTO VIVE, INC., Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 139th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court of 

Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-237-03-C. On April 28, 2011, this appeal 

was abated and the parties were ordered to mediation. This cause is now before the 

Court on appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the trial 
2

court has granted a new trial. Appellants request that this Court dismiss the appeal. 

Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellants= motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellants= request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

26th day of May, 2011.
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG
Ernst & Young LLP
One Columbus
10 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400
Phone: (614)224-5678
Fax: (614)2243939
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
The Huntington Mortgage Company

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of  Management,  that The  Huntington  Mortgage  Company  (HMC), a
wholly-owned  subsidiary  of The  Huntington  National  Bank,  complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1999. Management is responsible for HMC's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertion about HMC's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  conducted  in  accordance  with   attestation   standards
established  by the  American  Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants  and,
accordingly,   included  examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  HMC's
compliance with those  requirements  and performing such other  procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on HMC's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that HMC complied with the aforementioned
requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1999 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.

This  report is  intended  solely  for the  information  and use of the board of
directors,  management, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal National
Mortgage  Association,  HMC's  private  investors  and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


Ernst & Young LLP
March 8,2000

Ernst and Young LLP is a member of Ernst Young International, Ltd.
## New York State Departmentof

## Environmental Conservation Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Resources, Climate Change & Energy, 14th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, NewYork 12233-1010 Phone: (518) 402-8549 Fax: (518) 402-8541 Joe Martens Q Conunissioner Website:

Ms. Judith A. Enck Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 2 290 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, NY 10007-1866


### Request for Parallel Processing ofBestAvailable RetrofitTechnology (BART} PermitModifications

Dear Regional Administrator Enck:

The New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (Department) has been activelyworking to finalize permit modifications for sources that are subject to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) program. Once completed, these modified Title V pennits are to be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as revisions to the New York State ImplementationPlan (SIP) for Regional Haze.

Attached is a table providing a status update for each ofthe BART facilities. As ofApril 4,2012, ten (10) ofthe BARTpermits havebeen issued, while two (2) ofthe remaining seven (7) draft permits have been submitted to EPA for review. All draft permits have been published in the Department's Environmental Notice Bulletin. (The Department also has one BART

source complying through a consent decree, and one BART facility shutting down and relinquishing its air permits. All relevant supporting materials will beprovided to EPA.)

Pursuant to recent discussions with EPA, the Department is hereby requesting parallel processing byEPA ofany Title V permitmodifications which have not yet been issued in final form for inclusion inthe regional haze SIP. This will allow for the expedited processing ofthese draft permits as they go through the lengthypublic comment period and 45-day EPA review period.

The Department is providing, with this letter, copies ofthe Title V permit modifications thathavebeenfinalized thus far, which incorporate the necessary BART requirements for subject sources. The draft permits for the remaining BART sources are also being provided at this time so EPA can initiate the approval process. These documents are beingprovided electronically on an enclosed CD.

### We look forward to continuing to work with you to address New York's obligations under the Regional Hazeprogram. Should you have any immediate questions or require additional information, please contact 

### Mr. Scott Griffin at (518) 402-8396.
Sincerely,

# ·d(~

I 

# j{'

J. Jared Snyder Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Resources, Climate Change and Energy

Enclosure

cc: R. Ruvo, EPA Region 2 D. Shaw R. Sliwinski
#### STEARN CO v CAMPBELL

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10180.

Decided November 11, 1929

Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Loeser & Keough, Cleveland, for Steam Co.

Mr. A. F. Counts, Esq., Cleveland, for Campbell.

*15PER CURIAM

Stripped of all the verbiage there is really but one issue in this case, namely, what was the agreement between the parties? The plaintiff under the law has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. John M. Campbell, therefore, had the burden of proving by such preponderance of the evidence that the agreement between him and The Stearn Company was that The Steam Company will replace with a new coat the coat purchased. An examination of the testimony given by John M. Campbell shows that his statement lacks definiteness on that point.

The defendant company definitely asserts that it at no time agreed to replace the coat with a new fur coat. , It insists that all that was agreed upon between the parties was that The Steam Company was to repair the coat.

Our unanimous conclusion is that John M. Campbell’s rather indefinite statement lacks probability, and that the version given by The Stearn Company seems the more probable and reasonable under the circumstances. In our opinion the judgment of the Municipal Court is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. For that reason said judgment of the Municipal Court is ordered reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Vickery, PJ., Levine and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-10555 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE HERNANDEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:11-CR-276-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Hernandez-Canales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. CaliforU n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 6, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10555 Document: 00512136750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2013No. 12-10555

nia , 38 6 U

. S

. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hern a n dez-Canales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of Hernandez-C a n ales’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Ca n t w e l l , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Hernandez-Canales’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal p re s e nt s no no nf rivolous issue for appellate review. Accordi n gly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excuse d f r o m further responsibilities, Hernandez-Canales’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-10555 Document: 00512136750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3152 MIGUEL P. PADERES, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. ON MOTION Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. O R D E R The Office of Personnel Management move s (1) to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f), and (2) to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, Miguel P. Paderes' petition for review of the decision of the Merit S ystems Protection Board in case no. CB-1205- 06-0019-U-1. Paderes has not responded. Paderes sought an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The Office of Personnel Management denied hi s application. Paderes appealed to the Board. In 1994, the Board affirmed the denial of benef its because Paderes was not covered by CSRS. In 1995, this court a ffirmed the decision of the Board. In 2006, Paderes filed with the Boar d a request for review of an Office of Personnel Management regulation. The Board did not address the merits of his request for review of the regulation. Instead, on Fe bruary 5, 2007, the Board denied the requestfor review as barred by res judicata. Pader es petitions this cour t for review of the Board’s 2007 decision. In Delos Santos v. Office of Personnel Management , 289 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we held that we do not hav e jurisdiction over a petiti on for review of a Board decision involving a request for review of a r egulation if the Board denies review without addressing the merits of the req uest. Here, as in Delos Santos , the Board did not review the merits of the reques t to review the regulation. Th us, we do not have jurisdiction over the petition and it must be dism issed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions are granted. The petiti on is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

June 6, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Miguel P. Paderes Michael J. Dierberg, Esq.
s8 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 6, 2007

2007-3152 - 2 -
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

§ 101.310 Additional communication devices. ( a ) *Alert Systems.* Alert systems, such as the ship security alert system required in SOLAS Chapter XI-2, Regulation 6 (Incorporated by reference, see § 101.115), may be used to augment communication and may be one of the communication methods listed in a vessel or facility security plan under part 104, 105, or 106 of this subchapter.
( b ) *Automated Identification Systems (AIS).* AIS may be used to augment communication, and may be one of the communication methods listed in a vessel security plan under part 104 of this subchapter. See 33 CFR part 164 for additional information on AIS device requirements.
# Figure 1 Number 65+

# Figure 1 Number 65+

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 4a State Map Number 65+

# Figure 4b State Map Percent 65+

# Figure 5 State Map changes

# Figure 6 Population by State

# Figure 7F Family Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 419 

Honoring the life and extraordinary contributions of Diane Wolf. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2008 

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. BYRD, and Mr. COLEMAN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and extraordinary contributions of Diane 

Wolf. 

Whereas the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and 

deep regret of the untimely death of Diane Wolf, a member of the Senate Preservation Board of Trustees and a 

former distinguished member of the United States Commission of Fine Arts; and 

Whereas for over 2 decades Diane Wolf devoted extraordinary 

personal efforts to and displayed great passion for the 

preservation and restoration of the United States Capitol 

Building, and was singularly instrumental in supporting 

and guiding the early efforts of the United States Capitol 

Preservation Commission and developing the plans for 

striking the coins commemorating the Bicentennial of the 

United States Capitol: Now, therefore, be it 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 419 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors the life and extraordinary contribu3 tions of Diane Wolf; 

4 (2) conveys its sorrow and deepest condolences 

5 to the family of Diane Wolf on her untimely death; 

6 and 

7 (3) requests the Secretary of the Senate to con8 vey an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family 

9 of Diane Wolf. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
AGENDA

Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Meeting

Thursday, April 23, 2020 - 12:00pm – 3:00pm

*Times subject to Change

12:00-12:10 Welcome and Roll Call 

Greg Link

Director, Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services

Administration for Community Living

12:10-12:20 Open and Convening Remarks

Lance Robertson

Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging

Administration for Community Living

12:20-12:30 Agenda Overview and Updates

Greg Link

Director, Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services

Administration for Community Living

12:30-12:45 COVID-19 Council Discussion

Ethlyn McQueen-Gibson, DNP, MSN, RN-BC

Director, Center for Gerontology

Hampton University 

Jaia Peterson Lent, MSW, LMSW

Deputy Executive Director

Generations United

1:00-2:55 Facilitated Council Discussions

 Glossary of Terms Discussion

 Create and Adopt a Vision Statement

 Develop and Adopt Guiding Principles

2:55-3:00 Wrap Up & Next Steps.

Greg Link

Director, Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services

Administration for Community Living

A complete list of council members can be found at https://acl.gov/sgrg