alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Title:*                     Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project: 5th-Grade follow-Up.                

*OMB No.:*                     0970-0143.                

*Description:*                     The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting comments on plans to collect 5th-grade follow-up data on children recruited into the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation study. This study is being conducted to assess children and families when the children in the study will be 5th graders or attending the 6th year of their formal schooling. Because of the way children and families were initially recruited for the study, it will take three years to collect 5th-grade data from the full sample of children. About 30 percent of the sample will be 5th graders in spring 2007, 50 percent in spring 2008, and 20 percent in spring 2009. Data will be collected on a sample of approximately 1,900 children and families across all 17 of the Early Head Start research sites. Data collection will include a child assessment and a child interview, an interview with the child's primary caregiver (usually the child's mother), videotaping of mother-child interactions and a set of home observations, and a questionnaire to be completed by the child's 5th-grade teacher.                

This data collection is necessitated by the mandates of the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start (Head Start Act, as amended, October 27, 1998, Section 649 (d) and (e)).

*Respondents:*                     Individuals or households.                 

## Annual Burden Estimates

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     6,480.                  

*Additional Information:*                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address:                     *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.*

*OMB Comment:*                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the                     **Federal Register.**                     Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reducing Project, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, attn: Desk Officer for ACF, e-mail address:                     *Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.*

Dated: August 14, 2006.  

Robert Sargis,  

Reports Clearance Officer.  

[FR Doc. 06-7014 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]  

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code §
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

The undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2014 of PolyMet Mining Corp. (the Company) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|Date: April 25, 2014 | /s/
      Jonathan Cherry                                
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Name: Jonathan Cherry                                    
|                     | Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal
      Executive
|                     | Officer)                                                 
|                     |                                                          
|                     |                                                          
|Date: April 25, 2014 | /s/
      Douglas Newby                                  
|                     | Name: Douglas Newby                                      
|                     | Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal
      Financial
|                     | Officer)                                                 

---
#### William Broadus MACK, also known as William Boradus Mack, Appellant, v. Peter MALES and James Males, Appellees.

No. 11190.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1951.

Harry J. Lippman, Detroit, Mich., Harry C. Kent, Highland Park, Mich., Earl C. Opperthauser, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Stanley Gelfund, Detroit, Mich., for ap-pellees.

Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been heard and considered upon the record and the briefs and) *335oral arguments of attorneys for the contending parties;

And it appearing that after the jury had returned both a general verdict for the plaintiff, now appellant, in this action for damages for alleged malicious prosecution and also a special verdict in the form of answers favorable to the plaintiff in response to questions submitted in writing, the district judge entered judgment for defendants *non obstante veredicto*pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A.;

And inasmuch as the motion of defendants’ attorney made before the case was submitted to the jury, while not so termed by him, was actually in substance and effect a motion for a directed verdict and was so considered by the trial judge;

And it further appearing that the record discloses that the defendants had probable cause justifying their instigation of the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff;

And inasmuch as the record reveals no substantial evidence that the defendants acted maliciously in so doing;

The judgment of the District Court entered *non obstante veredicto*is affirmed.
# Professor Stan Boddie Publishes in Health & Technology Journal

/ Published July 29, 2014
*Proposed*HERE
On respondent’s motion for reconsideration filed June 3,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (128 Or App 283, 875 P2d 523) modified and adhered to as modified July 6, 1994

#### In the Matter of Laurentian Capital Corporation Cease and Desist Order. LAURENTIAN CAPITAL CORPORATION, *Petitioner, v.*STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCE, Insurance Division, *Respondent, and*PACIFIC NORTHWEST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, *Intervenor.*

(90-05-037; CA A69025)

877 P2d 1212

*93Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

HASELTON, J.

*94HASELTON, J.

The Department of Insurance and Finance (DIF)1 has moved for reconsideration, asserting that our opinion mischaracterized the scope of its Cease and Desist Order and disputing our statement that DIF offered “inconsistent readings” of that order before this court. We grant reconsideration to clarify our opinion in these respects and adhere to our opinion as modified.

DIF’s Cease and Desist Order is ambiguous. Although the Final Order clearly referred to Laurentian’s proxy solicitation as evidence of its “reneging,” justifying DIF’s withdrawal of its 1987 Order of Approval, the Final Order also acknowledged that Laurentian’s proxy solicitation “constitutes neither a violation of the 1987 Order of Approval nor an acquisition.” Moreover, the Cease and Desist Order itself does not refer to proxy solicitation. Thus, we cannot tell whether Laurentian’s proxy solicitation activities were merely the catalyst for DIF’s actions or are themselves controlled by the terms of the Cease and Desist Order.

DIF’s arguments to this court, although not necessarily inconsistent, presented varying characterizations of the Cease and Desist Order. In addition to those statements quoted in our original opinion, we note further remarks by counsel at oral argument:

> “Lastly, I just want to clarify that I think one of the assignments petitioner has made is that it isn’t clear what they need to do. And, again, I just want to emphasize that I think it is clear that what Laurentian needs to do at this point is that it must seek DIF approval of all further acquisitions of stock notwithstanding the 1987 order of approval up to 50 [percent], and in addition, it must gain a 2/3 shareholder approval under ORS 732.545.”

We do not regard those statements as embodying a waiver or concession that the Cease and Desist Order does not pertain to proxy solicitation activities. *See*ORAP 6.15(4). We do, however, view them as supporting our view *95that DIF’s order is reasonably susceptible to varying interpretations and must, therefore, be made more specific. ORS 731.252(1).

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

1

 DIF is now titled the Department of Consumer and Business Services.
[Crim. No. 416.

Third Appellate District.

April 12, 1918.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EARL TAYLOR, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Appeal—Presumptions.—On an appeal in a criminal action, the presumptions are in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court, and where no argument is made, and the court’s attention is not called to any ground for interfering with the judgment, the judgment will he affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. D. M. Young, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Walter F. Lynch, for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Chas. Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. His appeal was regularly taken but it has not been prosecuted. No argument has been made in his behalf in this court, and, therefore, our attention has not been called to any ground for interfering with the judgment of the lower court. The presumptions are, of course, in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the court below. Moreover, an examination of the record discloses sufficient evidence to justify the verdict without prejudicial error being shown therein. *(People*v. *Wagner, ante,*p. 41, [171 Pac. 699].)

The judgment and order are therefore affirmed.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).

College of Information and Cyberspace National Defense University

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission & Vision             
  -  Faculty & Staff             
  -  Fact Sheet             
  -  Alumni             
  -  Internships             
  -  FAQ 
-  Admissions    -  Eligibility Requirements             
  -  Admissions Calendar             
  -  Application Instructions             
  -  Apply Online             
  -  International Students 
-  Academics    -  Graduate Catalog             
  -  M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies      -  JPME Master's Degree             
    -  Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time) 
  -  Leadership Development Programs             
  -  Graduate Certificates             
  -  Academic Partners 
-  Current Students    -  JPME II  Incoming Students             
  -  LDP Incoming Students             
  -  Student Registration             
  -  Bring Your Own Device             
  -  IA Compliance             
  -  Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts             
  -  Student Services and Resources 
-  Events    -  Cyber Beacon             
  -  Cyber PME Colloquium             
  -  Hopper Award             
  -  Lecture Series             
  -  CYBERCOM Symposium 
-  NEWS		 
-  UC2    -  About             
  -  Events             
  -  Work With Us 
-  Center for Cybersecurity    -  About             
  -  Cybersecurity Center POC             
  -  Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty             
  -  CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program             
  -  Cybersecurity Trending News             
  -  Cyber Labs      -  Ethical Hacking             
    -  Critical Infrastructure - SCADA 
  -  Cyber Exercises      -  Tabletop Exercise             
    -  Cyber Competitions 
  -  Cyber Resources and Awareness             
  -  Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Directions             
  -  Access to Ft. McNair             
  -  Map of Ft. McNair 

HomeNEWSNews & Announcements

## News & Announcements

# Online Admissions Process Now Available! 

iCollege Online Admissions Process - now available for new and existing studentsAfter a technology upgrade at NDU, the iCollege is now using an online process for admissions with the Tk20 suite. In order to apply to any of the programs at the college, you will need to create an admissions account.  Go to: https://ndu.tk20.com/campustoolshighered/admissions1.do .  Below are the detailed steps, but please contact the iCollege Office of Student Services at iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu or 202-685-6300 with any questions.  **Create an Admissions Account****Create an Admissions Application****Return to a Saved Application****Recall a Submitted Application****Viewing Reviewed Admissions Applications**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### § 301-75.1 What is the purpose of the allowance for pre-employment interview travel expenses?

To help you recruit highly qualified individuals.
# Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, Commander Joint Forces Command Royal Air Force (RAF) gets a tour of the NDU iCollege Labs 

/ Published March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012, Washington, DC., Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach visited the National Defense University (NDU) iCollege and was briefed by leadership and faculty on educational opportunities at the NDU iCollege. Program information about the advanced academic curriculum offered to Department of Defense (DoD), military, private industry, and international students who meet enrollment criteria in Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, the Advanced Management Program and more was discussed. He was also given a tour of the cyber security and critical infrastructure protection laboratories.
No. 11-5695.

#### Moore *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 54.603 Consortia, telecommunications services, and existing contracts. ( a ) *Consortia.* ( 1 ) Under the Telecommunications Program, an eligible health care provider may join a consortium with other eligible health care providers; with schools, libraries, and library consortia eligible under subpart F of this part; and with public sector (governmental) entities to order telecommunications services. With one exception, eligible health care providers participating in consortia with ineligible private sector members shall not be eligible for supported services under this subpart. A consortium may include ineligible private sector entities if such consortium is only receiving services at tariffed rates or at market rates from those providers who do not file tariffs.
( 2 ) For consortia, universal service support under the Telecommunications Program shall apply only to the portion of eligible services used by an eligible health care provider.
( b ) *Telecommunications services.* Any telecommunications service that is the subject of a properly completed bona fide request by a rural health care provider shall be eligible for universal service support. Upon submitting a bona fide request to a telecommunications carrier, each eligible rural health care provider is entitled to receive the most cost-effective, commercially-available telecommunications service, and a telecommunications service carrier that is eligible for support under the Telecommunications Program shall provide such service at the urban rate, as defined in § 54.604.
( c ) *Existing contracts.* A signed contract for services eligible for Telecommunications Program support pursuant to this subpart between an eligible health care provider, as defined under § 54.600, and a service provider shall be exempt from the competitive bid requirements as set forth in § 54.622(i).
No. 11-9480.

#### Griffin *v.*Jesson, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Ct. App. Minn. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 78.31 Temporary extension of license.

Where there is pending before the Commission any application, investigation, or proceeding which, after hearing, might lead to or make necessary the modification of, revocation of or the refusal to renew an existing cable television relay station license, the Commission will grant a temporary extension of such license: *Provided, however,* That no such temporary extension shall be construed as a finding by the Commission that the operation of any CARS station thereunder will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity beyond the express terms of such temporary extension of license: *And provided, further,* That such temporary extension of license will in nowise affect or limit the action of the Commission with respect to any pending application or proceeding.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

JARRETT B. PERLOW

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

September 28, 2023

NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS DURING POSSIBLE

LAPSE IN FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS

In the event of a lapse in federal appropriations on Sunday, October 1, 2023, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will remain open for 

business and will be fully staffed to provide all judicial business functions until 

further notice from the court. Arguments scheduled for the week of October 2, 

2023, will proceed as scheduled.

Electronic case filing will remain available through CM/ECF and electronic 

filing deadlines will remain in effect. 

FOR THE COURT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEROY JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3792

[February 15, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, 

Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-7528 CF10A.

Leroy Johnson, Perry, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 11-9595.

#### Peng *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.                    

*Date:*                         September 12, 2006.                    

*Closed:*                         8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Open:*                         9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         The agenda will include Opening Remarks, Administrative Matters, Director's Report, NCMHD, Program Concept Clearance Report, Extramural Program Highlights, NHGRI Health Disparities Research Highlights, and other business of the Council.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Donna Brooks, Asst. Director for Administration, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2135,                         *brooksd@ncmhd.nih.gov.*

Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

Start Printed Page 47818
Dated: August 11, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-6999 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit















February 14, 2017




Nadeem Velani
4721 6 Street SW
Calgary AB
T2S 2N2






Dear Nadeem,


I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors has approved an increase to your compensation package effective February 14, 2017.


Your annual base salary will increase to $460,000. Your target award level under the Short Term Incentive will increase to 75% of your base salary and your Long Term Incentive opportunity will increase to 225% of your base salary. As a result, the expected value of your total compensation package (base salary, STIP and LTIP) will increase to $1,840,000 annually. 


By February 14, 2022, you will be required to achieve an ownership level equivalent to 3 times your annual salary. To help you meet your ownership requirements, the Company has a voluntary incentive deferral program. Annually, you may elect to defer all or a portion of your STIP payment into DSUs up to your ownership level. The Company will provide a 25% match, i.e., one DSU will be awarded for every four DSUs acquired with your STIP deferral. The matched units will only be provided if you are below your ownership level.


Congratulations Nadeem! CP’s transformation to date has been impressive and I know that you will continue to be a significant contributor to helping us take CP to the next level.












Sincerely,


/s/ Keith Creel


Keith Creel
President and CEO