alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 64.2113 Covered provider point of contact.

Covered providers shall make publicly available contact information for the receipt and handling of rural call completion issues. Covered providers must designate a telephone number and email address for the express purpose of receiving and responding to any rural call completion issues. Covered providers shall include this information on their websites, and the required contact information must be easy to find and use. Covered providers shall keep this information current and update it to reflect any changes within ten (10) business days. Covered providers shall ensure that any staff reachable through this contact information has the technical capability to promptly respond to and address rural call completion issues. Covered providers must respond to communications regarding rural call completion issues via the contact information required under this rule as soon as reasonably practicable and, under ordinary circumstances, within a single business day.

[83 FR 21738, May 10, 2018]
OSLDPS Information Bulletin

No. 00-12 September 5, 2000

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

FROM: C.H. Straub, II

Director

SUBJECT: August 30, 2000 Consequence Management News, Equipment and Training

(CoMNET) Satellite Broadcast

The Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS), the Director of

Military Support (DOMS) Consequence Management Program Integration Office (CoMPIO), and

the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office (CTTSO) Technical Support Working

Group (TSWG) are co-sponsoring CoMNET (Consequence Management News, Equipment and

Training (CoMNET) magazine), a recurring satellite broadcast program offering Weapons of

Mass Destruction (WMD) related awareness information to the Nation’s civilian and military

emergency response communities. CoMNET is a news magazine style program consisting of

multiple segments, similar to the National Alert programs aired on the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Emergency Education Network (EENET). The target audience

for this program includes both the civilian and military emergency response communities at all

levels of government; the broadcasts will also be useful to local, state, and federal administrators

responsible for WMD resources and operational considerations that may impact their

communities.

The first CoMNET broadcast will take place on August 30, 2000 from 2:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M.,

EST, and will include a “live” call-in discussion at the end of the program. The broadcast will be

carried over the following satellite networks: 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Emergency Education Network (EENET)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Pollution Distance Learning Network (APDLN)

The Department of Energy’s Digital Video Teleconferencing Network (DVT)

The National Guard’s Guard Net XXI

The Air Force’s Air Technology Network (ATN)

The Army’s Satellite Education Network (SEN)

The Government Education Training Network (GETN)
The Law Enforcement Training Network (LETN)

The Federal Emergency Training Network (FETN)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s FBI Training Network (FBITN)

The Air National Guard “Warrior Network”

The Military Teletraining Network (TNET)

The Police Officers’ Standards Training Network (POST)

In addition to the above satellite networks, any location with a satellite dish may register to carry the

CoMNET broadcasts by using the attached registration form. Following receipt of this form, satellite

coordinates for the broadcasts will be provided to the requesting party.

I strongly urge you to take advantage of these broadcasts, and to encourage the emergency response

community within your state to do so as well. Please disseminate the attached CoMNET information

sheet and registration form 

Current information regarding CoMNET broadcasts can also be found on the OSLDPS website

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/osldps/).

Attachment
- November Photo Contest Winner
        - Procedural Justice and Legitimacy
        - Lessons from Ferguson
        - Child Sex Trafficking Online Training
        - COPS Office Collaborative Reform

Subscribe

 The Beat

 Learning

 Archives

Search Dispatch:Search

### Child Sex Trafficking Online Training

The International Association  of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in collaboration with the Office of  Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Violent Crimes  Against Children Section of the Criminal Division at the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is pleased to announce the launch of the *Child Sex Trafficking: A Training  Series of Frontline Officers*online training course*.*This training  is ***available to law enforcement officers only*** and builds on the Child Sex Trafficking: A  Training Series for Frontline Officers toolkit developed by the IACP, the  COPS Office, and the FBI.

At the end of this training,  participants will be able to
        - recognize       the physical and behavioral indicators of child sex trafficking; 
        - respond       appropriately; 
        - refer       for investigation   

To register, visit http://elearning-courses.net/iacp/.

The  no-cost, interactive course is self-paced and available 24/7.  

This training will educate  frontline officers on how to recognize and respond to victims of child sex  trafficking. This is a series of training videos that depicts sworn law  enforcement officers demonstrating alternative responses to different types of  scenarios involving child sex trafficking. 

For information on the system  requirements to take the course, visit our getting started page. 

For more information, contact  Cari Jankowski at 1-800-843-4227 x 802 or cev@theiacp.org. 

Does your agency have your  own online learning management system? This training is also available in a  SCORM 2004 compliant version. If you would like this online training hosted on  your own system, please e-mail your request to support@elearning-courses.net. 

**Back to top**

November Photo Contest Winner | Procedural Justice and Legitimacy | Lessons from Ferguson | Child Sex Trafficking Online Training | COPS Office Collaborative Reform

FOIANo Fear ActOpen GovernmentPlain WritingPrivacy PolicyUSA.govLegal Policies and DisclaimersLanguage Access Plan
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.8(b)



                              TERM NOTE AMENDMENT 1


Effective April 5, 2001, the third paragraph in the term note between Joseph J.
Baksha and Outlook Group Corp. dated July 22, 1998 is amended to reflect a
change in the interest rate:

The unpaid principal balance of this Note shall bear interest at the rate of
four and ninety four hundreds per cent (4.94%) per annum. Interest is accrued
and payable through the anniversary date hereof in each year on each such
anniversary date, commencing on July 22, 1999 and continuing thereafter until
the principal is paid in full.

Accepted:

Outlook Group Corp.                                  Joseph J. Baksha

By: /s/ Paul M. Drewek                               /s/ Joseph J. Baksha

Title: CFO/Secretary

Date: September 26, 2001                             Date: 9/27/01
§ 95.1961 Interference. ( a ) When a 218-219 MHz Service system suffers harmful interference within its service area or causes harmful interference to another 218-219 MHz Service system, the licensees of both systems must cooperate and resolve the problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may impose restrictions including, but not limited to, specifying the transmitter power, antenna height or area, duty cycle, or hours of operation for the stations concerned.
( b ) The use of any frequency segment (or portion thereof) at a given geographical location may be denied when, in the judgment of the Commission, its use in that location is not in the public interest; the use of a frequency segment (or portion thereof) specified for the 218-219 MHz Service system may be restricted as to specified geographical areas, maximum power, or other operating conditions.
( c ) A 218-219 MHz Service licensee must provide a copy of the plan required by § 95.1915 (a) of this part to every TV Channel 13 station whose Grade B predicted contour overlaps the licensed service area for the 218-219 MHz Service system. The 218-219 MHz Service licensee must send the plan to the TV Channel 13 licensee(s) within 10 days from the date the 218-219 MHz Service licensee submits the plan to the Commission, and the 218-219 MHz Service licensee must send updates to this plan to the TV Channel 13 licensee(s) within 10 days from the date that such updates are filed with the Commission pursuant to § 95.1915.
( d ) Each 218-219 MHz Service system licensee must provide upon request, and install free of charge, an interference reduction device to any household within a TV Channel 13 station Grade B predicted contour that experiences interference due to a component CTS or RTU.
( e ) Each 218-219 MHz Service system licensee must investigate and eliminate harmful interference to television broadcasting and reception, from its component CTSs and RTSs, within 30 days of the time it is notified in writing, by either an affected television station, an affected viewer, or the Commission, of an interference complaint. Should the licensee fail to eliminate the interference within the 30-day period, the CTS(s) or RTU(s) causing the problem(s) must discontinue operation.
( f ) The boundary of the 218-219 MHz Service system, as defined in its authorization, is the limit of interference protection for that 218-219 MHz Service system.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4635 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4635

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
            To extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 20 of the 
Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2419) is amended by 
striking ``June 30, 1994'' and inserting ``August 20, 1994''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.






103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4635

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

            To extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.`
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification 
of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. Regulation generates a need for new designated pilot 
examiners and designated airworthiness representatives to support the 
certification of new light-sport aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, 
and ground instructors.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda 
Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or 
by email at: Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0690.
    Title: Certification of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport 
Aircraft.
    Form Numbers: FAA form 8130-15, 8710-11, 8710-12.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Final Rule ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen 
for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' [69 FR 44771] generated a 
need for new designated pilot examiners and designated airworthiness 
representatives to support the certification of new light-sport 
aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors.
    Respondents: Approximately 57,214 respondents.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1.27 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 39,640 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 21, 2015.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-12987 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
- ma 1973
- MA
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 9 ,

2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00329

- CR

STEPHEN JOHN

- PAUL RAMIREZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1344591

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in this case, personally signed by appellant, has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App

. P. 42.2. Because this Court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant ’ s request.
Accordingly, we orde r the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the Court to issue the mandate of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally. Do Not Publish

- Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Matrix Service Company of our reports dated September 8, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K and the effectiveness of Matrix Service Companys internal control over financial reporting for the year ended June 30, 2011:

Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-156814) related to the registration of $400,000,000 of Common Stock, Preferred Stock, Debt Securities, Warrants and Units

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-171247) related to the Matrix Service Company 2011 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-171245) related to the Matrix Service
Company 2004 Stock Incentive Plan

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-36081) related to the
Matrix Service Company 1990 Incentive Stock Option Plan

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-56945) related to the Matrix Service Company 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan, as amended

Registration Statement of Form S-8 (File No. 333-02771) related to the Matrix Service Company 1995 Nonemployee
Directors Stock Option Plan

Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119840) related to the
Matrix Service Company 2004 Stock Option Plan



|                         
|-------------------------
|/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Tulsa, Oklahoma          
|September 8, 2011
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HERLEY DAVIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1658 ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ) O/B/O MELISSA ANN BARTELL, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 14, 2017. Appeal from the Department of Revenue. Herley Davis, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Revenue No appearance for Appellee Melissa Ann Bartell.

PER CURIAM.

Herley Davis appeals a final administrative paternity and suppo rt order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program. We have jurisdiction. See § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C), .110(a)(2).- 2 - In its answer brief, the Department concludes with a concession of error regarding its method of calculating Mr. Davis's income for purposes of his ch ild support obligation. It

is unclear from our review of the limited record what that erro r would have been given the information the Department had before it and Mr. Davis's fa ilure to participate at any point in the proceedings below. Thus, we decline to accept the Department's concession. Cf. Hinckley v. Dep' t of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H. , 927 So. 2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing the Department's concession of error but dismissing on other grounds); Gonzalez v. Dep't of Health, 124 So. 3d 449, 45 0 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("A confession of error . . . is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions . . . ." (first alteration in original) (quoting Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268, 268 (Fla. 1s t DCA 2002))). As Mr. Davis never challenged the Department's method of calculating h is child support obligation, he failed to preserve that issue for our review. S ee Duggan v. Dep't of Revenue, ex rel. Huff, 197 So. 3d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that, in appeal of final administrative support o rder, the appellant "waived an d failed to preserve most of his appellate arguments after ignoring the process offered b elow"); Macias v. Dep't of Revenue, ex rel. Garcia, 16 So. 3d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that a father could not "seek modification of a Final Administrative Support Order on appeal by presenting facts that were not initially presented to the admin istrative law judge"). Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

KELLY, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
(function ($) {

/**
 * Prevents consecutive form submissions of identical form values.
 *
 * Repetitive form submissions that would submit the identical form values are
 * prevented, unless the form values are different from the previously
 * submitted values.
 *
 * This is a simplified re-implementation of a user-agent behavior that should
 * be natively supported by major web browsers, but at this time, only Firefox
 * has a built-in protection.
 *
 * A form value-based approach ensures that the constraint is triggered for
 * consecutive, identical form submissions only. Compared to that, a form
 * button-based approach would (1) rely on [visible] buttons to exist where
 * technically not required and (2) require more complex state management if
 * there are multiple buttons in a form.
 *
 * This implementation is based on form-level submit events only and relies on
 * jQuery's serialize() method to determine submitted form values. As such, the
 * following limitations exist:
 *
 * - Event handlers on form buttons that preventDefault() do not receive a
 *   double-submit protection. That is deemed to be fine, since such button
 *   events typically trigger reversible client-side or server-side operations
 *   that are local to the context of a form only.
 * - Changed values in advanced form controls, such as file inputs, are not part
 *   of the form values being compared between consecutive form submits (due to
 *   limitations of jQuery.serialize()). That is deemed to be acceptable,
 *   because if the user forgot to attach a file, then the size of HTTP payload
 *   will most likely be small enough to be fully passed to the server endpoint
 *   within (milli)seconds. If a user mistakenly attached a wrong file and is
 *   technically versed enough to cancel the form submission (and HTTP payload)
 *   in order to attach a different file, then that edge-case is not supported
 *   here.
 *
 * Lastly, all forms submitted via HTTP GET are idempotent by definition of HTTP
 * standards, so excluded in this implementation.
 */
Drupal.behaviors.formSingleSubmit = {
  attach: function () {
    function onFormSubmit (e) {
      var $form = $(e.currentTarget);
      var formValues = $form.serialize();
      var previousValues = $form.attr('data-drupal-form-submit-last');
      if (previousValues === formValues) {
        e.preventDefault();
      }
      else {
        $form.attr('data-drupal-form-submit-last', formValues);
      }
    }

    $('body').once('form-single-submit')
      .delegate('form:not([method~="GET"])', 'submit.singleSubmit', onFormSubmit);
  }
};

})(jQuery);
§ 260.70 Schedule of fees. ( a ) Unless otherwise provided in a written agreement between the applicant and the Secretary, the fees to be charged and collected for any inspection service performed under the regulations in this part at the request of the United States, or any other agency or instrumentality thereof, will be published as a notice in the Federal Register and will be in accordance with § 260.81.
( b ) Fees are reviewed annually to ascertain that the hourly fees charged are adequate to recover the costs of the services rendered. ( 1 ) The TYPE I (Contract Inspection) hourly fee is determined by dividing the estimated annual costs by the estimated annual billable hours.
( 2 ) The TYPE II (Lot Inspection) hourly fee is determined by adding a factor of 50 percent to the TYPE I fee, to cover additional costs (down-time, etc.) associated with conducting lot inspection services.
( 3 ) The TYPE III (Miscellaneous and Consulting) hourly fee is determined by adding a factor of 25 percent to the TYPE I fee, to cover the additional costs (down-time, etc.) associated with conducting miscellaneous inspection services.
[48 FR 24901, June 3, 1983]
#### § 27.91 Field trials.

The conducting or operation of field trials for dogs on national wildlife refuges is prohibited except as may be authorized by special permit.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of China Water Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chong Liang Pu and Peh Chung Lim, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|November 17, 2006 |  | /s/ Chong Liang Pu                   
|                  |  | Chong Liang Pu,                      
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  | 
|                  |  | /s/ Peh Chung Lim                    
|                  |  | Peh Chung Lim,                       
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer