alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 261.40 Is there a way for a State to reduce the work participation rates? ( a ) ( 1 ) If the average monthly number of cases receiving assistance, including assistance under a separate State program (as provided at § 261.42(b)), in a State in the preceding fiscal year was lower than the average monthly number of cases that received assistance, including assistance under a separate State program in that State in FY 2005, the minimum overall participation rate the State must meet for the fiscal year (as provided at § 261.21) decreases by the number of percentage points the prior-year caseload fell in comparison to the FY 2005 caseload.
( 2 ) The minimum two-parent participation rate the State must meet for the fiscal year (as provided at § 261.23) decreases, at State option, by either: ( i ) The number of percentage points the prior-year two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program (as provided at § 261.42(b)), fell in comparison to the FY 2005 two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program; or
( ii ) The number of percentage points the prior-year overall caseload, including assistance under a separate State program (as provided at § 261.42(b)), fell in comparison to the FY 2005 overall caseload, including cases receiving assistance under a separate State program.
( 3 ) For the credit calculation, we will refer to the fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year to which the credit applies as the “comparison year.”
( b ) ( 1 ) The calculations in paragraph (a) of this section must disregard caseload reductions due to requirements of Federal law and to changes that a State has made in its eligibility criteria in comparison to its criteria in effect in FY 2005.
( 2 ) At State option, the calculation may offset the disregard of caseload reductions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section by changes in eligibility criteria that increase caseloads.
( c ) ( 1 ) To establish the caseload base for FY 2005 and to determine the comparison-year caseload, we will use the combined TANF and Separate State Program caseload figures reported on the Form ACF-199, TANF Data Report, and Form ACF-209, SSP-MOE Data Report, respectively.
( 2 ) To qualify for a caseload reduction, a State must have reported monthly caseload information, including cases in separate State programs, for FY 2005 and the comparison year for cases receiving assistance as defined at § 261.43.
( d ) ( 1 ) A State may correct erroneous data or submit accurate data to adjust program data or to include unduplicated cases within the fiscal year.
( 2 ) We will adjust both the FY 2005 baseline and the comparison-year caseload information, as appropriate, based on these State submissions.
( e ) We refer to the number of percentage points by which a caseload falls, disregarding the cases described in paragraph (b) of this section, as a caseload reduction credit.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2006. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to Iran.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 06-9200

Billing code 3195-01-P
§ 2550.100 Do State entities or their members incur any risk of liability? ( a ) *State liability.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a State must agree to assume liability with respect to any claim arising out of or resulting from any act or omission by a member of the State Commission or AAE, within the scope of the service of that member.
( b ) *Individual liability.* A member of the State Commission or AAE shall have no personal liability with respect to any claim arising out of or resulting from any act or omission by that member, within the scope of the service of that member. This does not, however, limit personal liability for criminal acts or omissions, willful or malicious misconduct, acts or omissions for private gain, or any other act or omission outside the scope of the service of that member. Similarly, this part does not limit or alter in any way any other immunities that are available under applicable law for State officials and employees not described in this section; nor does this part affect any other right or remedy against the State or any person other than a member of a State Commission or AAE.
----

| 1. | The Report duly complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ John Roozendaal                                |   | Date:  August 30, 2012 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
| John Roozendaal                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |                             |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                         |   |                             |   |

----
§ 264.0 What definitions apply to this part? ( a ) The general TANF definitions at §§ 260.30 through 260.33 of this chapter apply to this part.
( b ) The following definitions also apply to this part:
*Casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment* means an establishment with a primary purpose of accommodating the wagering of money. It does not include: ( i ) A grocery store which sells groceries including staple foods and which also offers, or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, gambling, or gaming activities; or
( ii ) Any other establishment that offers casino, gambling, or gaming activities incidental to the principal purpose of the business.
*Countable State Expenditures* means the amount of qualifying State expenditures, as defined in § 264.75, plus the amount of contingency funds expended by the State in the fiscal year.
*Electronic benefit transfer transaction* means the use of a credit or debit card service, automated teller machine, point-of-sale terminal, or access to an online system for the withdrawal of funds or the processing of a payment for merchandise or a service.
*FAG* means the Family Assistance Grant granted to a Territory pursuant to section 403(a)(1) of the Act. It is thus the Territorial equivalent of the SFAG, as defined at § 260.30 of this chapter.
*Food Stamp Trigger* means a State's monthly average of individuals participating in the Food Stamp program (as of the last day of the month) for the most recent three-month period that exceeds its monthly average of individuals in the corresponding three-month period in the Food Stamp caseload for FY 1994 or FY 1995, whichever is less, by at least ten percent, assuming that the immigrant provisions of title IV and the Food Stamp provisions under title VII of PRWORA had been in effect in those years.
*Liquor store* means any retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries including staple foods (within the meaning of Section 3(r) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).
*Unemployment Trigger* means a State's average unemployment rate for the most recent three-month period of at least 6.5 percent and equal to at least 110 percent of the State's unemployment rate for the corresponding three-month period in either of the two preceding calendar years.
[64 FR 17896, Apr. 12, 1999, as amended at 81 FR 2105, Jan. 15, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 303 appear at 64 FR 6249, Feb. 9, 1999.

§ 303.52 Pass-through of incentives to political subdivisions. The State must calculate and promptly pay incentives to political subdivisions as follows: ( a ) The State IV-D agency must develop a standard methodology for passing through an appropriate share of its incentive payment to those political subdivisions of the State that participate in the costs of the program, taking into account the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities carried out under the State plan by those political subdivisions. In order to reward efficiency and effectiveness, the methodology also may provide for payment of incentives to other political subdivisions of the State that administer the program.
( b ) To ensure that the standard methodology developed by the State reflects local participation, the State IV-D agency must submit a draft methodology to participating political subdivisions for review and comment or use the rulemaking process available under State law to receive local input.
[54 FR 32312, Aug. 4, 1989]
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A12-02 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the ) Agenda Documents No. 1S-29-A and 

Oakland County Democratic Party ) No. 15-29-B 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission 

open meeting on June 18,201S, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve the Proposed Final Audit R^rt on the Oakland County Democratic Party as set forth 

in Agenda Document No. 1S-29-B. 

Corrunissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

\U/. IIM< 

Date? Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the Corhmission
#### Grissler *et al.*v. Stuyvesant, appellant.

*Uhdertdlcing upon injunction*— *action upon—reviving suit.*

In February, 1873, the plaintiffs, on procuring a temporary injunction, gave the usual undertaking. In November, 1873, judgment was rendered for the defendant, on demurrer to the complaint. In March, 1878, the defendant died, and his executor afterward applied for an order to revive, and for a reference to ascertain the damages sustained by the injunction. *Held,*that there was no necessity for an order reviving the action, as the defendant’s executor could obtain all his rights by bringing an action upon the undertaking.

Appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant’s executor to revive the action.

*Douglas Campbell,*for appellant.'

*John J. Townsend,*for respondent.

Lawrence, J.,

delivered a brief opinion, which is substantially given in the head-note.

*Order affirmed.*
§ 1703.205 Public announcement of meeting. ( a ) Except as provided in §§ 1703.207 and 1703.208, the Commission shall make a public announcement at least one week before the scheduled meeting, to include the following: ( 1 ) Time, place, and subject matter of the meeting;
( 2 ) Whether the meeting is to be open or closed; and
( 3 ) Name and telephone number of agency official who will respond to requests for information about the meeting.
( b ) If announcement of the subject matter of a closed meeting would reveal the information that the meeting was closed to protect, the subject matter shall not be announced.
§ 261.34 Are there any limitations in counting job search and job readiness assistance toward the participation rates? Yes. There are four limitations concerning job search and job readiness assistance. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual's participation in job search and job readiness assistance counts for a maximum of six weeks in the preceding 12-month period.
( b ) If the State's total unemployment rate is at least 50 percent greater than the United States' total unemployment rate or if the State meets the definition of a “needy State”, specified at § 260.30 of this chapter, then an individual's participation in job search and job readiness assistance counts for a maximum of 12 weeks in that 12-month period.
( c ) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a week equals 20 hours for a work-eligible individual who is a single custodial parent with a child under six years of age and equals 30 hours for all other work-eligible individuals.
( d ) An individual's participation in job search and job readiness assistance does not count for a week that immediately follows four consecutive weeks in which the State reports any hours of such participation in the preceding 12-month period. For purposes of this paragraph a week means seven consecutive days.
( e ) Not more than once for any individual in the preceding 12-month period, a State may count three or four days of job search and job readiness assistance during a week as a full week of participation. We calculate a full week of participation based on the average daily hours of participation for three or four days and will prorate participation at that level for the remaining one or two days to determine the total hours for a five-day week. Any prorated hours of participation must be included in the calculation of total hours permitted under the limitation in this section.
[73 FR 6824, Feb. 5, 2008]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Henix Resources Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year end of April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, James Shao, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

Dated this 30thday of July, 2007.

JAMES SHAOJames ShaoPrincipal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer


































---
_________________ 

_________________ 

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 

Per Curiam 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 08–1196 

BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, PETITIONER v. UNITED

STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 24, 2010] 

PER CURIAM. 

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

for further consideration in light of Skilling v. United 

States, ante, p. ___.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 77061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9832]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 9, 2006, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, five new 
standards have been initiated and five existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/11-02-06.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 3, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69146).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-9832 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDDIE PALMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-93-90, CA-97-428-N)

Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Eddie Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Palmer, Nos. CR-93-90; CA-97-428-N (E.D.

Va. Jan. 12, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of

counsel and 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
#### §§ 171.401-171.402 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief
      Executive Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




Date:
                May 15, 2007
            /s/
                Daniel B. O’Brien
              Daniel
                B. O’Brien
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
QUICK

CARDTM

Work Zone Traffic Safety

Employees being struck by vehicles or mobile equipment

lead to many work zone fatalities or injuries. Work zones

need traffic controls identified by signs, cones, barrels

and barriers.

Drivers, employees on foot, and pedestrians must be

able to see and understand the proper routes.

Construction project managers determine traffic control

plans within construction/demolition worksites. 

• Traffic control devices, signals, and message boards

instruct drivers to follow paths away from where work

is being done. 

• Approved traffic control devices, including cones, barrels, barricades, and delineator posts are also used

inside work zones.

Work Zone Protections: Various concrete, water, sand,

collapsible barriers, crash cushions, and truck-mounted

attenuators can help limit motorist intrusions into construction work zones.

Flagging: Flaggers should wear high visibility clothing

with a fluorescent background and made of retroreflective material. This makes employees visible for at least

1,000 feet in any direction. Check the label or packaging

to ensure that the garments are performance class 2 or

3. Drivers should be warned with signs that there will be

flaggers ahead. Flaggers should use STOP/SLOW paddles, paddles with lights, or flags (only in emergencies). 

Lighting: Flagger stations should be illuminated. Lighting

for employees on foot and for equipment operators

should be at least 5 foot-candles or greater. Where available lighting is not sufficient, flares or chemical lighting

should be used. Glare should be controlled or eliminated. 

Training: Flaggers must be trained/certified and use

authorized signaling methods. 

Driving: Seat belts and rollover protection should be

used on equipment and vehicles as the manufacturer

recommends.

OSHA 3284-05R-07

U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

For more complete information:

Occupational

Safety and Health

Administration