alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 201.70 Treatment of replacement checks. ( a ) *Purpose.* This section provides the rules to ensure States do not claim Federal financial participation (FFP) for replacement checks under titles I, VI-A, X, XIV, XVI (AABD) except under the circumstances specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section— *Check* means a check or warrant that the State or local agency uses to make a payment.
*Replacement check* means a check issued by the State or local agency to replace an earlier check.
( c ) *Claiming of FFP for replacement checks.* The State agency may not claim FFP for the amount of a replacement check unless: ( 1 ) It makes no claim for FFP for the earlier check;
( 2 ) The earlier check has been cancelled (voided) and FFP refunded, where claimed, pursuant to 45 CFR 201.67(d); or
( 3 ) The earlier check has been cashed and FFP has been refunded.
The State agency shall report the amount of the refund of FFP for the earlier check on the Quarterly Statement of Expenditures for the quarter no later than the quarter in which the replacement check is issued. [53 FR 24269, June 28, 1988]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q  OF PRIVATE BUSINESS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005**

The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for Private Business Inc. (“Issuer”) for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

|   | (a).   | fully complies with the   requirements of secion 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;   and                                           |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (b).   | the information contained   in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial   condition and results of operations of the Issuer. |

The foregoing cerficication is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

          This Certification is executed as of May 12, 2005.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|   | /s/  HENRY M. BAROCO                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   | Henry M. Baroco   Chief Executive Officer |
#### Compton, appellant, v. Shaw *et al.*

*Common can'rier—lien for freight and chmges—Conversion.*

The plaintiff, a common carrier, having transported a cargo of wheat to the city of New York, consigned to an insurance company, being unable to obtain his freight, deposited the cargo in the defendant’s warehouses and took *762a receipt therefor, in. his own name, upon a distinct understanding with the consignee that it was done to save the plaintiff’s lien upon the wheat. The defendants delivered the wheat to the consignee without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. *Held,*that they were guilty of a conversion, and must answer to the plaintiff for his interest in the property, for freight and charges.

Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in an action brought by Oscar E. Compton against Leander B. Shaw, to recover for the conversion of a quantity of wheat.

*Edw. H. Hobbs,*for appellant.

*H. C. Place,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The head-note states substantially the only point passed upon in the opinion.

*New trial granted,.*
#### § 2556.705 What is prohibited political activity?

For purposes of the regulations in this subpart, “prohibited political activity” means an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.
§ 287.30 If an eligible consortium breaks up, what happens to the NEW Program grant? ( a ) If a consortium should break up or any Tribe withdraws from a consortium, it will be necessary to allocate unobligated funds and future grants among the Tribes that were members of the consortium, if each individual Tribe obtains ACF approval to continue to operate a NEW Program.
( b ) Each withdrawing Tribe must submit to ACF a copy of the Tribal resolution that confirms the Tribe's decision to withdraw from the consortium and indicates whether the Tribe elects to continue its participation in the program.
( c ) The allocation can be accomplished by any method that is recommended and agreed to by the leaders of those Tribes.
( d ) If no recommendation is made by the Tribal leaders or no agreement is reached, the Secretary will determine the allocation of funds based on the best available data.
§ 630.400 What are my responsibilities as a(n) National Science Foundation awarding official? As a(n) National Science Foundation awarding official, you must obtain each recipient's agreement, as a condition of the award, to comply with the requirements in— ( a ) Subpart B of this part, if the recipient is not an individual; or
( b ) Subpart C of this part, if the recipient is an individual.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the United Association 

Political Education Committee (UAPEC) 

A09-27 

Agenda Document No. 11-28 

CERTIFICATION 

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

open meeting on June 15,2011, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve the Recommendation Memorandum and request that, in the next draft of this report, 

the Audit Division include a statement that the Commission intends to consider these issues with 

respect to independent expenditure reporting and make a pubhc statement regarding these issues. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

afiirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

^iMiAJUnl(Ui(^ 

Date ' Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the Comihission
§ 32.3 General rule. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever a delinquent debt is owed by an individual, the Secretary, or another federal agency collecting a debt on the Department's behalf (*See* 45 CFR part 30), may initiate proceedings administratively to garnish the wages of the delinquent debtor.
( b ) The Secretary may not garnish the wages of a debtor who the Secretary knows has been involuntarily separated from employment until the debtor has been re-employed continuously for at least 12 months. The debtor has the burden of informing the Secretary of the circumstances surrounding an involuntary separation from employment.
§ 604.300 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 604.100 (a), does not apply in the case of any reasonable payment to a person, other than an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action, if the payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) The reporting requirements in § 604.110 (a) and (b) regarding filing a disclosure form by each person, if required, shall not apply with respect to professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting or a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( d ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( e ) Persons other than officers or employees of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action include consultants and trade associations.
( f ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Alcohol AbuseCollege StudentsFraternitiesHigher EducationSororitiesStudent Characteristics

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### Mary Conway, *Appellant, v*The City of Albany, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Osborn, J., not acting.
§ 160.512 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The ALJ must schedule at least one prehearing conference, and may schedule additional prehearing conferences as appropriate, upon reasonable notice, which may not be less than 14 business days, to the parties.
( b ) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following— ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement;
( 3 ) Stipulations and admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record;
( 5 ) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of the other party) and written argument;
( 6 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
( 7 ) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
( 8 ) Discovery of documents as permitted by this subpart;
( 9 ) The time and place for the hearing;
( 10 ) The potential for the settlement of the case by the parties; and
( 11 ) Other matters as may tend to encourage the fair, just and expeditious disposition of the proceedings, including the protection of privacy of individually identifiable health information that may be submitted into evidence or otherwise used in the proceeding, if appropriate.
( c ) The ALJ must issue an order containing the matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
#### § 2550.70 [Reserved]
§ 605.8 Notice. ( a ) A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall take appropriate initial and continuing steps to notify participants, beneficiaries, applications, and employees, including those with impaired vision or hearing, and unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 and this part. The notification shall state, where appropriate, that the recipient does not discriminate in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. The notification shall also include an identification of the responsible employee designated pursuant to § 605.7(a). A recipient shall make the initial notification required by this paragraph within 90 days of the effective date of this part. Methods of initial and continuing notification may include the posting of notices, publication in newspapers and magazines, placement of notices in recipient's publication, and distribution of memoranda or other written communications.
( b ) If a recipient publishes or uses recruitment materials or publications containing general information that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, applicants, or employees, it shall include in those materials or publications a statement of the policy described in paragraph (a) of this section. A recipient may meet the requirement of this paragraph either by including appropriate inserts in existing materials and publications or by revising and reprinting the materials and publications.
[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20463 

March 8/ 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Patricia Carmona 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Joseph F. Stoltz 

Assistant StaffDirector 

Christopher Hughey 

Acting General Counsel 

Lawrence L. Calvert, Jr./ 

Associate General Cou^s^l 

Lorenzo Holloway 

Assistant General Counsel 

For Public Finance and Audit Advice 

Delanie DeWitt Painter 

Attomey 

Interim Audit Report for Democratic Party of Orange County Fed PAC 

(LRA 833) 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit 

Report ("lAR") for the Democratic Party of Orange County Fed PAC. We concur with 

the findings in the proposed lAR and have no comments.' If you have any questions, 

please contact Delanie DeWitt Painter, the attomey assigned to this audit. 

' We recommend that the Commission consider this document in Executive Session because the 

Commission may eventually decide to pursue an investigation of matters contained in the proposed I AR. 

11 CF.R. §§ 2.4(a) and (b)(6).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

HAROLD W. POPPE

v. Record No. 0284-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM DOROTHY D. POPPE AUGUST 29, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Thomas A. Fortkort, Judge (Robert P. Dwoskin, on brief), for appellant. (Mary S. Meade, on brief), for appellee.

Harold W. Poppe (husband) appeals the equitable distribution decision of the circuit court awarding certain property to Dorothy D. Poppe (wife). Husband raises a single issue on appeal: whether husband's incarceration should have been sufficient grounds to bar the trial court from entering a final order of equitable distribution. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 1 "In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, we recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one. Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 As husband was represented by counsel, no issues arise under Code § 8.01-9. See Dunn v. Terry , 216 Va. 234, 239-40, 217 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1975).2 in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case." Artis v. Artis , 4 Va. App. 132, 137, 354 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987). The Final Decree of Divorce and Equitable Distribution, entered August 24, 1994, demonstrates that husband was granted an extension until December 1, 1994 to present evidence relating to "any property items not previously ruled upon." Although husband was incarcerated, the record demonstrates that husband was present at the July 20, 1994 equitable distribution hearing and was represented by counsel. The record contains a letter husband filed on August 18, 1994, in which husband suggested that additional savings accounts existed. However, no additional evidence was presented and the Supplemental Decree of Equitable Distribution was entered on December 19, 1994. Husband's counsel objected to entry of the final order "due to [husband's] continuing incarceration until Feb 1995." Husband argues, in essence, that the trial court was obliged to continue to grant continuances until husband was no longer incarcerated so that husband could personally examine his assets. "The grant or denial of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge." Snurkowski v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 532, 535, 348 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1986). Furthermore, "[a]fter a court has concluded an evidentiary hearing 'during which each party had ample opportunity to present evidence, it [is] within the court's discretion to refuse to take further evidence on this subject.'"3 Holmes v. Holmes , 7 Va. App. 472, 480, 375 S.E.2d 387, 392 (1988) (citation omitted). Husband has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in entering a final order. The court allowed husband ample opportunities to present evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ) 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 15-2038 (RC) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is given that plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, Citizens for Responsibility 

and Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan, hereby appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the District Court’s February 22, 2017 

memorandum opinion and order granting the defendant Federal Election Commission’s motion 

for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

Dated: March 21, 2017 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stuart McPhail 

Stuart C. McPhail 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org 

(D.C. Bar No. 1032529) 

Adam J. Rappaport 

arappaport@citizensforethics.org

(D.C. Bar No. 479866) 

Case 1:15-cv-02038-RC Document 28 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 3
2 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Sixth Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 408-5565 

Fax: (202) 588-5020 

Attorneys for Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan 

Case 1:15-cv-02038-RC Document 28 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 3
1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on March 21, 2017, a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ notice of 

appeal was filed and served electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system upon the 

following counsel or record: 

Gregory John Mueller 

Harry Jacobs Summers 

Kevin Deeley 

Jacob Stephen Siler 

Federal Election Commission 

Office of General Counsel 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

/s/ Stuart McPhail 

Stuart McPhail 

Case 1:15-cv-02038-RC Document 28 Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 3
#### New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Untermyer et al., Appellants.

*N. T. O.*<6 *H. JR. jR. B. Go.*v. *Untermyer,*133 App. Div. 146, affirmed.

(Argued October 8,1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 4, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings.

*Louis Marshall*for appellants.

*John F. Brennan*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Tilbert Meyer, Appellant, *v.*Consolidated Ice Company, Respondent.

(Submitted January 3, 1910;

decided January 11, 1910.)

Motion for re-argument and motion to offset judgments denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 196 N. Y. 471.)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Highwater Ethanol, LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Peterson, Chief 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, as amended; 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/ Mark Peterson                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Mark   Peterson, Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Dated:   January 31, 2011           |

 

----
§ 263.10 What actions would we take against a State if it uses Federal TANF funds in violation of the Act? ( a ) If a State misuses its Federal TANF funds, we will reduce the SFAG payable for the immediately succeeding fiscal year quarter by the amount misused.
( b ) If the State fails to demonstrate that the misuse was not intentional, we will further reduce the SFAG payable for the immediately succeeding fiscal year quarter in an amount equal to five percent of the adjusted SFAG.
( c ) The reasonable cause and corrective compliance provisions of §§ 262.4 through 262.6 of this chapter apply to the penalties specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.