alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1302.72 Transitions between programs. ( a ) For families and children who move out of the community in which they are currently served, including families experiencing homelessness and children in foster care, a program must undertake efforts to support effective transitions to other Head Start programs. If Head Start is not available, the program should assist the family to identify another early childhood program that meets their needs.
( b ) A program that serves children whose families have decided to transition them to other early education programs, including public pre-kindergarten, in the year prior to kindergarten entry must undertake strategies and activities described in § 1302.71(b) and (c)(1) and (2), as practicable and appropriate.
( c ) A migrant or seasonal Head Start program must undertake efforts to support effective transitions to other migrant or seasonal Head Start or, if appropriate, Early Head Start or Head Start Preschool programs for families and children moving out of the community in which they are currently served.
[81 FR 61412, Sept. 6, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 67812, Aug. 21, 2024]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 45846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18618]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Arts Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held by teleconference as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and 
ending times are approximate):
    Artist Communities (application review): This meeting will be 
virtual and will be closed.

DATES: August 13, 2014. 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. This meeting is being 
held on an emergency basis to address time sensitive issues.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of 
Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC, 20506; plowitzk@arts.gov, or call 202-682-5691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United 
States Code.

    Dated: August 1, 2014.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2014-18618 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
§ 261.63 When is a State's Work Verification Plan due? ( a ) Each State must submit its interim Work Verification Plan for validating work activities reported in the TANF Data Report and, if applicable, the SSP-MOE Data Report no later than September 30, 2006.
( b ) If HHS requires changes, a State must submit them within 60 days of receipt of our notice and include all necessary changes as part of a final approved Work Verification Plan no later than September 30, 2007.
( c ) If a State modifies its verification procedures for TANF or SSP-MOE work activities or its internal controls for ensuring a consistent measurement of the work participation rate, the State must submit for approval an amended Work Verification Plan by the end of the quarter in which the State modifies the procedures or internal controls.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         804,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,339,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,452,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,981,000
<PP&E>                                     117,886,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,325,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             134,530,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,810,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,418,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               134,530,000
<SALES>                                     32,660,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,660,000
<CGS>                                       15,486,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,561,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             200,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,970,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,140,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,830,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,830,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27


</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00036

- CR

BYRON O'KEITH BARRETT, Appellant
V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 24865

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Court reporter Terry Spangler recorded the trial court proceedings in our cause number
06

- 13

- 00036

- CR, styled Byron O’Keith Barrett v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 24865 in the 6th Judicial District Court of Lamar County, Texas. The reporter’s r ecord was due in this case April 29, 2013. After Spangler failed to respond to the efforts of our clerk’s office to obtain a status report on the missing record, we entered an order on May 16 requiring Spangler to file the record on or before May 31. Rat her than file the record, as ordered, Spangler filed a motion for extension of time, which we granted, giving Spangler until June 7 to file the record. We have received nothing from Spangler, and our patience has been exhausted. We hereby order Spangler to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 13

- 00036

- CR, Byron O’Keith Barrett v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 24865, to be received by this Court no later than Wednesday, July 24, 2013. No further extensions of time will be granted. If the record is not received by July 24, we advise Spangler that we will begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for failing to obey its order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: July 17, 2013
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 18, 2014

NO. 03-13-00339-CR

Jason DeLosSantos, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
§ 1174.19 Discovery. ( a ) Parties may conduct the following types of discovery: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless the parties mutually agree to discovery, a party may conduct discovery only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) Each party shall bear its own discovery costs.
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 15 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:10-cv-01350-RMC Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 660.5 What is the Director's obligation with respect to Federal interagency coordination?

The Director, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected Federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and the Foundation regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9964]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 326]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the 
Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee 
and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, 
January 26, 2007 at the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests 
Headquarters office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA. This meeting will 
begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. During this meeting 
Provincial Advisory Committee members will discuss Roadless Area 
considerations and potential Wilderness in conjunction with Forest Plan 
Revision for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. All Eastern 
Washington Cascades and Yakima Province Advisory Committee meetings are 
open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee 
National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509-664-
9200.

    Dated: December 28, 2006.
Paul Hart,
Designated Federal Official, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
[FR Doc. 06-9964 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 2509.14 What is the purpose of the review and clearance procedure? CNCS's guidance issuance process shall ensure that each proposed guidance document satisfies the following requirements: ( a ) The guidance document complies with all relevant statutes and regulations (including any statutory deadlines for Agency action);
( b ) The guidance document identifies or includes: ( 1 ) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;
( 2 ) The issuing CNCS responsible office name;
( 3 ) A unique identifier, including, at a minimum, the date of issuance and title of the document and its regulatory identification number (RIN), if applicable;
( 4 ) The activity or entities to which the guidance applies;
( 5 ) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
( 6 ) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
( 7 ) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document;
( c ) The guidance document avoids using mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the language is describing an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to CNCS employees and will not foreclose CNCS's consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties;
( d ) The guidance document is written in plain and understandable English; and
( e ) All guidance documents should include the following disclaimer prominently in each guidance document: “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.” When CNCS's guidance document is binding because binding guidance is authorized by law or because the guidance is incorporated into a contract, CNCS will modify the disclaimer above to reflect either of those facts.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1686 

To provide for the protection and integrity of the United States mail. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 2009 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide for the protection and integrity of the United 

States mail. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mail Network Protec5 tion Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAIL NETWORK PROTECTION. 

7 Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 

10 subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1686 IH

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(d)(1) The Postal Service may not enter into any 

4 contract described in paragraph (2) without first satis5 fying the requirements of paragraph (3). 

6 ‘‘(2) A contract described in this paragraph is any 

7 contract which— 

8 ‘‘(A) provides for mail processing, mail han9 dling, or surface transportation of mail; and 

10 ‘‘(B) involves work— 

11 ‘‘(i) that would otherwise be performed, in 

12 whole or in part, by career postal employees 

13 within a recognized bargaining unit; and 

14 ‘‘(ii) the performance of which would, dur15 ing any 12-month period— 

16 ‘‘(I) cost the Postal Service 

17 $5,000,000 or more under the proposed 

18 contract; or 

19 ‘‘(II) involve at least 50 workyears of 

20 work. 

21 ‘‘(3)(A) Before entering into a contract described in 

22 paragraph (2), the Postal Service shall first notify the ex23 clusive representative of the bargaining unit described in 

24 paragraph (2)(B)(i) (or each such unit) of its intent and, 

25 if requested, shall meet and bargain with the exclusive repVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:32 Mar 25, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1686.IH H1686

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1686 IH

1 resentative (or representatives), in accordance with the 

2 provisions of chapter 12 relating to collective bargaining, 

3 with respect to the proposed contract. 

4 ‘‘(B) If no agreement is reached within 60 days after 

5 collective bargaining commences, either party may invoke 

6 the dispute resolution procedures set forth in subsection 

7 (c) of section 1207, which subsection shall thereupon 

8 apply in accordance with its terms. 

9 ‘‘(4) Any contract described in paragraph (2) which 

10 is not entered into in accordance with the requirements 

11 of paragraph (3) shall be void ab initio.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

13 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

14 respect to any contract entered into on or after the date 

15 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### The Elmore and Hamilton Contracting Company, Appellant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant. County of Orange, Respondent.

*Elmore & Hamilton Gontrg. Go.*v. *State of New Torh,*133 App. Div, 930, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted October 8, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 14, 1909, which affirmed an order of the Court of Claims denying a motion to bring in the respondent County of Orange as a party defendant.

*Hiram G. Todd*and *Edgar T. Brackett*for appellant.

*Joseph*T7. *Gott*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JT.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6318

JERRELL CORTEZ EDWARDS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Patricia Tolliver Giles , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00769

- PTG

- WEF )

Submitted : August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jerrell Cortez Edwards , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6318 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jerrell Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6318 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
On parties’joint motion for reconsideration filed April 10, reconsideration allowed; opinion (139 Or App 433, 912 P2d 925) modified and adhered to as modified

May 29,1996

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Brenda M. ISHAM, *Respondent, and*Gary Clayton ISHAM, *Appellant.*

(L920795 CV; CA A85316)

917 P2d 75

Russell Lipetzky and Saucy and Lipetzky filed the motion for appellant.

Eric Larson and Gevurtz, Menashe, Larson & Yates filed the motion for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

EDMONDS, J.

*303EDMONDS, J.

Husband and wife jointly move for reconsideration, seeking clarification of our previous opinion. *Isham and Isham,*139 Or App 433, 912 P2d 925 (1996). We allow reconsideration and modify our opinion. ORAP 6.25.

In our previous opinion, we held that wife had overcome the statutory presumption of equal contribution as to her two-thirds interest in a ranch on which a stand of timber exists, but nevertheless concluded that it would not be just and proper to omit the interest in the ranch and the timber from the property division equation. We also concluded that there were just and proper reasons to grant wife a disproportionate share of the parties’ assets. We therefore vacated the offsetting equalizing judgment granted to husband by the trial court, awarded husband the timber, and otherwise affirmed the trial court’s disposition.1 The parties agree that, subsequent to the trial court’s judgment, wife harvested some of the timber, a fact about which we were unaware until the motion for reconsideration was filed. As a result, we modify our previous opinion to award husband the *value*of the timber interest at the time of trial, and remand the case to the trial court for rehearing in order to render judgment consistent with this and our prior opinion.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

1

 Husband interprets our previous decision as intending “to make an equal division of the parties’ assets, (excluding the value of the ranch and timber), and to then add to husband’s one-half of those assets the value of the timber!.]” That interpretation is incorrect.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE GENERAL MOTORS 

COMPANY DERIVATIVE 

LITIGATION

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 392, 2015

Court Below: Court of Chancery 

of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. 9627-VCG

Submitted: February 10, 2016

Decided: February 11, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and 

SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER

This 11th day of February 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs 

filed by the parties and after oral argument, we find it evident that the judgment of 

the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned in its June 26, 2015 decision.1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

1

In re Gen. Motors Co. Derivative Litig., 2015 WL 3958724 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2015).