alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 75.433 Contingency provisions. ( a ) Contingency is that part of a budget estimate of future costs (typically of large construction projects, IT systems, or other items as approved by the HHS awarding agency) which is associated with possible events or conditions arising from causes the precise outcome of which is indeterminable at the time of estimate, and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs for the approved activity or project. Amounts for major project scope changes, unforeseen risks, or extraordinary events may not be included.
( b ) It is permissible for contingency amounts other than those excluded in paragraph (a) of this section to be explicitly included in budget estimates, to the extent they are necessary to improve the precision of those estimates. Amounts must be estimated using broadly-accepted cost estimating methodologies, specified in the budget documentation of the Federal award, and accepted by the HHS awarding agency. As such, contingency amounts are to be included in the Federal award. In order for actual costs incurred to be allowable, they must comply with the cost principles and other requirements in this part (see also §§ 75.300 through 75.309 of subpart D of this part and 75.403); be necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives, and be verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records.
( c ) Payments made by the HHS awarding agency to the non-Federal entity's “contingency reserve” or any similar payment made for events the occurrence of which cannot be foretold with certainty as to the time or intensity, or with an assurance of their happening, are unallowable, except as noted in §§ 75.431 and 75.447.
Case 1:12-cv-01034-JEB-JRB-RLW Document 12 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Proposed Final Audit Report on Randy ) 

Hultgren for Congress (Al 1-01) ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on March 04, 2013, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 5-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on Randy 

Hultgren for Congress (Al 1-01), as recommended in the Memorandum from the 

Chief Compliance OfScer and the Audit Division dated February 26,2013. 

Conunissioners Himter, McGahn n, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date Shawn Woodhead Werth ( 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 95
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 96
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 97
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 98
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 99
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 100
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 101
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 102
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 103
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 104
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 105
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 106
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 107
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 108
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 109
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 110
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 111
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 112
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 113
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 114
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 115
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 116
Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 17 Filed 07/20/15 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 117
###### Editorial Note on Part 85

#### Editorial Note:

At the request of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “Section-by-Section Analysis” portion of the preamble of the document published at 53 FR 25595, July 8, 1988, as corrected at 53 FR 26559, July 13, 1988, appears at the end of part 85.

#### § 85.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
# CE2009286EN.01005801.xml

| 27.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 286/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/58

---

Tuesday 17 June 2008Lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) ***I

P6_TA(2008)0265

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 June 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (COM(2007)0840 — C6-0004/2008 — 2007/0284(COD))

2009/C 286 E/17

(Codecision procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0840),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0004/2008),

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0235/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
Comment submitted on June 2, 2015 by “The Malayalee Association of 

Chicago” to dockets:

• DOS-2015-0016

• DOT-OST-2015-0082

• DOC-2015-0001

To the attention of Secretary of State Mr. John Kerry, Secretary of 

Transportation Mr. Anthony Foxx, and Secretary of Commerce Ms. Penny 

Pritzker: 

As a leader of the “The Malayalee Association of Chicago”, I represent the 

interests of 1100+ Malayalee people in the Greater Chicago area. There has 

been great concern in the community regarding the possibility that the U.S. 

will eliminate routes run by Emirates Airways, Etihad Airways, and Qatar 

Airways out of O’Hare International Airport. 

These airlines are among the few that provide reasonably direct service from 

O’Hare to Kochi, Trivandrum and Calicut in Kerala, India. Without them, 

Malayalees will have to resort to more cumbersome travel arrangements, 

usually with multiple connections including stopovers in Europe, Mumbai or 

Delhi. Such flights are much less desirable, as they are longer and more tiring 

and also more expensive. In other words, the removal of choices offered by 

Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar will put up barriers to traveling to Kerala.

For people of Malayalee heritage, having the ability to stay in contact with 

family and communities in India is important in keeping our culture alive. 

We believe that Indian Americans generally and others of diverse ethnic 

background will feel the same about this issue. The interests of multicultural 

Americans in retaining ties to their countries of origin are at least as 

important as those of three very successful U.S. airlines. Our organization 

hopes that you will take the Malayalee community’s needs into account when 

deciding on the fate of Open Skies agreements with Middle Eastern airlines.

Thank you,

Tomy Ambenattu (President)
§ 78.2 Definitions. For the purposes of denying Federal benefits under 21 U.S.C. 853a: ( a ) *Deemed to be rehabilitated* means that an individual has abstained from the illicit use of a controlled substance for the period of at least 180 days immediately prior to and including the date of sentencing provided that such abstinence is documented by the results of periodic urine drug testing conducted during that period; and provided further that such drug testing is conducted using an immunoassay test approved by the Food and Drug Administration for commercial distribution or, in the case of a State offense, either using an immunoassay test approved by the Food and Drug Administration for commercial distribution or pursuant to standards approved by the State.
( b ) *Long-term treatment program or long-term drug treatment program* means any drug abuse treatment program of 180 days or more where the provider has been accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations, the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, or the Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children, or licensed or otherwise approved by the State to provide drug abuse treatment.
#### § 508.6 Résumé of hearing, preparation of.

Following each hearing, the hearing officer will prepare a résumé of the hearing, specifying the issues on which the hearing was based, and including a list of documents and contents and other items relative to the issues that were introduced as evidence. A brief analysis of oral testimony will also be prepared and included in the résumé of each hearing not stenographically reported.
§ 607.7 Coordinating offset with another Federal agency. ( a ) When the NSF is the creditor agency and the Chief Financial Officer determines that an employee of another agency (i.e., the paying agency) owes a debt to the NSF, the Chief Financial Officer shall, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Certify in writing to the paying agency that the employee owes the debt, the amount and basis of the debt, the date on which payment was due, and the date the Government's right to collect the debt accrued, and that this part 607 has been approved by the Office of Personnel Management.
( 2 ) Unless the employee has consented to salary offset in writing or signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the required procedures, and the written consent is sent to the paying agency, the Chief Financial Officer must advise the paying agency of the action(s) taken under this part 607, and the date(s) they were taken.
( 3 ) Request the paying agency to collect the debt by salary offset. If deductions must be made in installments, the Chief Financial Officer may recommend to the paying agency the amount or percentage of disposable pay to be collected in each installment;
( 4 ) Arrange for a hearing upon the proper petitioning by the employee.
( b ) When the NSF is the creditor agency and the employee is in the process of separating from the Federal service, the NSF must submit its debt claim to the paying agency as provided in this part. The paying agency must certify the total amount collected, give a copy of the certification to the employee, and send a copy of the certification and notice of the employee's separation to the NSF. If the paying agency is aware that the employee is entitled to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund or other similar payments, it must certify to the agency responsible for making such payments that the debtor owes a debt, including the amount of the debt, and that the provisions of 5 CFR 550.1108 have been followed.
( c ) When the NSF is the creditor agency and the employee has already separated from Federal service and all payments due from the paying agency have been paid, the Chief Financial Officer may request, unless otherwise prohibited, that money payable to the employee from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund or other similar funds be collected by administrative offset.
( d ) When the NSF is the paying agency, upon receipt of a properly certified debt claim from another agency, deductions will be scheduled to begin at the next established pay interval. The employee must receive written notice that NSF has received a certified debt claim from the creditor agency, the amount of the debt, the date salary offset will begin, and the amount of the deduction(s). NSF shall not review the merits of the creditor agency's determination of the validity or the amount of the certified claim. If the employee transfers to another agency after the creditor agency has submitted its debt claim to NSF and before the debt is collected completely, NSF must certify the amount collected. One copy of the certification must be furnished to the employee. A copy must be furnished to the creditor agency with notice of the employee's transfer.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1717. DARREN D. RIGGS v. MEG HEAP, DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al.

Darren D. Riggs, a prison inmate, filed a lawsuit against Meg Heap, District

Attorney, and Lindsey Rudder, ADA. The trial court dismissed the case. Riggs then

filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Because Riggs is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an appeal of

a civil action filed by a prisoner “shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” And

under OCGA § 5-6-35 (b), a prisoner wishing to appeal must file an application for

discretionary review to the appropriate appellate court. Because a prisoner has no

right of direct appeal in civil cases, we lack jurisdiction to consider Riggs’s direct

appeal. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Accordingly,

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 07, 2018

06/07/2018
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





I,
RICHARD SOKOLOWSKI, Chief Financial Officer of NEXT 1 INTERACTIVE, INC. (the
“Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(i) The
Company’s accompanying Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February
28, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii) The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ RICHARD
  SOKOLOWSKI


RICHARD
SOKOLOWSKI


Chief
Financial Officer


Dated:
January 11, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) RESPONSE TO 

 ) MOTIONS TO INTERVENE

 Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO THE 

MOTIONS TO INTERVENE OF REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN 

AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Defendant Federal Election Commission hereby responds to the motions of 

Representative Christopher Van Hollen, Jr. and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) to 

intervene as defendants in this action. 

The Commission agrees that Section 403(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002 (“BCRA”), 116 Stat. 114, grants Representative Van Hollen a statutory right to intervene 

here because this is an “action in which the constitutionality of any provision of [BCRA] is 

raised.” Accordingly, the Commission consents to Representative Van Hollen’s motion under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). 

The Commission opposes the DNC’s motion to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

24(a)(2). That motion should be denied because the Commission “adequately represent[s] [the] 

interest” of the DNC in defending the constitutionality of BCRA Title I. The Commission takes 

no position on the DNC’s motion for permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 24 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 1 of 2
2

 Should the Court grant any motion to intervene, the Commission respectfully requests 

that it not be required to file joint briefs or to divide oral argument with any intervenordefendant. Rather, the Commission requests the Court’s permission to file separate briefs with 

whatever page limitations apply to Plaintiffs, and to be allotted oral argument time equal to the 

time allotted to Plaintiffs. The Commission also requests that the schedule for the case not be 

impaired due to the addition of any new parties. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: February 3, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 24 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 2 of 2
392 P.2d 551

#### Jerry McGUIRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 9410.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

April 27, 1964.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1964.

Andrew M. Harrington, Boise, for appellant.

Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., and Thomas •G. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This appeal was brought by Jerry McGuire, who, with Rufus William Freeman, was jointly charged, tried and convicted of robbery.

The errors assigned and issues presented are the same as those presented in the case ■of Freeman v. State, 87 Idaho 170, 392 P.2d 542, also submitted to the court at the March, 1964, term.

On the authority of our decision in that case the judgment herein is affirmed; modified, however, in keeping with the mandate in Freeman v. State. Accordingly it is ordered that the term of 17 years as provided by the commitment dated July 9, 1963, commence upon appellant’s arrival at the Idaho State Penitentiary under the original commitment dated November 10, 1961.

KNUDSON, C. J., and McQUADE, Mc-FADDEN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FREE SPEECH,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant−Appellee.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER; 

DEMOCRACY 21,

Amici Curiae.

No. 12-8078

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00127-SWS)

(D. Wyo.)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Free Speech’s emergency motion for an 

injunction on appeal. The Federal Election Commission is directed to file a response 

to the emergency motion for injunction. The response shall be filed by 5:00 PM 

MST on Monday, October 29, 2012.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 25, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 12-8078 Document: 01018938953 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1
§ 410.1208 ORR's discretion to place an unaccompanied child in the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program. ( a ) An unaccompanied child may be eligible for services through the ORR Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM) Program. Eligible categories of unaccompanied children include: ( 1 ) Cuban and Haitian entrant as defined in section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, and as provided for at 45 CFR 400.43;
( 2 ) An individual determined to be a victim of a severe form of trafficking as defined in 22 U.S.C. 7102(11);
( 3 ) An individual DHS has classified as a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) under section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J), and who was either in the custody of HHS at the time a dependency order was granted for such child or who was receiving services pursuant to section 501(a) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, at the time such dependency order was granted;
( 4 ) U nonimmigrant status recipients under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U); or
( 5 ) Other populations of children as authorized by Congress.
( b ) With respect to unaccompanied children described in paragraph (a) of this section, ORR shall evaluate each unaccompanied child case to determine whether it is in the child's best interests to be placed in the URM Program.
( c ) When ORR places an unaccompanied child pursuant to this section to receive services through the URM Program, legal responsibility of the child, including legal custody or guardianship, must be established under State law as required by 45 CFR 400.115. Until such legal custody or guardianship is established, the ORR Director shall retain legal custody of the child.
#### § 400.10 [Reserved]
21st Century Holding Company

EXHIBIT 32.2

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                             THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 21st Century
Holding Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James G. Jennings, III,
Chief Financial Officer of 21st Century Holding Company, hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of 21st Century Holding Company.


By:  /s/ James G. Jennings, III
     -------------------------------------
James G. Jennings, III, Chief Financial Officer