alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 75.428 Collections of improper payments.

The costs incurred by a non-Federal entity to recover improper payments are allowable as either direct or indirect costs, as appropriate. Amounts collected may be used by the non-Federal entity in accordance with cash management standards set forth in § 75.305.
#### § 1629.7 Can LSC funds be used to cover bonding costs?

Costs of bonding required by this part are allowable if expended consistent with 45 CFR part 1630. Costs of bonding such as rates, deductibles, single loss retention, and premiums, are allowable as an indirect cost if such bonding is in accordance with sound business practice and is reasonable.
§ 109.555 Propulsion boilers. The master or person in charge and the engineer in charge shall ensure that— ( a ) Steam pressure does not exceed that allowed by the certificate of inspection; and
( b ) The safety valves, once set, are not tampered with or made inoperative.
[CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56828, Dec. 4, 1978, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51208, Sept. 30, 1997]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JOHN FERNSTROM, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

ELLIS POINT CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., VICTOR 

TRUNZO, EUGENE 

CASTELLUCCI, JAMES 

DAUTENHAM, PETER 

DEANGELIS, GARY OWENS, and 

DAVID WEIDMAN, 

Defendants Below, 

Appellees. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 209, 2018 

§ 

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2017-0518 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: October 5, 2018 

Decided: November 30, 2018 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis 

of, and for the reasons assigned in, the Court of Chancery’s March 28, 2018 bench 

ruling adopting the Master’s December 5, 2017 Final Report.1

 

 

 

1 Fernstrom v. Trunzo, 2017 WL 6028871 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2017). 
2 

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

Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Varsity Group Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |                   |  |                                                                    
|------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | 
|Dated: May 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Jack M Benson
|                    |  |                   |  | Jack M Benson Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1051

MICHEL RIDGELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC) Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michel Ridgely appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment on Ridgely’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims. Ridgely first challenges the transfer of his civil action from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir ginia. However, we do not have jurisdiction to review this issue because Ridgely failed to challenge the change of venue in the Eastern District of Virginia. Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc. , 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we dismiss Ridgely’s appeal as to that issue. Ridgely next contends the district court improperly concluded that he failed to exhaust his retaliation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ridgely v. Chao , No. 1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC (E.D. Va., Dec. 29, 2006). We 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 IN PART ; AFFIRMED IN PART
Due to the use of Java script in the web page, http://www.ftc.gov/opp/advocacy_date.shtm, it has been impossible to capture the functionality of the web page. However all Advocacy Filings linked to from the page have been captured and can be found in ~\netsite-docs\gpo16357\gpo16357\www.ftc.gov\opp\advocacy.When possible the documents have been placed into folders by year.

This is accurate as of 12/05/2013.
#### § 108.401 Fire main system.

Each unit must have a fire main system.
#### Lizzie Cantor, Appellant, *v.*Ethel B. Robinson, Respondent.

*Cantor*v. *Robinson,*120 App. Div. 875, affirmed.

(Submitted October 14, 1909;

decided October 29, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June *5477, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to impress a lien upon real property for an amount paid on account of purchase price and expenses of examining title.

*Julius M. Mayer*and' *A. 8. Gilbert*for appellant.

*William 8. Ilaslcell*and *Joseph II 8pafforcl*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur : Cullen, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoock and Chase, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Universal Power Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ian Edmonds,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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.



A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



Dated: March 31, 2011



/s/ Ian Edmonds

Ian Edmonds

President, Chief Executive Officer and

Interim Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

---
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

FBR CAPITAL MARKETS CORPORATION

A VIRGINIA CORPORATION



|                                        |  |               
|--------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                      |  | JURISDICTION  
|FBR Asset Management Holdings, Inc.     |  | Virginia      
|FBR Fund Advisers, Inc.                 |  | Delaware      
|FBR Investment Management, Inc.         |  | Delaware      
|FBR Capital Markets Holdings, Inc.      |  | Delaware      
|FBR Capital Markets & Co.               |  | Delaware      
|FBR Investment Services, Inc.           |  | Delaware      
|FBR Capital Markets International, Ltd. |  | United Kingdom
|FBR Capital Markets LT, Inc.            |  | Delaware      
|FBR Capital Markets PT, Inc.            |  | Virginia
§ 95.625 Increased FFP for certain ADP systems. ( a ) *General.* FFP is available at enhanced matching rates for the development of individual or integrated systems and the associated computer equipment that support the administration of state plans for titles IV-D and/or XIX provided the systems meet the specifically applicable provisions referenced in paragraph (b) of the section.
( b ) *Specific reference to other regulations.* The applicable regulations for the Title IV-D program are contained in 45 CFR part 307. The applicable regulations for the Title IV-E program are contained in 45 CFR 1355.55. The applicable regulations for the title IV-D program are contained in 45 CFR part 307. The applicable regulations for the title XIX program are contained in 42 CFR part 433, subpart C.
[59 FR 30708, June 15, 1994, as amended at 81 FR 35479, June 2, 2016]
Belknap,

No. 5832.

#### Margaret E. Normandin *v.*Robert L. Stark, *Secretary of State.*

Argued August 15, 1968.

Decided August 15, 1968.

*Paul L. Normandin, Nighsrvander, Lord & Martin*and *David f. KillKelley (Mr. KillKelley*orally), for the plaintiff.

*George S. Pappagianis,*Attorney General and *Irma A. Matthews,*Assistant Attorney General *{Mrs. Matthews*orally), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Secretary of State to place the plaintiff’s name on the official ballot for the primary election to be held on September 10, 1968 as a candidate for nomination by the Democratic Party for the office of Representative to the General Court, District 9, Ward 2, Laconia, New Hampshire. Trial by the Court ( *Flynn,*J. ) who transferred questions of law without ruling.

The controlling question is whether plaintiff’s declaration of candidacy was seasonably filed under RSA 56:25 (supp) when presented to the city clerk at 10:45 P.M., Saturday, July 20, 1968. RSA 56:25 (supp) requires that such a declaration of candidacy must be filed “ not less than . . . fifty days ” before the day of the primary to be held on September 10, 1968. We hold that the filing in this case complied with that requirement. Accordingly the Secretary of State is ordered to place the plaintiff’s name on the official ballot as a candidate for the office for which she filed.

*Petition granted.*
# Senate Floor Activity - Monday, July 21, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Monday, July 21)

S. 2569

S.Res. 509

## Executive Business (Monday, July 21)

PN1118

PN1129

PN1187

 233

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12729-12730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 031001243-6227-02]
RIN 0648-AQ41


Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Announcement 
of Effective Date

AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean 
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Announcement of Effective Date.

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

SUMMARY: On October 12, 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) published a final rule (71 FR 60055) issuing a 
final management plan, revised designation document and final 
regulations for the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Under the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the final regulations would

[[Page 12730]]

automatically take effect at the end of 45 days of continuous session 
of Congress beginning on October 12, 2006. The 45-day review period 
ended on February 16, 2007. This document confirms the effective date 
as February 16, 2007.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule published on October 12, 2006 (71 
FR 60055) took effect on February 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Shortland, Gray's Reef National 
Marine Sanctuary, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, Georgia 31411; 
912-598-2381; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ccee9efe7f5a2dfe4e3fef8e0ede2e8cce2e3ededa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f5d2d4dcce99e4dfd8c5c3dbd6d9d3f7d9d8d6d699d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary 
Program)

    Dated: March 13, 2007.
John H. Dunnigan,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 07-1303 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 16 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

NATRONA COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-8068

(D.C. No. 98-CV-141-B)

(D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Tomi E. Jennings, Jr., appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit against the Seventh Judicial District Court in Natrona County,

Wyoming. The district court dismissed his civil rights complaint because
1On appeal, Jennings moves to amend his pleadings pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(b) to include an allegation that he is in imminent danger. We will not

address this motion, as the proper forum for such a motion is the district court. 

Furthermore, because the question is not before us, we do not express an opinion

as to whether Jennings can file the motion in the district court at this time.

- 2 -

Jennings failed to pay the requisite filing fee. Although Jennings had moved to

proceed in forma pauperis, a magistrate judge denied the motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g),

because the prisoner, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or

detained, brought an action or appeal in a U.S. Court that was

dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious or failed to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the prisoner has

not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.

In its order dismissing the case, the district court simply reiterated, without

elaboration, that Jennings was “subject to the filing fee requirements under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).”

Because neither the magistrate judge nor the district court specified which

prior actions or appeals brought by Jennings were frivolous, we cannot properly

review the order denying IFP status or dismissing the appeal. Consequently, we

REMAND for the district court to enumerate and explain which prior actions or

appeals formed the basis for its denial of IFP status.1
- 3 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
#### § 113.20-1 Sprinkler alarm system.

Each sprinkler alarm system, including annunciator, power supply, alarm switches, and bells, must meet Subpart 76.25 of this chapter.
§ 707.10 Auxiliary aids. ( a ) The Agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the Agency.
( b ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the Agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.
( c ) The Agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
#### § 63.16 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth supplemental financial provisions which apply to all grants awarded by the Assistant Secretary, except as specified in § 63.23 of this subpart.

[40 FR 23295, May 29, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 36149, July 13, 1977]
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A13-07 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the ) . 

Hawaii Democratic Party ) 

CERTiFICATlON 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on February 07,2018, the Commission 

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

Hawaii Democratic Party, as recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief 

Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated Janui^ 24,2018. 

Cormnissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest:: 

2ol?~. 

J Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
§ 2540.201 Which individuals require a National Service Criminal History Check? ( a ) A National Service Criminal History Check must be conducted for individuals in covered positions. Individuals in covered positions are individuals selected, under a CNCS grant specified in 2540.200, by the recipient, subrecipient, or service site to work or serve in a position under a CNCS grant specified in § 2540.200: ( 1 ) As an AmeriCorps State and National member, as described in 42 U.S.C. 12511(30)(A)(i);
( 2 ) As a Foster Grandparent who receives a stipend;
( 3 ) As a Senior Companion who receives a stipend; or
( 4 ) In a position in which they will receive a salary, directly or reflected as match, under a cost reimbursement grant.
( b ) A National Service Criminal History Check is not required for those individuals listed in paragraph (a) of this section who are under the age of 18 on the first day of work or service in a covered position.
( c ) A National Service Criminal History Check is not required for individuals whose activity is entirely included in the grant recipient's indirect cost rate.
[86 FR 11147, Feb. 24, 2021]
No. 6119.

#### H. C. and J. T. Cunningham *v.*The State.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Joint Offenders—Verdict—Judgment.—Upon the trial of Joint of* ' fenders, if the same results in conviction, the verdict must assess separate penalties, and the judgment must conform to such verdict. The verdict in this ease reads as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged, and assess the fine at one hundred dollars;’ to which verdict the judgment conforms. Held, that the verdict assesses a joint penalty, and that the judgment is not legal.

*84Opinion delivered June 30, 1888.

Appeal from the District Court of San Saba. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Moursund.

The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.

*W. B. Dunham,*for the motion.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

At a former day of the term this judgment was affirmed without a written opinion, the only points considered being the sufficiency of the indictment, the correctness of the charge, and the evidence.

The motion urges, for the first time, that the verdict and judgment are illegal, and the point is well taken.

Two defendants were jointly indicted and tried. The verdict was: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged, and assess the fine at one hundred dollars.” The judgment on this verdict adjudges a joint fine. The law does not authorize such a judgment, and the verdict would not support a legal judgment. (Flynn et al. v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App., 398; Matlock v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 715.)

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and*remanded.
§ 86.23 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment.* A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 86.3(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 86.3(b).
( b ) *Recruitment at certain institutions.* A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools or entities which admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of this subpart.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Theodore A. Boutacoff, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2009 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: April 1, 2009



By:

/s/    THEODORE A.
BOUTACOFFName:

Theodore A. BoutacoffTitle:

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1854 

AN ACT 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

to modify an environmental infrastructure project for 

Big Bear Lake, California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1854 EH

1 SECTION 1. BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA. 

2 Section 219(f)(84) of the Water Resources Develop3 ment Act of 1992 (121 Stat. 1259) is amended to read 

4 as follows: 

5 ‘‘(84) BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA.— 

6 $9,000,000 for water supply infrastructure improve7 ments for Big Bear Lake, California.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1854 

AN ACT 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 

project for Big Bear Lake, California. 1992 to modify an environmental infrastructure