alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 75.405 Allocable costs. ( a ) A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost: ( 1 ) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award;
( 2 ) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; and
( 3 ) Is necessary to the overall operation of the non-Federal entity and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with the principles in this subpart.
( b ) All activities which benefit from the non-Federal entity's indirect (F&A) cost, including unallowable activities and donated services by the non-Federal entity or third parties, will receive an appropriate allocation of indirect costs.
( c ) Any cost allocable to a particular Federal award under the principles provided for in this part may not be charged to other Federal awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid restrictions imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, or terms and conditions of the Federal awards, or for other reasons. However, this prohibition would not preclude the non-Federal entity from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more Federal awards in accordance with existing Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the Federal awards.
( d ) Direct cost allocation principles. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then, notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. Where the purchase of equipment or other capital asset is specifically authorized under a Federal award, the costs are assignable to the Federal award regardless of the use that may be made of the equipment or other capital asset involved when no longer needed for the purpose for which it was originally required. See also §§ 75.317 through 75.323 and 75.439.
( e ) If the contract is subject to CAS, costs must be allocated to the contract pursuant to the Cost Accounting Standards. To the extent that CAS is applicable, the allocation of costs in accordance with CAS takes precedence over the allocation provisions in this part.
MARK H. LUTTRELL, ) R. MAYOR

November 5, 2015 

# SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

)ANET L. SHIPMAN, J.D. HELEN MORROW, M.D., M.P.A. INTERIM DIRECTOR HEALTH OFFICER
CERTIFIED MAIL# 7004 2510 0005 0117 4485

Gary Rikard, Executive Director Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality P.O. Box 2261 Jackson, MS 39225
Dear Mr. Rikard, 

### PublicHealth PTI!I'I'ttnt. Prom.lltll. Protect.

In accordance with the requirements of40 CFR 51.102, this serves as notice ofthe scheduling of a public hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments to the state implementation plan. Copies ofthe proposed SIP amendment are available for public inspection at the SCHD office during normal business hours and an electronic copy of the proposal along with all technical support documents canbe found at the following ftp site: https://xfer.shelbvcountvtn.gov/ The username and password are both 'public'. A public hearing regarding this matter has been scheduled at the SCHD Auditorium at 814 Jefferson Avenue Memphis, TN on December 15,2015 at 5:30pm. Please feel free to contactme ifyou have any question regarding this matter. Respectful!y,

# ;2~fZ/~~ Robert Rogers, P.E., Manager Pollution Control

Mission 

### Topromote,protectandimprove the health ondenvironmentof allShelby County residents. 814 Jefferson Avenue 

## + Memphis, Tennessee 38105 (901) 222·9000
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 62
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 63
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 64
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 65
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 66
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 67
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 68
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 69
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 70
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 3-1 Filed 01/23/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID# 71
---

---

Exhibit 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-130048) and related
prospectus and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-136957, 333-110696,
333-100971 and 333-11650) of B.O.S Better Online Solutions Ltd. (BOS) of our
report dated March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of BOS,
included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|Tel Aviv Israel June 29, 2008 |  | /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER A Member of Ernst & Young Global
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS f cFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. F AA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011GL030070 

Judge Sullivan 

FAA'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE CONCERNING MOTION TO CONTINUE 

Pursuant to the Judge's January 14, 2014 Order, as modified by the Judge's January 22, 

2014 Order, the F A.A.. hereby supplements its opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Continue 

the hearing date in this case a third tirne, until 2015. 

In the January 14, 2014, Order, the Judge requested that the FAA specific prejudice that it 

would suffer if the hearing was again continued. As an initial' matter, the FAA notes that the 

burden to establish good cause for a continuance rests with the movatit, not the non-moving 

party. Respondent has, in two filings on this subject, has failed to present any cause for granting 

a continuance, or any diligence in attempting to avoid asking for a continuance. 

As to the particulars, as indicated in the FAA's original opposition, the FAA has an 

interest in seeing allegations of violationsof the Federal Aviation Regulations brought to a 

resolution sooner, rather than later. A perpetual delay in the resolution of a case lessens the 

impact of the civil penalty imposed, both as to this individual respondent, and as to the aviation 

community as a whole. Additionally, as to the individual FAA employees and third parties 

involved in this litigation, every time that this case is continued requires further disruption in the 
schedules of these individuals. The FAA and its witnesses are prepared to go ahead with the case 

as scheduled. Further, the lengthy delays sought by Respondent increase the chance of 

unfortunate events that could render important witnesses in this case unavailable (due to illness 

or injury), or less available (due to retirement of employee witnesses). 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Respondent's Motion to Continue 

Trial Date be denied. 

Respectfully submitted this~ay of February, 2014. 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Supplemental Response Concerning Motion to 

Continue was sent: 

Original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

One copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 

7300 North Kendall Dr., Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Facsimile: (305) 400-0685 

\D([h rn nJ ~~QQ1 6 

DONNA STANiEY ~ 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FEB 5 2014 

Dated
§ 95.635 Disallowance of Federal financial participation for automated systems that fail to comply substantially with requirements. ( a ) Federal financial participation at the applicable matching rate is available for automated data processing system expenditures that meet the requirements specified under the approved APD including the approved cost allocation plan.
( b ) All or part of any costs for system projects that have a major failure to comply with an APD approved under applicable regulation at § 95.611, or for the Title IV-D program contained in part 307, the applicable regulations for the Title IV-E and Title IV-B programs contained in Chapter 13, subchapter G, § 1355.55, or the applicable regulations for the Title XIX program contained in 42 CFR chapter 4 subchapter C, part 433, are subject to disallowance by the Department.
[75 FR 66340, Oct. 28, 2010]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROSE COULTER-OWENS, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODALE INC., a Pennsylvania 

Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW

Honorable Robert H. Cleland

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

A – Settlement Agreement

B – Declaration of Ari J. Scharg

C – Declaration of Richard Bithell

Case 2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW ECF No. 51-1, PageID.743 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 1
#### § 11.801 Applicability.

This subpart provides for the registration of staff officers for employment on vessels documented or numbered under the laws of the United States. Staff officers must be registered if serving on most vessels in ocean service or on the Great Lakes.
Exhibit 32.1

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

Certification of Chief
Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report
of PURE Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 the Company.

|                 |                                                              
|---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|
|October 26, 2007 | /s/ Michael L. Krall
Michael L. Krall
Chief Executive Officer
#### § 81.51 Notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing.

Proceedings are commenced by mailing a notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing to an affected applicant or recipient, pursuant to § 80.9 of this title.
§ 411.12 Contracting with or having a grant from ORR for the care of UCs. ( a ) When contracting with or providing a grant to a care provider facility, ORR must include in any new contracts, contract renewals, cooperative agreements, or cooperative agreement renewals the entity's obligation to adopt and comply with these standards.
( b ) For organizations that contract, grant, or have a sub-grant with a care provider facility to provide residential services to UCs, the organization must, as part of the contract or cooperative agreement, adopt and comply with the provisions set forth in this part.
( c ) All new contracts, contract renewals, and grants must include provisions for monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the contractor, grantee, or sub-grantee is complying with these provisions.
§ 11.303 Advanced firefighting. ( a ) *Advanced firefighting.* Applicants seeking an STCW officer endorsement must provide evidence of meeting the standard of competence as set out in Table A-VI/3 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102 of this part). Applicants for an original STCW officer endorsement, who met the requirements of § 11.201(h) of this part will be deemed to have met the requirement of this paragraph.
( b ) Every 5 years seafarers qualified in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must provide evidence of maintaining the standard of competence as set out in Table A-VI/3 of the STCW Code.
( c ) The Coast Guard will accept onboard training and experience, through evidence of 1 year of sea service within the last 5 years, as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section for the following areas as set out in Table A-VI/3 of the STCW Code: ( 1 ) Control firefighting operations aboard ships with the following knowledge, understanding, and proficiencies: ( i ) Firefighting procedures at sea and in port, with particular emphasis on organization, tactics and command.
( ii ) Communication and coordination during firefighting operations.
( iii ) Ventilation control, including smoke extraction.
( iv ) Control of fuel and electrical systems.
( v ) Firefighting process hazards (dry distillation, chemical reactions, boiler uptake).
( vi ) Fire precautions and hazards associated with the storage and handling of materials.
( vii ) Management and control of injured persons.
( viii ) Procedures for coordination with shore-based firefighters.
( 2 ) Inspect and service fire-detection and extinguishing systems and equipment. ( i ) Requirements for statutory and classification surveys.
( ii ) Reserved.
( d ) The Coast Guard will only accept evidence of assessments conducted ashore as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section for the following areas as set out in Table A-VI/3 of the STCW Code: ( 1 ) Control firefighting operations aboard ships with the following knowledge, understanding, and proficiencies: ( i ) Use of water for fire-extinguishing, the effect on ship stability, precautions and corrective procedures.
( ii ) Firefighting involving dangerous goods.
( 2 ) Organize and train fire parties.
( 3 ) Inspect and service fire-detection and extinguishing systems and equipment. ( i ) Fire detection. Fire-detection systems; fixed fire-extinguishing systems; portable and mobile fire-extinguishing equipment, including appliances, pumps and rescue, salvage; life-support; personal protective and communication equipment.
( ii ) Reserved.
( 4 ) Investigate and compile reports on incidents involving fire.
( e ) Applicants who cannot meet the requirement for 1 year of sea service within the last 5 years, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, will be required to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or complete approved or accepted refresher training.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1856 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1856

        To reauthorize the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2009

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reauthorize the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FinCEN Reauthorization Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    (a) The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) The work of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
        (FinCEN) is essential to safeguard the United States financial 
        system and its international affiliates from the abuses of 
        financial crime, including terrorist financing, weapons of mass 
        destruction proliferation, and money laundering.
            (2) All avenues of financial intermediation are vulnerable 
        to abuse by illicit actors, and FinCEN exercises the regulatory 
        authorities of the Bank Secrecy Act over a broad range of 
        financial institutions.
    (b) The Congress further finds and recognizes the recent 
establishment by FinCEN of an International Programs Division to expand 
and enhance global financial intelligence sharing initiatives aimed at 
combating transnational crime threats facing United States financial 
markets, and takes note of FinCEN's efforts to collaborate with foreign 
financial intelligence unit partners on analytical projects to identify 
and address emerging threats and vulnerabilities.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK.

    Section 310(d)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 
2004, and 2005'' and inserting ``not more than $105,500,000 for fiscal 
year 2010, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011, 
2012, 2013, and 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 504.6 Receipt of claims. ( a ) *Claims deemed received.* A claim will be deemed to have been received by the Commission on the date postmarked, if mailed, or if delivery is made in person, on the date of delivery at the offices of the Commission in Washington, DC.
( b ) *Claims developed.* In the event that a claim has been insufficiently prepared so as to preclude processing thereof, the Commission may request the claimant to furnish whatever supplemental evidence, including the completion and execution of an official claim form, as may be essential to the processing of the claim. In case the evidence or official claim form requested is not returned within the time which may be designated by the Commission, the claim may be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disallowed.
§ 79.46 Compromise or settlement. ( a ) Parties may make offers of compromise or settlement at any time.
( b ) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision.
( c ) The authority head has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision, except during the pendency of any review under § 79.42 or during the pendency of any action to collect penalties and assessments under § 79.43.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part during the pendency of any review under § 79.42 or of any action to recover penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( e ) The investigating official may recommend settlement terms to the reviewing official, the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The reviewing official may recommend settlement terms to the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
( f ) Any compromise or settlement must be in writing.
§ 35.6 Final denial of claim. ( a ) Final denial of an administrative claim shall be in writing and sent to the claimant, his attorney, or legal representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the Department's action, he may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.
( b ) Prior to the commencement of suit and prior to the expiration of the 6-month period after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail of notice of final denial of the claim as provided in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), a claimant, his duly authorized agent, or legal representative, may file a written request with the Department for reconsideration of a final denial of a claim under paragraph (a) of this section. Upon the timely filing of a request for reconsideration the Department shall have 6 months from the date of filing in which to make a final disposition of the claim and the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) to bring suit shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of a request for reconsideration. Final Department action on a request for reconsideration shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.
[32 FR 14101, Oct. 11, 1967, as amended at 35 FR 4517, Mar. 13, 1970]
FILED: May 2, 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 15-1455

(1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD)

___________________

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC INSTABILITY CAUSED BY DEMOCRATS, 

("Stop Reid"); TEA PARTY LEADERSHIP FUND; ALEXANDRIA 

REPUBLICAN CITY COMMITTEE

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

AMERICAN FUTURE PAC

 Intervenor/Plaintiff - Appellant

and

NIGER INNIS; NIGER INNIS FOR CONGRESS

 Plaintiffs

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 Defendant - Appellee

___________________

M A N D A T E

___________________

Appeal: 15-1455 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
The judgment of this court, entered 02/23/2016, takes effect today.

This constitutes the formal mandate of this court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

/s/Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Appeal: 15-1455 Doc: 37 Filed: 05/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 79.6 Prerequisites for issuing a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official may issue a complaint under § 79.7 only if— ( 1 ) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), and
( 2 ) In the case of allegations of liability under § 79.3(a) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested in violation of § 79.3(a) does not exceed $150,000.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (e.g., grant, loan, application, or contract) that are submitted simultaneously as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested.