alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        David De Soto, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E344, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone Number: (202) 260-8103, or by e-mail:                         *david.de.soto@ed.gov.*

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339. 

                        Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (                        *e.g.*, Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.                     

## VIII. Other Information 

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530. 

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: March 28, 2007. 

Kerri L. Briggs, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

 [FR Doc. E7-6091 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Order filed January 3, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00939

- CV

____________ CHARLES FREEMAN JR , Appellant

V.
KENT DICKERSON, ET A L, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 136th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 194,417



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due December 13, 2013

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before February 3, 2014 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
No. 42955.

#### Protests 948458-G, etc., of P. Levin & Sons (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

On the authority of Abstract 41389 certain of the merchandise was held dutiable as waste at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 as claimed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- CE040

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and th en out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Visual I nspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $0 $ 425.00 

### 95 $ 40,375.00 

### Ultrasound Inspection 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 

### 95 $ 24,225.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 64,600 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) La bor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replace LH Oleo Strut Attach Fitting 24.0 $ 2,040.00 $5,220 $ 7,260.00 

### Replace R H Oleo Strut Attach Fitting 45.0 $ 3,825.00 $5,220 $ 9,045.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### Owners may voluntarily

perform ultrasound inspection in lieu of visual inspection.

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
July 30, 1941

No. 46240.

#### Protest 985900-G of Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni.

C. D. 516. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
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
  1.
    
    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 December 23, 2010
    /s/ Timothy K. ZimmermanDate
    Timothy K. ZimmermanPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 23, 2010
    /s/ Colleen M. BrownDate
    Colleen M. BrownSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 56010.

protests 167377-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gander Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2935

_____________________________

C. C.,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES, THE GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM, and JEWISH FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits. 

See Clark v. Nichols M. N. P., 225 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 

(holding that to be entitled to mandamus relief compelling a 

ruling on a pending matter, a petitioner must demonstrate that 

he has noticed the matter for hearing in the lower tribunal).

WOLF, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

C.C., pro se, Petitioner.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

Jacksonville, for Respondent Department of Children and 

Families.

No appearance for Guardian ad Litem or Jewish Family Services, 

Respondents.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A176
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Schaffner, Karen S.

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:47 PM

To: Textor, Marise L.; Bogany, Carolyn

Cc: 'Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject: RTR MVL: facility centroid

Attachments: TPC_corrected_latlong_Image1.jpg

Hi Marise: RTI’s GIS person suggested the following point as the facility centroid. Fyi. Have also attached the redrawn 

facility boundary map (still shows the emission point out to the left, but this point will be moved to the facility centroid). 

Thanks, Karen 

Lat: 29.698194 

Long: -95.255068
(Reap. Dec. 9283)

#### Rotaprint U. S. A., Inc. John S. Connor *v.*United States

Entry No. 6320.

(Decided December 29, 1958)

*Hoffman & Davis*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to five rotaprint printing presses exported from London, England, and entered at the port of Baltimore, Md.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of these five rotaprint printing presses is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the merchandise is £759.19.3 each (British currency), plus packing, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court: 

 

1. Dennis Holland 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0965-12-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on 

 October 22, 2013 

2. Traveyan Lee Chambliss 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0983-12-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Huff on 

 October 22, 2013 

3. Mark Farewell 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1572-12-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Huff on 

 October 22, 2013 

4. Darren D. Snowden 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1570-12-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Alston on 

 October 29, 2013 

5. Levin Grimes 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0293-13-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge McCullough on 

 October 29, 2013 

6. Jared Benjamin Bailey 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0465-12-2 

 Opinion rendered by Senior Judge Coleman on 

 October 29, 2013 
7. Kerry Lee Winslow 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 2113-12-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Kelsey on 

 November 8, 2013
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

CARLOS OROZCO §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00127

- CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20000D05432

- 384

- 1 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 9 TH DAY OF DEC EMBER, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Marc Kilbride, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy Transition BondCompany, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: March 29, 2007                                                    /s/ Marc Kilbride   Marc Kilbride   Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial
#### In the Matter of Nick Reid, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 236]

—Peters, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a recent transferee to Mid-State Correctional Facility in Oneida County, held himself out as the new president of the facility’s Caribbean African Unity inmate organization, resulting in disciplinary charges when it was discovered that no election had been called and no vote taken. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the determination finding him guilty of charges relating to his actions and written statements as the purported president. A review of the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the finding that petitioner had improperly attempted to install himself as the leader of the inmate organization and in the process took unauthorized actions and submitted incorrect documents. While petitioner and several of his witnesses presented contrary versions as to what occurred, the issue raised was one of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, Matter of Mtambuzi v Coughlin,*176 AD2d 1110, 1111, *lv denied*79 NY2d 756).

We find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the unavailability of a series of attendance lists prevented him from discovering relevant defense witnesses. Petitioner had the names of many of the inmate organization’s members, including those occupying leadership roles, sufficient to develop the exact series of events leading to his claimed presidency, thus negating any claim of prejudice based upon his inability to obtain the lists *(see, Matter of Ruiz v Coughlin,*184 AD2d 818). There is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased *(see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 943, 944). Although the transcripts have a number of gaps as a result of inaudible sections of the hearing tapes, they are not so significant as to prevent meaningful review of the hearing and petitioner’s arguments *(see, Matter of Fletcher v Selsky,*199 AD2d 865, 866, *lv denied*83 NY2d 753; *Matter of Thomas v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 695). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur.

*889Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

SBH Services & CORE Construction

J/V II, LLC )

) ASBCA No. 63442

)

Under Contract No. W912QR

- 14

- C

- 0001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Jon M. DeVore, Esq.

Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, P.C.

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

James M. Inman, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 2, 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63442

, Appeal of SBH

Services & CORE Construction J/V II, LLC , rendered in conformance with the

Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 2, 2024 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City
Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Principal Financial Officer




27
(Reap. Dec. 8740)

#### Rohnee, Geheig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 796996, etc.

(Decided January 31, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson*& *Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, was exported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of such merchandise to the United States the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets from the country in which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was the net invoice price, packing included.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for consumption in the country of exportation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement set forth in Schedule A may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the net invoice prices, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit10.92**

**SECONDAMENDMENT TO THEWORLDSPAN TECHNOLOGIES INC.STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

This SECOND AMENDMENT TOTHE WORLDSPAN TECHNOLOGIES INC. STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (“Plan”), is adopted byWorldspan Technologies Inc. with the consent of the Chief Executive Officer ofWorldspan, L.P. effective as of June 15, 2006:

1.             Second 5.1 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety andreplaced with the following:

5.1         Number.  Subject to the provisions of Section 5.3, thenumber of shares of Common Stock subject to Incentive Awards under the Plan maynot exceed 13,250,000.  The shares ofCommon Stock to be delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part,of shares held in treasury or authorized but unissued shares not reserved forany other purpose.

2.             Except as expressly amended herein, the Plan shallcontinue in full force and effect.
| WORLDSPAN TECHNOLOGIES INC.                  |                    |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                         |                    |
|                                         |                    |
| By:                                          | /s/ Margaret K. Cassidy |   |
|                                         | Margaret K. Cassidy     |   |
|                                         | Assistant Secretary     |   |
|                                         |                    |
|                                         |                    |
| Consented to this 15th day of June 2006 |                    |
|                                         |                    |
|    /s/ Rakesh Gangwal              |                    |
| Rakesh Gangwal                               |                    |
| Chief Executive Officer of Worldspan, L.P.   |                    |

 

----