alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**APPENDIX B Survey Invite Letter to UB Project Directors**  Dear <Name of Project Director> : Congratulations on your success in the 2012 Upward Bound grant competition ! We appreciate and thank you for the important work you are doing as the director of the Upward Bound (UB) project at <HOST INSTITUTION NAME.>. I am writing to urge you to participate in a survey of UB project directors being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) . This survey is part of a national evaluation of the program that is mandated by Congress . Grantee cooperation in the federal evaluation of Upward Bound is a condition of the grant ( 34 CFR § 75.591). The survey will serve two purposes. First, it will help ED obtain current detailed information on how projects across the country are providing core program com ponents and services

—such information hasn’t been collected in over 15 years . Second, it will he lp identify promising practices for future study. We want to share these findings with the TRIO community and others interested in improving college access programs fo r low - income and first generation students. Your cooperation with this survey and the valuable information you can provide is essential to the success of this effort .

All of your answers are completely confidential . F indings from the survey will only be reported i n the aggregate and public reports will not identify you or your Upward Bound project . Under the direction of ED’s Institute of Education Sciences, our contractors Decision Information Resources, Inc. (DIR) and Abt Associates are required by law to uphold all federal laws regarding privacy and confidentiality . If you have any questions regarding your obligation to complete the survey, please contact me at (202 - XXX -XXXX). If you have technical issues with the link , please contact the survey dir ector, Dr. Sylvia Epps, at DIR (phone: 1 - 888 - xxx - xxxx ; email : <email address> ) . Thank you for cooperation by participating in this important study . Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Office of Postsecondary Education 

### The survey

should take approximately **40** minutes. We ask that you complete it by < **MM /DD/YYYY** **>** . The easiest way

to fill out the survey

is on the web:  Go to www.(name of website).com.  Enter the unique username and password we have assigned to you , listed below:

Username: Password: If you would prefer a paper version of the survey, please email, sepps@dir - online.com or call 888 - xxx - xxxx.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Joshua Copenhaver Nelson,

Plaintiff,

v. Case NO. 2:12-cv-1167

Wanza Jackson, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge filed on July 18,

2013. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and that plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that the failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days “will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and

Recommendation.” Doc. 45, p. 42. The time period for filing

objections to the report and recommendation has expired, and no

objections have been filed.

The court has reviewed the report and recommendation. Noting

that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing

such objections has expired, the court adopts the report and

recommendation (Doc. 45).

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 36) is

granted in part and denied in part. The motion to dismiss is

granted as to the following claims: (1) the official capacity

Case: 2:12-cv-01167-JLG-NMK Doc #: 48 Filed: 08/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
claims against all defendants for monetary damages; (2) plaintiff’s

First and Eighth Amendment and Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claims against all

defendants based on the service of non-kosher dairy products and

service of only fresh apples; and (3) plaintiff’s First and Eighth

Amendment and RLUIPA claims against defendant Cahill based on the

service of meat and dairy together at the same meal.

The motion to dismiss is denied as to the following claims:

(1) plaintiff’s claims against all defendants under the Equal

Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. §§1985, 1988 and 2000d; (2) 

plaintiff’s First and Eight Amendment and RLUIPA claims against

defendants Gallaer and Jackson based on the service of meat and

dairy together at the same meal and requiring plaintiff to cook his

meal on the Sabbath; (3) plaintiff’s First and Eight Amendment and

RLUIPA claims against defendant Cahill based on requiring plaintiff

to cook his meal on the Sabbath; and (4) claims against defendants

in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 12) is

denied.

It is so ordered.

Date: August 20, 2013 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-01167-JLG-NMK Doc #: 48 Filed: 08/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008119EN.01000201.xml

| 16.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 May 2008

(2008/C 119/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5474 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 162,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4628 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79720 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3220 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6341 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 119,77 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8590 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,040 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,66 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6981 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,4006 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6610 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 31,645 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9315 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6541 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5496 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 12,0703 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0525 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1386 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 619,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,7983 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,8234 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2524 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 406,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0685 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,175 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,9350 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,128 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5733 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2121 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5474

JPY

Japanese yen

162,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4628

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79720

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3220

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6341

ISK

Iceland króna

119,77

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8590

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,040

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,66

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6981

PLN

Polish zloty

3,4006

RON

Romanian leu

3,6610

SKK

Slovak koruna

31,645

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9315

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6541

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5496

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

12,0703

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0525

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1386

KRW

South Korean won

1 619,35

ZAR

South African rand

11,7983

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,8234

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2524

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 406,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0685

PHP

Philippine peso

66,175

RUB

Russian rouble

36,9350

THB

Thai baht

50,128

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5733

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2121

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NORM A JENE M OSLEY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF THE AR M Y, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-16275 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02645-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 16, 2016 ** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Norm a Je n e M osle y a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing her a c t ion c ha lle nging he r disc h arge from the De pa rtm e nt of the Arm

y . W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dismi ssa l of 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).an a c tion a s ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions. J one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th C i r. 2004). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M osle y ’ s a c tion a s tim e -barre d be c a use M osle y file d he r a c tion e le ve n y e ars a fte r the sta tute of lim ita

tions ha d e xpire d, a

nd fa ile d to show tha

t she is e ntitle d to tolling on the ba sis of he r a

p p lic ation for re lie f be fore the Arm

y B oa rd for C orre c tion of M ilita ry R e c ords, whic h wa s file d e ight y e ars a fte r the sta

tute of lim ita

t ions ha d e xpire d. Se eTurtle Island Re storation N e tw ork v . U.S. De

p’t of C omme rc e , 438 F.3d 937, 942-43 (9th C ir. 2006) (sixy e ar statute of lim ita

tions a pplie s to c ha lle n g e s unde r the Adm inistra t ive Proc e d ure s Ac t, 5 U.S.C
. § 702); N ic hols v . Hughe

s , 721 F.2d 657, 659 (9th C ir. 1983) (“ [A] c a

use of a c tion for wrongful discha rge oc c urs at the tim e of disc ha rge .” ); Vaughn v . Te le dy ne , Inc
. , 628 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th C i r. 1980) (burde n of proving fa c ts tha t show tolling fa

lls on thepla intiff). C ontra ry to M osle y ’ s c onte ntions, the c o m pla int doe s not re fle c t tha t M osle y brought a c la im se e k i ng judic ia l re vie wof the fina l de c i sion of theArm y B oa rd for C orre c tion of M i lita

ry R e c ords. W e re je c t a s without me rit M osle y ’ s c onte ntion tha t 10 U.S.C . § 1558
a pplie s to he r a c tion. AFFIRM E D.
1 4
- 1 6 2 7 5 2
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,276] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 10, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by a State agency on behalf of workers at ABN Amro, Chicago, Illinois. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April, 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-7613 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
September 9, 1942

No. 47537.

#### Protests 814-K, etc., of E. C. Carter & Son.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2372

_____________________________

MICHAEL BOYINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

November 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is dismissed as an untimely, successive petition. See Fla. 

R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5) and (d)(6)(C).

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael Boyington, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1144/2006

of 27 July 2006         

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 27 July 2006, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 31,090 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,543,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,034,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,407,988
<PP&E>                                       4,587,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,197,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          978,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,197,242
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,589,750
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  472,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,117,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                   976,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,141,653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,141,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection withthis quarterly report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending January 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. James Serrone,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
| /s/ H. James Serrone    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| H. James Serrone        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| April 23, 2009     |   |

#####  

----
(Reap. Dec. 8779)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 844545.

(Decided March 28, 1957)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement presents for determination by the court the dutiable value of certain wireless valves described on the invoice accompanying the entry to which this appeal relates.

*624Adversary parties have entered into a stipulation of fact which, so far as pertinent here, reads as follows:

> 3- That neither the merchandise the subject of this appeal nor similar merchandise was, on or about the date of exportation, freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, either for home consumption or for exportation to the United States, nor was it freely offered to all purchasers in the United States.

> *4r-*That its cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f) was 17 shillings 6 pence less 33J4 per cent, less 20 per cent, less *2%*percent.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that the statutory cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the wireless valves in controversy and that said value is 17 shillings 6 pence, less 33% percent, less 20 percent, less 2% percent.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

CERTIFICATION

I, H. JamesSerrone, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofTorotel, Inc.

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

4.      The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

    a)         designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

    b)        evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

    c)         presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

    a)         allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

    b)        anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

6.      The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
| /s/   H. James Serrone |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |
|                             |
| H. James Serrone                 |
| Chief Financial Officer          |
| September 12,  2006              |

 

----