alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Searched for **https://eldercare.acl.gov/Public/Index.aspx**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://eldercare.acl.gov/Public/Index.aspx**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****College scholarship fraudprevention act of 2000, ... annual report to Congress [electronic resource**
 
2001 | 2004| 2006 | 2007 | 2008| 2011
 
SuDoc:J 1.117:
Item Number: 0717-A-47(online)
CGP systemNumber:000615088
 
October 23, 2017
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 171 

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to relocating the United States 

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Mr. TANCREDO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to relocating 

the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 

Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104–45; 109 Stat. 398) requires that the United States 

Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem; 

Whereas section 7 of such Act allows the President to suspend the requirement that the United States Embassy in 

Israel be established in Jerusalem if the suspension is 

necessary to protect the national security interests of the 

United States; 

Whereas the Clinton and Bush administrations suspended 

such requirement; 

Whereas every sovereign nation has the right to designate its 

own capital; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HCON 171 IH 

Whereas Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1950; 

Whereas Jerusalem has been a united and undivided city governed by Israel since 1967; 

Whereas Jerusalem is the seat of the Government of Israel, 

including the President, Parliament, and Supreme Court 

of Israel; 

Whereas the United States conducts official meetings and 

other business in the city of Jerusalem; 

Whereas in every country except Israel, the United States 

maintains its Embassy in the city designated by the host 

country; and 

Whereas relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to 

Jerusalem will express the continued support of the 

United States for Israel and for an undivided Jerusalem: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) maintains its commitment to relocating the 

4 United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; and 

5 (2) urges the President, pursuant to the Jeru6 salem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45; 

7 109 Stat. 398), to immediately begin the process of 

8 relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to 

9 Jerusalem. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Before The Third Division,

September 24, 1942

No. 47599.

#### Protests 970159-G, etc., of Acierno Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSTS-36 Space Shuttle mission reportThe STS-36 Space Shuttle Program Mission Report contains a summary of the vehicle subsystem activities on this thirty-fourth flight of the Space Shuttle and the sixth flight of the OV-104 Orbiter vehicle, Atlantis. In addition to the Atlantis vehicle, the flight vehicle consisted of an External Tank (ET) (designated as ET-33/LWT-26), three Space Shuttle main engines (SSME's) (serial numbers 2019, 2030, and 2029), and two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's) (designated as BI-036). The STS-36 mission was a classified Department of Defense mission, and as such, the classified portions of the mission are not discussed. The unclassified sequence of events for this mission is shown in tabular form. Summarized are the significant problems that occurred in the Orbiter subsystems during the mission. The official problem tracking list is presented. In addition, each of the Orbiter problems is cited in the subsystem discussion.Document ID19920007756Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMechelay, Joseph E.*(NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Germany, D. M.*(NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Nicholson, Leonard S.*(NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1990Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:105477NASA-TM-105477NSTS-08354Accession Number92N16974Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920007756.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 
 Certification
of CEO 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 Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
      Keith G. LarsenKeith
      G. Larsen,Chief
      Executive OfficerMay
      9, 2008
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CLEMENTE MUNDO,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00077-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150C03682)

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 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
JACKIE NICHOLAS

,
Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 30

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

. Andrew J. Decker, III , Judge

.
Jackie Nicholas, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Antony D

. Constantini, Assist ant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, THOMAS

, and WETHERELL

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 54284.

#### Virgil H. Gaitskill, Jr. *v.*United States,

protest 147268-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Inasmuch as the record showed that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the motion to dismiss was granted.
No. 53765.

#### Bellows & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 21718-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
PUBLIC LAW 110–230—MAY 13, 2008 122 STAT. 877 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2929: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Apr. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

May 5, 6, considered and passed House, amended. 

May 7, Senate concurred in House amendment. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–230 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘May 

31, 2008’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section, or in 

the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this 

Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations 

of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in 

the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) or by the College Cost Reduction 

and Access Act (Public Law 110–84) to the provisions of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act 

of 2004. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect as if enacted on April 30, 2008. 

Approved May 13, 2008. 

20 USC 1001 

note. 

20 USC 1001 

note. 

May 13, 2008 

[S. 2929] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
<PAGE>
                               VARLEN CORPORATION
                               55 Shuman Boulevard
                              Naperville, IL 60566

                                                May 14, 1999

Mr. Richard A. Nunemaker
141 Cottage Hill Avenue
Elmhurst, Ill. 60126

Dear Rick:

      This letter is written in reference to your participation in the Varlen
Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP"). Varlen Corporation
(the "Company") hereby agrees that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
Section 12.9 of the SERP: (a) if the Internal Revenue Service makes a final
determination that any amount paid to you under the SERP constituted a
"parachute payment" as defined in Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code
("Code") and the regulations thereunder, you will not be required to repay such
amount to the Company or the SERP by reason of such determination; and (b) the
Company will reimburse you for any amounts you are required to pay pursuant to
Section 4999 of the Code as a result of any payments made to you pursuant to the
SERP.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          VARLEN CORPORATION


                                          By: /s/ Greg A. Rosenbaum
                                             -------------------------
Agreed to:


/s/ Richard A. Nunemaker     May 14, 1999
--------------------------
Richard A. Nunemaker
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41290 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. E L ISASO T E L O M A C IA S , al so kn ow n as E l i as Sotel o P ati n o D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R
- 91- 7 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orneyapp oi n t ed to represent E l i sa Sotel o M aci as ha s m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 7 38 ( 196 7) . M aci as h as n otfil ed a response. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew o f th e re c o r d a n d co u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
### Pascagoula Nitric Acid Plant

Data Sheet

Production Rate (tons/day) range as 100% acid- 230 tons/day

Design Production Rate (tons/day)- 250 tons/day

Typical Production Rate (tons/day)- 230 tons/day

Process type: Single vs dual pressure, and indicati on of high/medium/low pressure- Single

Pressure

Range of oxidation pressure (psia)- 190-195

Range of absorption pressure (psia)- 175-180

% acid strength- 62-63

Control Technology (e.g. SCR, NSCR)- SCR

Extended absorption used or not? Y or NO

Absorption length (ft): 122

Gal/1000 ft3: 80

Additive? Y or NO

For SCR:

Type of catalyst- Vanadia/titania

Is catalyst new or regenerated?- New

Catalyst life (design/actual)- 9yrs/15yrs

Catalyst Volume (m3)- 3.8

Gas Design flowrate (scfm) - 17,300

Ammonia injection rate (lb/hr) range- 45-65 lb/hr

Year Operation began- 1992

Location of SCR (before or after gas expander)- Before Expander
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

US LEC Corp.

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-78075 and Registration Statement No. 333-61617 of US LEC Corp. and
subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated February 29, 2000, which report
includes an emphasis of a matter paragraph as to a significant portion of the
Company's accounts receivable and revenues relating to reciprocal compensation
which is currently in dispute; included in and incorporated by reference in
this annual report on Form 10-K/A of US LEC Corp. and subsidiaries for the
year ended December 31, 1999.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
May 15, 2000
#### James McCutcheon & Co. (a Corporation) et al. *v.*United States

No. 6437.

Entry No. 14496, etc.

Invoices dated Newmill, Elgin, England, January 29, 1942, etc.

Certified January 31, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 10, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*B. A. Levett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 ü. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

A written stipulation of fact, submitting these cases, is sufficient to show that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
(Reap. Dec. 9397)

#### American Roland Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 49233, etc.

(Decided April 21, 1959)

*Eugene B. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

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

*609Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of Pas Sodium, a coal-tar product, which was appraised on the basis of American selling price, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and subject to duty thereunder by reason of Paragraph 28(c) of said Act.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American selling price on the dates of exportation for said Pas Sodium, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of said Act, is $2.10 per pound, net weight, less 1% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for the involved Pas Sodium is $2.10 per pound, net weight, less 1 per centum packed. The appeals for reappraisement as to all other merchandise on the invoices herein having been abandoned, the same are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
H. Con. Res. 335 Agreed to June 20, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR 100TH ANNIVERSARY 

CELEBRATION OF ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY, 

INCORPORATED. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated 

(in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’), shall be permitted 

to sponsor a public event (in this resolution referred to as the 

‘‘event’’) on the Capitol Grounds to celebrate the 100th anniversary 

of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. 

(b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on July 17, 

2008, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of 

the Senate jointly designate. 

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event 

shall be— 

(1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and 

(2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. 

(b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall assume full 

responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities 

associated with the event. 

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 

sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 

sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event. 

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 

restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 

Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations 

on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable 

to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
# C_2016462EN.01001701.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

(Case T-153/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the earlier measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the names of the applicants on the lists - Action for annulment - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Content of the application - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to property - Freedom to conduct business))

(2016/C 462/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117/CFSP of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), in that the names of the applicants have been included on the list of persons and bodies subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mohamed Hamcho and Hamcho International to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings at first instance and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mohamed Hamcho and Hamcho International to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings at first instance and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---