alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Title I Regulations Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs

Citation Description

# of 

respondents

Average # of 

Hours per 

Respondent

Total 

Hours

Total Cost (Total 

Hours x $25.00)

Section 1111(h)(2) Prepare and disseminate 

LEA report card

13087 16 209,392 $5,234,800 

200.34, 200.43 Prepare, and make 

arrangements to 

implement, a restructuring 

plan for schools that do not 

meet AYP after one full 

year in corrective action 

179 800 143,200 $3,580,000 

200.36, 200.37, 

200.38 and 200.46

Notify parents when 

schools are identified for 

improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring; 

publish and disseminate 

information on any action 

taken by the school and 

LEA to address the 

problems that lead to such 

identification.

983 8 7,864 $196,600 

200.52 Develop or revise 

improvement plan if 

identified for improvement.

79 800 63,200 $1,580,000 

200.61(a) Notify parents that they 

can request information 

about the professional 

qualifications of their 

child’s classroom teacher.

13087 10 130,870 $3,271,750 

200.63(c)(1) Maintain records on 

consultation with private 

school officials.

13087 6 78,522 $1,963,050 

200.11(c) Adding NAEP data to LEA 

report cards

13628 24 327,072 $8,176,800 

200.19(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) Documentation that a 

student has transferred out 

– that the student has 

enrolled in another school 

or other educational 

program that culminates in 

13628 50 681,400 $17,035,000 
Title I Regulations Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs

the award of a regular high 

school diploma 

200.37(b)(5)(ii)(C) Providing notice to parents 

that their children are 

eligible for SES and 

describing the benefits of 

SES

379 12 4,548 $113,700 

200.39(c)(1) Provide information on 

public school choice and 

SES

983 25 24,575 $614,375 

200.48(d)(3) Maintain records that the 

criteria are met and meet 

requirements for informing 

SEA

737 12 8,844 $221,100 

200.48(d)(4) Apply to SEA to use 

unexpended funds

28 12 336 $8,400 

Total 1,679,823 $41,995,575
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6816

RONALD MCCLARY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BONNIE BOYETTE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-04-422-1-FWB)

Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: October 19, 2005

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court’s order

and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that McClary has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royce Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Donald Gee, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: February 17, 2005                         /s/ Donald Gee
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Donald Gee, President
                                                    and Chief Executive Officer



[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Royce Biomedical, Inc. and will be retained by Royce Biomedical,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34854-34855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel Opportunities for Collaborative Research at the 
NIH Clinical Center.
    Date: August 9, 2018.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: William J Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-
7924, (301-827-7938) <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef4f1f6f0edf1f0e9f4def0f6f2fcf7b0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="19737671776a76776e73597771757b7037777071377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)



[[Page 34855]]


    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Michelle D. Trout,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15619 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32

Officer Certification under 18 USC 1350

We, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AXS-One Inc. (the ‘‘issuer’’), do hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

AXS-ONE INC.Date:November 19, 2007


/s/ William P. LyonsWilliam P. Lyons
Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board/s/ Joseph P. DwyerJoseph P. Dwyer
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---
# C_2022084EN.01002802.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-695/21)

(2022/C 84/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 56(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State from allowing the operators of a limited and controlled number of licensed games of chance establishments in its territory to benefit from an exception to a generally applicable advertising ban in respect of such establishments, unless it also provides for the possibility of the operators of games of chance establishments located in other Member States also being allowed to benefit from the same exception to the advertising ban in its territory in respect of their establishments?

---
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1159 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to prohibit discrimination on 

account of sexual orientation or gender identity when extending credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2013 

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to prohibit 

discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender 

identity when extending credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom from Dis5 crimination in Credit Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON AC7 COUNT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GEN8 DER IDENTITY. 

9 Subsection (a)(1) of section 701 of the Equal Credit 

10 Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691) is amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1159 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘on the basis of race, color, reli2 gion, national origin, sex or marital status,’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘on the basis of race, color, re4 ligion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender 

5 identity, or marital status,’’. 

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

7 Section 702 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 

8 U.S.C. 1691a) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking subsections (f) and (g); and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol11 lowing new subsections: 

12 ‘‘(f) The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-re13 lated identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gen14 der-related characteristics of an individual, with or with15 out regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. 

16 ‘‘(g) The term ‘person’ means a natural person, a 

17 corporation, government or governmental subdivision or 

18 agency, trust, estate, partnership, cooperative, or associa19 tion. 

20 ‘‘(h) The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosex21 uality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. 

22 ‘‘(i) Any reference to any requirement imposed under 

23 this title or any provision of this title shall be deemed to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1159 IS

1 include a reference to the regulations of the Board under 

2 this title or the provision of this title in question.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

Statement re:  Computation of per share earnings
<CAPTION>

                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Years Ended December 31,
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1995                1994                1993
                                                                   -------             --------            -------- 
                                                                                 (in thousands)
<S>                                                               <C>                <C>                  <C>        

Net income                                                         $6,280              $5,636              $4,837

Preferred dividend requirements                                       (85)               (112)               (199)
                                                                   ------             -------              ------ 

                                                                   $6,195              $5,524              $4,638
                                                                   ======              ======              ====== 



Weighted average common

      shares outstanding                                        2,697,100           2,697,100           2,697,100

Earnings per common share                                           $2.29               $2.05               $1.72
</TABLE>
#### Eska KEELER v. R. H. BOTELER, Sr., et al.

No. 46783.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 9, 1972.

Zachary, Weldy & Ingram, Jolly W. Matthews, III, Hattiesburg, John M. Sims, Heidelberg, for appellant.

Floyd, Cameron, Deen & Prichard, Meridian, Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, Jackson, Minniece, Hamilton, Neville & Hamill, Meridian, Boyd, Holifield & Harper, Laurel, Crymes G. Pittman, Raleigh, for appellees.

BRADY, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Clarke County, Mississippi, which held that there was no adverse possession by the appellant of the sixty acres involved and confirmed title in the appellees on their cross-bill. From that adverse decree appellant prosecutes this appeal.

This cause had some of the durable characteristics of Tennyson’s “Brook” but it finally ran down after twelve volumes. After a careful reading of the record, especially volumes 5, 6, 10 and 11, it is apparent from the testimony and evidence as it appears in the record that the appellant was using the property but never had the intention to adversely claim the property as against his relatives who had the legal title to the property in question. This becomes quite apparent when one carefully reads the depositions which both the appellant and his son signed in 1970 prior to the taking of any steps toward the filing of a suit of adverse possession. Furthermore, this is supplemented by the acts or admissions on the part of appellant in 1956 when, after twenty acres in question had been sold to another for taxes, a survey line was run around the twenty acres and appellant admitted that he painted the corner trees of this survey line after the survey had been run. In addition to this, the appellant further admits that when the property, the forty acres in question, was sold at the commissioner’s sale to Mr. Goodwin in 1965, he removed the fence from the west boundary that he had placed there, and when Mr. Goodwin questioned him as to who had removed some timber from the twenty acres in controversy, appellant denied that he had done it.

In neither instance after being made aware that others were claiming the property did the appellant make any attempt either to contact an attorney or go to the individuals and request that they cease trespassing upon the property. Appellant at no time took any action to treat either of these parties as trespassers.

*320A careful study of the record of the evidence convinces us that the findings of fact of the astute chancellor were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We concur with the findings of fact and the determinations of law as set forth by the chancellor in his opinion and hold that there was a failure to allege and prove the essential open, hostile, continuous, notorious, adverse possession on the part of the appellant.

For these reasons, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and JONES, SMITH and SUGG, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 776 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 776

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 11, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 83) to require the Secretary of the 
Interior to assemble a team of technical, policy, and financial experts to 
address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and the 
Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at 
promoting access to affordable, reliable energy, including increasing use of 
indigenous clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations 
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-59 modified by the amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 
The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion 
shall be debatable for 80 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of the motion specified in the first section of this 
resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 122 shall be considered as adopted.
    Sec. 3.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the 
Congressional Record at any time during the remainder of the second session of 
the 113th Congress such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate 
amendment and the motion specified in the first section of this resolution.
    Sec. 4.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of December 12, 2014.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Willie BRYANT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53189.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Willie Bryant applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writs refused. On the basis of the evi-dentiary hearing and the trial judge’s reasons, the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory or original jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. Even after an evidentiary hearing it is clear that relator was not informed of his constitutional rights which were waived by his guilty plea. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274.

TATE, J.,

concurs in the denial on the basis of State ex rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson, 261 La. 315, 259 So.2d 557 (1972).

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., dissent from the refusal.
#### Betty Cowen RIBLER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 4, 1971.

Roger F. Borello, Plantation, for appellant.

William Sylvester Gardella, of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant’s husband was killed in November, 1968, when an airplane piloted by him crashed at an airport operated by Bro-ward County. In November, 1970, appellant filed a wrongful death action against Broward County (and another) alleging that decedent’s death was due to negligent maintenance of the airport. The complaint did not allege compliance with F.S. Section 95.08, F.S.A.,1 as a result of which the court dismissed the complaint as against Broward County. Upon appellant declining to amend, the presently appealed final judgment was entered in favor of Broward County.

Appellant suggests that the question on appeal is whether F.S. Section 95.08, F.S. A. is applicable to a tort claim. However, she candidly acknowledges that the courts have heretofore applied the statute to tort claims and forthrightly ask that we depart from such holdings, suggesting that they are incorrect.

It appears to be settled law in this jurisdiction that not only does F.S. Section 95.08, F.S.A. apply to tort claims against a county, Waite v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 681; Kahl v. Board of County Com*239missioners of Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 522 (even when the claim arises as a result of propriety or nongovernmental functions performed by the county, Kahl v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, supra), but also that the complaint must allege compliance with the statute as a pre-requisite to stating a valid cause of action against the county, Whitehurst v. Hernando County, 1926, 91 Fla. 509, 107 So. 627.

The complaint in this case failed to allege compliance with the statute and on appeal appellant concedes as a fact that within one year of the time that the cause of action accrued no notice was given to the county of an intent to bring suit on the wrongful death action. On the authority of the cases above cited, the court correctly determined that appellant’s action against Broward County was barred and that the county was entitled to a judgment in its favor.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

1

. 95.08 *Limitation of claims against county.*Every claim against any county shall be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year from the time said claim shall become due, and shall be barred if not so presented.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the First Amended Annual Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott W. Absher, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:  September 14, 2007/s/ Scott W. AbsherBy:  Scott W. AbsherIts:  President   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.