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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4025

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the cohort default

rate exemption for historically Black colleges, tribally controlled community colleges, and Navajo community colleges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1994

Mr. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. OWENS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey,

Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. WATT, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. KILDEE,

Mr. SISISKY, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. MFUME, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. HOBSON,

Mr. WHEAT, Mr. PARKER, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mr. FROST, Mr.

NEAL of North Carolina, Mr. THORNTON, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. BROWN of

Florida, Mr. STOKES, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. DIXON,

Mrs. MEEK, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. HILLIARD, Ms. MCKINNEY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. WYNN, Mr. MILLER of California,

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr.

FORD of Michigan, and Mr. PICKLE) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend

the cohort default rate exemption for historically Black

colleges, tribally controlled community colleges, and Navajo community colleges.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—
2

•HR 4025 IH

1 (1) Historically Black colleges and universities

2 (HBCU’s), tribally controlled community colleges,

3 and Navajo community colleges have, as part of

4 their overall mission, educated and provided oppor5 tunities to lower-income and minority students who

6 may not have otherwise been afforded opportunities

7 to obtain a higher degree;

8 (2) the Congress has already recognized the

9 need for these institutions by passage of such legis10 lation as part B, title III of the Higher Education

11 Act of 1965 (Strengthening Historically Black Col12 leges and Universities), the Tribally Controlled Com13 munity College Assistance Act of 1978, and the

14 Navajo Community College Act;

15 (3) at current Federal student loan default rate

16 thresholds, one-third of HBCU’s, and many of the

17 tribally controlled and Navajo community colleges

18 may be deemed ineligible for participation in the

19 Federal student loan program, and many more will

20 be subject to review under part H of the Program

21 Integrity Triad, jeopardizing the continued existence

22 of these institutions; and

23 (4) there exists a need to reexamine the criteria

24 used to determine exclusion from title IV programs,

25 in order to more accurately predict loan mismanage-
3

•HR 4025 IH

1 ment, fraud, and abuse, and offer fairer standards

2 to those institutions that disproportionately educate

3 students of lower economic backgrounds.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION.

5 Section 435(a)(2)(C) of the Higher Education Act of

6 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(2)(C)) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘July 1, 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘July 1, 1998’’.

Æ
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, September 25, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to September 25, 2018, 12:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 15, 2018, 83 159 FR 2018-17674.                

The meeting date was changed to October 9, 2018. The meeting time did not change. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 5, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-19608 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 99.4


       Certification of Chief Financial Officer of clickNsettle.com, Inc.


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the
"Form 10-KSB") for the year ended June 30, 2002 of clickNsettle.com, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

I, Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer, certify
that to the best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.


Dated:  September 24, 2002

                                     /s/ Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume - Vice President,
                                     Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
September 14, 2016

 Exemption No. 11064B

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0356

Mr. Christopher J. Schuster

RC Pro Production Consulting LLC 

dba Vortex Aerial

1930 Oakridge Drive

Corona, CA 92882

Dear Mr. Schuster:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

11064A. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 19, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial (hereinafter petitioner or 

operator) for an extension to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and 

(c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform closed-set 

motion picture and television filming. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11064,

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the operator is granted an extension to its exemption. 

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11064 remain in effect. The 

termination date has been updated. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY WHEN FILLED IN

UNOFFICIAL FOREIGN CONTACT REPORT 

NAME: DATE: 

SSN: OFFICE SYMBOL: 

PHONE NUMBER: OFFICIAL EMAIL ADDRESS: 

(IF MORE SPACE IS REQUIRED, USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS.) 

1. NAME OF FOREIGN NATIONAL / RELATIONSHIP:

2. CITIZENSHIP:

3. DATE & PLACE OF BIRTH (If unknown, estimate age):

4. CURRENT RESIDENCE OR ADDRESS:

5. OCCUPATION, POSITION & TITLE (Include employer’s name & address):

6. FIRST ENCOUNTER OR CONTACT: Date: 

Location:

Circumstances:

7. WHO INITIATED THE CONTACT?

8. FREQUENCY OF CONTACT: Personal: Telephonic: 

(Average number monthly or annually since first encounter) Written: Email: 

9. LAST PERSONAL CONTACT OR VISIT: Date: 

Location:

Circumstances:

10. LAST TELEPHONIC, WRITTEN OR EMAIL CONTACT: Date: 

Circumstances: 

11. DOES THE FOREIGN CONTACT HAVE AFFILIATIONS WITH ANY FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OR GOVERNMENT

ORGANIZATION(S), OR OTHER FOREIGN POLITICAL GROUPS? (If yes, list the government with which the organization(s) are

associated):

12. DOES THE FOREIGN CONTACT HAVE ANY AFFILIATIONS WITH ANY CRIMINAL OR SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION(S)? (If yes,

identify the organization(s)):

13. DID THE CONTACT RESULT IN ANY UNUSUAL OR SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES? (If yes, explain):

14. CAN YOU PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON THE FOREIGN CONTACT?

15. IS THIS A CLOSE OR CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP? (If yes, explain): 

PRIVACY ACT: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulation; DoD 5200.2.R, Personnel Security Program; DoD 5240.6; Personnel Security 

Program;,Reporting Foreign Contact and Travel. Authority for soliciting your SSN is Executive Order 9397, Nov 43. Your personal data will be used to 

identify you precisely when required. Information is collected in order to accomplish those administrative and personnel security functions relating to 

employees with regard to foreign contact reporting requirements. In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a (b) of the 

Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C.552a (b) (3) as follows: The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the compilation of systems of records notices apply to this 

system. Information is requested on a voluntary basis, failure to provide information may have an impact on retention of a security clearance.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-61147 Summary Calendar SOPHAL TRY Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A98 400 997
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sophal Try, a native and citizen of Cambodia, has filed a petition for reviewofthe Board ofImmigration Appeal’s (BIA) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Try argues that she submitted voluminous evidence showing that she had been persecuted because of her affiliation with the union and the Sam Rainsy Party and that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in failing to consider the substantial evidence of her persecution. Try also argues that she United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-61147

2 has a well-founded fear offuture persecution ifshe returns to Cambodia in light of her persecution and the persecution of others in her political group who are similarly situated to Try. “When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the
reasons set forth in the immigration j udge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” A hmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS , 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s finding that Try did not demonstrate past persecution. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Nor does the record compel a conclusion contrary to the determination that Try lacked a well-founded fear of persecution based on her
own treatment or the persecution of persons who were similarly situated. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 192 (5th Cir. 2004). Try cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding ofremoval given that she cannot satisfy the standard for asylum. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138. Try has also failed to satisfy the requirements for relief under the CAT because she has failed to show that she would more likely than not be tortured if she is returned to Cambodia. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is DENIED.
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order:
A14A1997. ANTHONY SP ENCER v. THE STA TE.

In 1999, Anthony Spencer entered a negotiated plea to several counts of armed rob ber y, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentence d to a total of 40 year s. S pen cer fil ed a moti on for ou t-o f-t ime appeal and to with draw his p lea, and w e a ffirmed the tria

l court’ s denial of

his motions

. See Spencer v. State , 309 Ga. App. 630 (710 SE 2d 837) (2011). I n 2013, Spencer filed a motion to vacat e his sentence , arguing that his sen tence wa s void under Garza v. St ate , 284 Ga. 6 96 (670 SE 2d 73) (2008) , which r edefined the asport atio n element of kidnapping. The trial court denied his motion, and he filed this direc t appeal. We la ck juris diction. A direct appeal lies from

an order denying

or dism issing a m

otion to correct

a void sentenceonly if

the defen dant raise s a colora ble claim that the sente nce is, in fact, void or ill egal. See Harper v. State , 286 Ga. 216, n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State , 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE 2d465) (2009) . A sent ence is voi d only when the t

rial cour t impos es punishment that the law does n otallow. See Jordan v. State , 253 Ga. A

pp. 510, 511 (1) (559 SE2d 528) (2002) . Here , Spencer’s ar gument is a challen ge to his con victions, not to his sent ence. A ccordingly , this appe al is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify th at the above is a t rue extract f

rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witn ess my signature and the seal of

said court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en.
, Clerk. 07/23/2014 July 23, 2014
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 77 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower 

prices for Medicare prescription drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to negotiate for lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs. 

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 ‘‘Prescription Drug and 

5 Health Improvement Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRE7 SCRIPTION DRUGS. 

8 (a) NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 77 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–11 of the 

2 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–111) is 

3 amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to non4 interference) and by inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(i) AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE PRICES WITH MAN6 UFACTURERS.—In order to ensure that beneficiaries en7 rolled under prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans 

8 pay the lowest possible price, the Secretary shall have au9 thority similar to that of other Federal entities that pur10 chase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts 

11 with manufacturers of covered part D drugs, consistent 

12 with the requirements and in furtherance of the goals of 

13 providing quality care and containing costs under this 

14 part.’’. 

15 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

16 by paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date of the 

17 enactment of this Act. 

18 (b) BIANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later 

19 than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

20 and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of Health 

21 and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report 

22 on the negotiations conducted by the Secretary under sec23 tion 1860D–11(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

24 1395w–111(i)), as amended by subsection (a), including 

25 a description of how such negotiations are achieving lower 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 77 IS

1 prices for covered part D drugs (as defined in section 

2 1860D–2(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

3 102(e))) for Medicare beneficiaries. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for period ended June 30, 2015 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William Tanona, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ William TanonaName: William Tanona Date:  August 10, 2015
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy (SEP), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2 p.m.-3 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

                        This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to                         *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov*                         at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference.                    

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        Chair's opening remarks; discussion of narrative outlines for thematic reports to be included in                         *Science and Engineering Indicators 2020.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Matt Wilson (                        *mbwilson@nsf.gov*), 703/292-7000.                    

                        Meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices.jsp#sunshine.*                         Please refer to the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information.                    

Christopher Blair,

Executive Assistant, National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2018-19549 Filed 9-5-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Roberta Malin, Appellant, v Selwyn Malin, Respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, J.), dated February 23, 1990, which (1) granted the defendant husband’s motion to vacate an income execution, and (2) denied the plaintiff wife’s cross motion, *inter alia,*for an award of counsel fees, interest, and sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly vacated the income execution served on the husband’s employer. When a debtor is in default, an execution for enforcement of a maintenance obligation may be issued against him *(see,*CPLR 5241 [b]). Where the execution has been issued, the debtor may assert a mistake of fact and shall have an opportunity to make a submission in support of the objection within 15 days after service of a copy thereof *(see,*CPLR 5241 [e]). " 'Mistake of fact’ means any error in the amount of current support or arrears or in the identity of the debtor or that the order of support does not exist or has been vacated” (CPLR 5241 [a] [8]). This definition is not so rigidly applied as to preclude relief in circumstances where the debtor is innocent of any wrongdoing within the over-all contemplation of the statute *(see, Zuckerman v Zuckerman,*154 AD2d 666).

The husband failed to make required payments to the wife, but maintains that, after the wife moved out of the marital residence, he did not receive notification from her as to where the payments should be sent. The husband refused to send the checks to the wife’s attorney because she did not give him authorization to do so. However, the husband placed $6,500 in his attorneys’ escrow account. Therefore, it is evident that he intended to make the payments but was unable to do so based on circumstances beyond his control.

*724Contrary to her contention, the wife is entitled to neither attorneys’ fees nor interest on her support arrears since she failed to adduce any evidence that the husband’s failure to pay was in willful disregard of the divorce judgment *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [c]; § 244; *Messina v Messina,*143 AD2d 735, 737).

We have considered the wife’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.