alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Statement by U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on CDC Guidance  

# Statement by U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on CDC Guidance  

May 27, 2022

**Contact:  **press@ed.gov

                                    -        
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona issued the following statement on the release of CDC guidance for K-12 schools and Early Care and Education programs: 

“Nearly 100 percent of our schools are open for in-person learning. As we enter the summer, we need to take the lessons we’ve learned from this school year and continue to do what works to keep all kids and educators healthy. This CDC guidance will help early childhood education centers, summer camps, and K-12 schools provide a healthy environment for their community. By working with local health officials and using layered prevention strategies we can allow our students to continue down the road to recovery this summer and beyond.”
   -  Tags: CoronavirusPress Releases
          How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
Search press releasesSearch for:      Find By Month    - February 2024 
- January 2024 
- December 2023 
- November 2023 
- October 2023 
- September 2023 
- August 2023 
- July 2023 
- June 2023 
- May 2023 
- April 2023 
- March 2023 
- All Press Releases
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of Public Meeting Agenda

SUMMARY: Public Meeting: U.S. Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors 2023 

Annual Meeting

DATES: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 09:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern and Wednesday, April 26, 2023 

8:30 AM- 11:00 AM Eastern

ADDRESSES:

Fairmont Washington, DC Georgetown, 2401 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037

The meeting is open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email: kmuthig@eac.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose: In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), Public Law 

94-409, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552b), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will 

conduct an annual meeting of the EAC Board of Advisors to conduct regular business, discuss 

EAC updates and upcoming programs, and discuss the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

(VVSG) 2.0 and electronic poll book pilot program.

Agenda: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors will hold their 

2023 Annual Meeting primarily to conduct an annual review the VVSG 2.0 Requirements and 

implementation, review the status of the EAC’s e-poll book pilot program, discuss ongoing EAC 

programs, discuss threats to election officials and working with local law enforcement, election 
audits, public records requests, and the impacts of NVRA and HAVA. This meeting will include 

question and answer discussions between board members and EAC staff.

The Board will also vote to elect three members to Executive Officer positions and consider 

amendments to the governing Bylaws.

Background: HAVA designates the Board of Advisors to assist EAC in carrying out its mandates 

under the law. The board consists of 35 members composed of representatives from specified 

associations, organizations, federal departments, and members of Congress. 

The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website: https://www.eac.gov. 

STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

Camden Kelliher,

Associate Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
EX-10.19(b)



 Exhibit 10.19(b) 
 June 1, 2013 
 300 North Capital LLC 
 300 North Lake Avenue - Suite 1120 
 Pasadena, CA 91101-4111 

Attention: Ms. Erin Chetwood 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Ms. Chetwood: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below
(the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio LP 



	 	•	 	 300 North Capital Master Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Damian George
		 	Damian George
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director
	
	300 NORTH CAPITAL LLC
		
	By:            	 	/s/ Richard S. Campagna
		
	 Print Name:
	 	Richard S. Campagna
		
	DG/sr
No. 11-10379.

#### Collins *v.*Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021502EN.01003501.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/35

---

Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-634/21)

(2021/C 502/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark WE DO SUPPORT — Application for registration No 1 559 178

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2021 in Case R 710/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Order entered February 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01331-CR

No. 05-14-01332-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

ERIC MONTRELL HICKMON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. M11-42220-G, M11-42221-G

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue 

the mandates in these appeals INSTANTER.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2312

_____________________________

ANTHONY MINCEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

September 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROWE and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Rocco J. Carbone, III, St. Augustine, for Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Robert Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### COM. v. HALL, E.

211 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/26/2017

CP-46-CR-0003857-2013 (Montgomery)

Affirmed
'18, '20 and '22 Combined Election Security Grants Expenditure as of 09/30/22 

Amount Interest Percent

STATE Received Earned Total Expenditures Expended

ALABAMA $14,156,097 $278,282 $8,863,899 63%

ALASKA $7,000,000 $145,363 $4,860,948 69%

AMERICAN SAMOA $1,400,000 $0 $1,069,418 76%

ARIZONA $17,215,974 $344,084 $13,238,015 77%

ARKANSAS $10,503,000 $137,036 $6,004,167 57%

CALIFORNIA $79,328,610 $1,233,282 $46,752,972 59%

COLORADO $14,649,281 $645,979 $3,861,067 26%

CONNECTICUT $11,876,298 $262,763 $12,139,061 102%

*DELAWARE $7,036,503 $19,742 $5,877,314 84%

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA $7,000,000 $97,336 $6,325,391 90%

*FLORIDA $44,241,919 $496,827 $24,476,871 55%

*GEORGIA $23,735,787 $34,671 $21,907,178 92%

GUAM $1,200,000 $7,743 $630,653 53%

HAWAII $7,642,675 $117,578 $945,946 12%

IDAHO $7,854,176 $157,260 $4,869,437 62%

ILLINOIS $30,276,158 $725,023 $13,955,390 46%

INDIANA $17,433,752 $213,784 $16,821,931 96%

IOWA $10,786,087 $202,574 $4,865,078 45%

KANSAS $10,308,516 $129,285 $4,098,666 40%

KENTUCKY $13,265,189 $63,839 $9,888,136 75%

LOUISIANA $13,518,487 $215,327 $0 0%

MAINE $7,643,743 $194,945 $3,914,296 51%

MARYLAND $16,236,562 $74,052 $5,525,058 34%

MASSACHUSETTS $18,146,268 $418,647 $8,752,634 48%

MICHIGAN $24,535,253 $590,398 $10,706,697 44%

MINNESOTA $14,014,282 $449,028 $4,877,830 35%

*MISSISSIPPI $10,521,137 $248,703 $7,482,852 71%

*MISSOURI $16,584,673 $350,414 $3,961,391 24%

MONTANA $7,133,535 $151,737 $3,814,479 53%

NEBRASKA $8,422,268 $387,100 $3,200,216 38%

NEVADA $10,083,287 $241,685 $3,912,486 39%

NEW HAMPSHIRE $7,582,633 $133,016 $2,249,042 30%

NEW JERSEY $22,403,245 $384,315 $7,605,155 34%

NEW MEXICO $8,853,131 $261,678 $4,841,685 55%

NEW YORK $44,651,756 $858,003 $25,195,086 56%

*NORTH CAROLINA $22,050,678 $0 $4,846,378 22%

NORTH DAKOTA $7,000,000 $30,451 $1,206,328 17%

*NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS $600,000 $0 $505,902 84%

OHIO $27,910,326 $612,419 $24,678,208 88%

OKLAHOMA $11,036,835 $525,202 $1,865,970 17%

OREGON $12,392,029 $462,194 $9,543,098 77%

PENNSYLVANIA $30,857,563 $550,829 $21,985,933 71%

PUERTO RICO $7,818,846 $0 $1,027,076 13%

RHODE ISLAND $7,216,180 $100,506 $3,772,470 52%

SOUTH CAROLINA $13,918,871 $458,902 $8,982,925 65%

SOUTH DAKOTA $6,000,000 $217,960 $2,967,020 49%

TENNESSEE $17,404,566 $320,939 $7,704,071 44%

TEXAS $53,691,543 $1,355,160 $36,365,173 68%

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS $1,400,000 $7,707 $1,027,815 73%

UTAH $9,728,717 $239,234 $2,744,912 28%

VERMONT $7,000,000 $107,014 $2,554,837 36%

VIRGINIA $20,868,787 $538,752 $9,223,357 44%
WASHINGTON $18,246,082 $434,565 $7,443,163

*WEST VIRGINIA $8,666,930 $0 $7,205,257 83%

WISCONSIN $16,019,045 $316,892 $9,848,822 61%

WYOMING $7,000,000 $290,005 $3,703,281 53% 

Totals $874,067,280 $16,840,227 $476,692,443 55%

*Reports for period ending 9/30/22 outstanding. Table shows last reported data from mid-year 2022.

Next required reports as of 12/31/22, due 01/30/23.

Three states did not request their 2022 allocation. Total unrequested = $3,151,122

Four states did not receive their 2022 allocation due to non-compliance. Total pending = $2,773,934 Report last updated 1/12/23 

41%
<PAGE>
 
                                                                       EXHIBIT 8



                      [VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. Letterhead]


    
                            September 11, 1997       


Forman Petroleum Corporation
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2200
New Orleans, Louisiana  70130-6101

Gentlemen:

    We participated in the preparation of the Registration Statement on Form S-4
dated July 16, 1997 (and all subsequent amendments) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission by Forman Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") with
respect to the Company's offer to exchange 13.5% Senior Secured Notes Due 2004,
Series B for all outstanding 13.5% Senior Secured Notes Due 2004, Series A (the
"Registration Statement")/1/, including the discussion set forth in the
Registration Statement under the heading "Certain United States Federal Income
Tax Considerations". The discussion and the legal conclusions with respect to
United States federal income tax matters set forth therein reflect our opinion,
and we believe they are accurate and complete in all material respects.

    
    Our opinion is based and conditioned upon the initial and continuing
accuracy of the facts and assumptions set forth in the Registration Statement.
In addition, our opinion is based upon, assumes the correctness of, the
Company's allocation of the Note Unit issue price between the Old Notes and the
Note Warrants. Our opinion is also based upon provisions of the United States
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, regulations promulgated or proposed
thereunder and interpretations thereof by the Internal Revenue Service and the
courts, all as of the date of the Registration Statement, all of which are
subject to change with prospective or retroactive effect, and our opinion could
be adversely affected or rendered obsolete by any such change.




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

    /1/All capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meaning
ascribed to them in the Registration Statement.
<PAGE>
 
    We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Registration Statement and
to the filing of this opinion as part of the Registration Statement. This
consent does not constitute an admission that we are "experts" within the
meaning of such term as used in the Securities Act of 1933.

                                         Very truly yours,



                                         VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8497 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8497

 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2020

Mr. Smith of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing SBA Assistance from Going 
to China Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Prohibition on affiliation with the people's 
        republic of china.--For purposes of this Act, a small business 
        concern may not--
                    ``(A) be headquartered in the People's Republic of 
                China; or
                    ``(B) have more than 25 percent of the voting stock 
                of the small business concern owned by affiliates that 
                are citizens of the People's Republic of China.''.
    (b) Regulations and Guidance.--The Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration shall amend the regulations and guidance of the 
Administration, including sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of 
title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amendment made 
by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5121

_____________________________

OLIVIA KAYE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

February 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: Gene Lynch II [gene2@lynox.com] ' •^'rnn'AT'n*' 

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:52 AM . ; i^!p:iD. ^'4^^^,,, 

To: EAS(OST) •; urthMnuiVo 

Subject: PQI Airport 

Li P I?: llU 

Gentlemen: 

I am writing to you in an effort to convey my support for continued air service to The 

Northern Maine Regional Airport (PQI) and in particularj commuter air service. Colgan Air as 

I understand has petitioned the FAA DOT to discontinue air service to PQI under the current 

EAS agreement. As a business located in Presque Isle, I am appealing to you to continue air 

service with equipment at minimum comparable to the existing Saab 340 that Colgan Air is 

currently using. Going with smaller planes would be extremely detrimental to the business 

community, in fact many people who do travel up here question why we don't have jet service 

leading me to believe that going with smaller aircraft such as what Cape Air or AirChoice are 

willing to provide would encourage travelers to drive rather than fly to PQI. A drop in 

passenger seats like this would end up requiring a larger subsidy through EAS thus helping no 

one, in fact studies have shown that with larger airplanes and more competitive travel fares, 

we would experience more passenger volume. This would go a long way to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the EAS program...a win win for the whole program and our 

entire region! 

As a business man and medivac pilot who use this airport and air service frequently, I 

recognize the value of having regular, scheduled air service and at the very least maintain 

the size aircraft and frequency of flights that we currently are provided. Being located 160 

miles away from the next sizable airport only confirms the fact that this service is not a 

luxury but very much indeed a necessary vital transportation link for our entire region!! 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. 

Gene Lynch II 

President 

Lynox Inc. 

46 Industrial Street 

Presque Isle, ME 04769 

(207)764-6511 work 

(207)764-6541 fax 

(207)227-6511 

gene2(g)lvnox.com
# C_2021088EN.01003702.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/37

---

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

(Case T-32/21)

(2021/C 88/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Muresko — EU trade mark No 15 465 719

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 1686/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to enter, in respect of the applicant’s EU trade mark No 15 465 719 Muresko, the seniority of the national marks PL No 108 756 (date of registration: 4 April 1996) and DE No 981 144 (day of registration: 24 February 1978); |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to enter, in respect of the applicant’s EU trade mark No 15 465 719 Muresko, the seniority of the national marks PL No 108 756 (date of registration: 4 April 1996) and DE No 981 144 (day of registration: 24 February 1978);

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GREGORY JONES, in his individual

capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35647

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 05021

- RBL

- TLF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Ralph Howard Blakely appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims . We have jurisdiction under 28

U. S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City &

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35647

County of San Francisco , 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blakely’ s motions

seeking the return of his legal documents because Blakely failed to establish that

such relief is warranted

. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an

injunction is in the public i nterest)

.

We lack jurisdiction over the district court’ s discovery ruling and order

denying Blakely’s motion s for appointment of counsel

. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v.

Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv. , 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Orders relating

to discovery . . . are orders that regulate the conduct of litigation and are not

appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”) ; Kuster v. Block , 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th

Cir. 1985) (order denying appointment of counsel is not a final appealable order)

.

In sum, we affirm the district court as to the denial of a preliminary

injunction and dismiss this appeal as to all other issues raised in the opening brief

.

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.