alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Evidence Act’s Standard 

Application Process

Alex Marten, Statistical Official, EPA
Overview 2

▫ Foundations for the Standard Application Process (SAP)

▫ SAP Development and Implementation Progress
Foundations for the Standard 

Application Process (SAP)
Evidence Commission Recommendation 4

“The Office of Management and Budget should promulgate a 

single, streamlined process for researchers external to the 

government to apply, become qualified, and gain approval to 

access government data that are not publicly available.”

Source: The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking, Rec. 2-8, p. 46
Evidence Act requires establishing SAP 5

Each statistical 

agency implements 

the standard process

Common 

application 

form

Standard review 

criteria for access 

determination

Timeframes for 

prompt 

determinations

Standards for 

transparency

An appeals process 

for adverse decisions
SAP Standardizes Application Processes 6

▫ For the first time, all statistical agencies will use a 

standardized process for accepting and reviewing 

applications for restricted use data.

▫ Will add value through the streamlining of data discovery, 

standardization, and increased coordination.

▫ Individual data providers will remain the trusted 

intermediary to access data.
Potential of the SAP 7

▫ The SAP is customer-centric, providing a one-stop 

shop for applying for access to restricted use data from 

statistical agencies/units.

▫ The SAP is a service being built by and within the statistical 

system today under the Evidence Act.

▫ The SAP is a framework for future government-wide 

evidence-building efforts – being built with room to grow.
SAP Development and 

Implementation Progress
SAP Development Process 9

▫ Leveraged the experience of the statistical system, nonstatistical agencies that provide access to restricted data, 

experiences from a phase 1 pilot, and stakeholder input.

▫ SAP development involves three equally critical activities: 

1. Creation of a policy defining the SAP 

2. Implementation of the SAP Portal 

3. Stakeholder outreach and engagement 
Phase 1 Pilot Provided Many Lessons 10
Phase 2 Will Expand Capabilities 11

Full single application

Enhanced data catalogue

Participation from all statistical agencies

Use of standard review criteria for agency reviews

Standard timeframes for reviewing application
General Implementation Timeline 12

• March 2022:

SAP data catalogue published

• Late 2022: 

Expanded SAP functionality
Continued Expansion of Engagement 13

Stakeholder feedback is integral to 

ensuring that the SAP supports 

improved access to restricted-use 

data and expanded evidencebuilding capacity.

We plan to have more frequent two-way 

communication with an increasing number 

of stakeholders as the SAP develops. 

- Regular email updates to stakeholders

- Public website with SAP information

- Webinars

- Presentations

- Focus Groups
14

https://www.researchdatagov.org/

https://ncses.nsf.gov/about/standard-application-process
Richard H. ELBERT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2417

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Tina Gilger,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      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.





Date:
      September 19, 2007





/s/
      Tina
      Gilger


Tina
      Gilger, Chief Financial Officer
Judy Ella QUITMAN-BOOKER and Wiregrass Catering Service, LLC v. SUNSOUTH BANK, Steven Colvin, and Jillian Dematteo

2160544

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 7, 2018

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.3






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS






We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-35245, 333-55838, 333-116528 and 333-137273) of Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), relating to the 1997 Incentive Plan of the Company, and the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration No. 333-142345, 333-142346 and 333-159237) of the Company (collectively, the “Registration Statements”), of the information contained in our reserve report that is summarized as in our summary letter dated February 13, 2009, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenue, as of December 31, 2008, of certain interests of the Company.




We hereby consent to all references to such reports, letters and/or to this firm in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates, and further consent to our being named as an expert in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement
relates.




Sincerely,




Fairchild & Stan




/s/ James W. Fairchild


James W. Fairchild




/s/ Peter W. Stan


Peter W. Stan






Houston, Texas


August 14, 2009
Samuel BRUNT, Appellant, v. Dawn BRUNT, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019.

Michael J. Rozum of Michael J. Rozum, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant.

Jean M. Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for Appellee.

ATKINSON, Judge.

We affirm the single order entered by the trial court titled "final judgment denying former husband's supplemental petition for modification of final judgment of dissolution of marriage; final judgment on former husband's supplemental petition as to modification of child support only; and final orders on former wife's multiple motions for contempt/enforcement." *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). However, we grant the appellee's motion to dismiss and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the *830appeal challenging the trial court's finding as to the wife's entitlement to attorney's fees. *See**McIlveen v. McIlveen*, 644 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

SILBERMAN and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________ __________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145065

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145065

COA: 300272

Wayne CC: 10

- 001533

- FC

REGINALD DORIAN SALTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C ourt, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 23.1 TO FORM 10-KSB

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-30677) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-33527) of our report dated February 9, 2001 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. as of December 31,
2000 and for the year ended December 31, 2000, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.



/s/ Dixon Odom PLLC
DIXON ODOM PLLC

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 28, 2001
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000442

23-MAY-2018

12:03 PM
Billy Wayne TRAMMELL v. STATE

CR-17-0091

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe quarterly report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managinggeneral partner of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m OR 78o(d)); and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.
| Date: August 14, 2006 |   | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.        |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Managing General Partner                 |
|                  |   |                                     |
|                  |   | By: Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                  |   |                                     |
|                  |   | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                   |   |
|                  |   | Michael J. Mauceli                       |
|                  |   | Manager and Member                       |
|                  |   | (principal executive officer)            |

 

This certification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

1

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
    


                                    ,
2003 


Dear                                    :



        Previously,
you were granted non-qualified options to purchase            shares of common stock of Fossil, Inc. The options were granted to you for your services
to Fossil, Inc. In connection with these grants, the option agreement(s) between you and Fossil, Inc. may have indicated that the options were granted under Fossil, Inc.'s 1993
Long-Term Incentive Plan and were "incentive stock options" for purposes of United States tax law. However, the provisions of the Long-Term Incentive Plan prevent you from
receiving option awards under that plan and the United States federal tax rules and regulations prevent you from receiving incentive stock options as part of these grants. 


        Instead,
the option awards should have been characterized as being granted to you under an individual stock option plan that, to the extent possible, has terms and conditions that are
the same as the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan. One provision of your plan (and the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan) provides that it is Fossil, Inc.'s intention to grant
incentive stock option where possible, but that Fossil, Inc. can make no guarantee that such treatment will be available. 


        So
that Fossil, Inc. may maintain accurate records regarding its stock option grants, we ask that you acknowledge your consent to amend your option agreement(s) with
Fossil, Inc. to indicate that your options are considered non-qualified options for purposes of United States tax law and were issued pursuant to individual stock option plans
between you and Fossil, Inc. In this regard, all references in your award agreements to the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan instead refer to your individual stock option plan with
Fossil, Inc., containing the same terms and conditions as the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan. 


        Please
note that other than the two amendments stated above, this amendment does not change the terms and conditions of your options, such as vesting, exercise price or expiration date. 


        To
evidence your acknowledgment of the above amendments to the option agreement(s) between you and Fossil, Inc., please sign below and fax this letter to
(214)                   ,
attention                        . Please
contact                  at                  if you have any
questions.
 


        Thank
you for your service to Fossil, Inc. and attention to this matter. 













Kind
regards, 


[NAME]

[OFFICE] 














AGREED
AND ACCEPTED this            day
of                                    , 2003: 


By:
                                         
                                          
   
 


Name:
                                         
                                          
    









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.2
EX PARTE Phillip WEBSTER

CR-16-1183

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IMANI A. MAHDI

, )

)

P laintiff

, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1 6

- 10 93

- CRC

)

)

PATRICK J. MURPHY

, )

)

Defendant

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This ma tter, brought pro se under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

, is before

the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(3) for improper venue and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not complied with the order to respond to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by November 7, 2016

. See Oct. 3 , 201 6 Order [ECF

No. 9 ]. Therefore, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments for dismissal to be

conced ed

. See generally Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss.

Title VII’s venue provision requires such actions to be brought in the judicial

district in the S tate where (1) the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have

occurred ; (2) the relevant employment records are maintained and administered; or (3)

the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged unlawful practice

. 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e

- 5(f)(3 ). I f the defendant “is not found within any such district,” the action

may be br ought i n the judicial district in the S tate where defendant’s principal office

is located. Id

.2 It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that this action arose from

Plaintiff’s employment in Fort Belvoir, Virginia , which is also the location of

Defendant’s principal office

. See Def.’s Mem. at 6. Given Plaintiff’s inaction, the

interests of justice would no t be served by transferring this case to the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) and dismiss the case without prejudice

. A

separate O rder accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

____________s/_______________

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

DATE: December 21 , 2016 United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1925

LOLITA M. MATAMMU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CONTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, a/k/a Fairfax County Health Department,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-01468-RDA-WEF)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lolita M. Matammu, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County 

Attorney, Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lolita M. Matammu appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment 

in favor of Defendant in Matammu’s employment discrimination suit. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Matammu’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,

she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA STARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PFIZER,

Defendant. /

No. CV 14-01488 WHO 

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar in the San

Francisco division for all further proceedings. Counsel are instructed that all future filings shall

bear the initials JST immediately after the case number. All dates presently scheduled are vacated

and motions should be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned.

Briefing schedules, including ADR and other deadlines remain unchanged. See Civil L.R. 7-7(d).

Matters for which a magistrate judge has already issued a report and recommendation shall not be

rebriefed or noticed for hearing before the newly assigned judge; such matters shall proceed in

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

Dated: April 4, 2014 

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk of Court

A true and correct copy of this order has been served by mail upon any pro se parties.

Case 3:14-cv-01488-EMC Document 13 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1323

In Re: MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02227-F)

Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Morris B. Fahnbulleh petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does 

not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 5, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 9021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02227]

[[Page 9021]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2392-041]

Ampersand Gilman Hydro, LP; Notice of Reasonable Period of Time 
for Water Quality Certification Application

    On January 24, 2025, the Vermont Department of Environmental 
Conservation (Vermont DEC) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean 
Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 
40 CFR 121.5, from Ampersand Gilman Hydro, LP, in conjunction with the 
above captioned project on January 24, 2025. Pursuant to section 
4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify Vermont 
DEC of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: January 24, 2025.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One 
year, January 24, 2026.
    If Vermont DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: January 29, 2025.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-02227 Filed 2-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-456901

NO. 2018-BA-1790

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

Petitioner sat for and passed the July 2018 Louisiana Bar Examination. Thereafter, the Committee on Bar Admissions ("Committee") advised petitioner that it could not certify her for admission to the bar on character and fitness grounds. Petitioner then applied to this court, seeking admission to the bar or, alternatively, the appointment of a commissioner. After consideration, we remanded this matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. Following a hearing, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending that petitioner be admitted to the practice of law. Neither party objected to this recommendation.

Considering the commissioner's recommendation and the entire record of this proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana.

**ADMISSION GRANTED.**

Clark, J., would deny.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

APR 23 2018 

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

CHRISTOPHER BOOK, Individually 

and on Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC., 

AKA Sierra Oncology, Inc.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants. 

No. 17-16323 

 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-07408-EJD 

U.S. District Court for Northern 

California, San Jose 

ORDER

TIMOTHY GALLAS, Individually and 

on Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC., 

AKA Sierra Oncology, Inc.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants. 

No. 17-16325 

 

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01740-EJD 

U.S. District Court for Northern 

California, San Jose 

The motion filed by the appellants on April 20, 2018 for voluntary dismissal 

Case 5:16-cv-07408-EJD Document 49 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 2
of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); 9th 

Cir. R. 27-9.1. 

This order shall constitute the mandate. 

FOR THE COURT: 

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Marc Eshoo

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7 

Case 5:16-cv-07408-EJD Document 49 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 2