alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         438,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               560,447
<PP&E>                                         129,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,883,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                         1,034
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,863,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,883,836
<SALES>                                      3,604,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,604,472
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,853,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             254,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,213,363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (257,733)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (955,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (543,870)
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,499,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About Grants 
-  Funding Opportunities 

# Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

The purpose of this competitive undergraduate scholarship grant program is to increase the multicultural diversity of the food and agricultural scientific and professional workforce, and advance the educational achievement of all Americans by providing competitive grants to colleges and universities.

The technical assistance webinar related to this FY 2024 funding opportunity is now scheduled. Please see details about the webinar, including the registration link, date, and time, via the technical assistance webinar button below. The recording and supporting documents will also be posted to this page after the event.

Apply For GrantDownload RFATechnical Assistance Webinar

NIFA Language Access Services

Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program (MSP)

Land-Grant Institutions, Colleges and universities having significant minority enrollments, other colleges and universities, and Institutes or research foundations maintained by an eligible college or university. Institutions that have not previously applied are especially encouraged to do so. Applicants must be institutions that confer a bachelor’s or D.V.M. degree in at least one of the disciplines in the FANH sciences. Awards are made to eligible colleges and universities. Individuals are not eligible to apply for these grants.

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Courtenay Simmons

Monday, April 1, 2024

grantapplicationquestions@usda.gov

FY23-MSP-RFA-508.pdf(pdf - 497.99 KB)

Education

Minority Serving Institutions

Learning and Engagement
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2686 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on cyclopropane1,1-dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on 

cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYCLOPROPANE-1,1-DICARBOXYLIC ACID, DI4 METHYL ESTER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.69 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘1.8%’’ and inserting ‘‘Free’’; 

10 and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2686 IS

1 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

2 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Kim Ragland, Appellant, v J.F. Bellnier, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted June 14, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion to vacate this Court’s May 7, 2010 dismissal order granted *[see*14 NY3d 884 (2010)]. On the Court’s own motion, appeal transferred, without costs, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
#### Blinds To Go (US), Inc., Respondent, v Times Plaza Development, L.P., Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 355]

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated February 24, 2012, which denied its motion to vacate the note of issue and to compel additional discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where additional discovery is sought more than 20 days after the filing of the note of issue, the moving party must demonstrate unusual or unanticipated circumstances and substantial prejudice absent the additional discovery *(see Tirado v Miller,*75 AD3d 153, 157 [2010]; *Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini,*265 AD2d 135, 138 [2000]). Here, the defendant failed to establish any discrepancy between the testimony of certain witnesses who testified for the plaintiff at a prior trial *(see Blinds to Go*
      *776
      *[US], Inc. v Times Plaza Dev., L.P.,*88 AD3d 838 [2011]), and that of an employee of the plaintiff who subsequently testified in an unrelated action in federal court. Therefore, the defendant failed to demonstrate any unusual or unanticipated circumstances so as to warrant vacating the note of issue and ordering additional discovery *(see Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini,*265 AD2d at 140). Nor did the defendant make a showing of special circumstances so as to entitle it to depose the plaintiffs expert *(see Rivers v Birnbaum,*102 AD3d 26, 38 n 6 [2012]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jacqueline Hill, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 429]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered September 5, 2012, granting the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of annulling the determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated March 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy upon a finding of nondesirability, and remanded the matter to respondent NYCHA for reconsideration, unanimously vacated, the petition treated as one transferred to this Court for de novo review, and, upon such review, respondent’s determination unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

The petition raised an issue of substantial evidence and thus, the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CELR 7804 (g). “Accordingly, we will treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred” *(Matter of Filonuk v Rhea,*84 AD3d 502, 502 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The determination sustaining the charges — that petitioner *463unlawfully possessed controlled substances in her public housing apartment and near the premises, in violation of her residential lease and applicable laws and regulations, thus constituting nondesirable conduct — is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg,*47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). NYCHA submitted evidence that petitioner pleaded guilty to two charges relating to drug usage, including third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, following an arrest in her apartment. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was arrested inside her apartment and that the police found 53 bags of heroin, but denied that she intended to plead guilty to a crime involving intent to sell. The evidence that petitioner pleaded guilty to charges arising out of the conduct also established the administrative charges of nondesirability, and the court erred in questioning the facts established by the conviction *(see Matter of Bland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*72 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2010]; *Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v Krasnik,*41 AD3d 245 [1st Dept 2007]). The arrest at her apartment resulted from a police raid on her apartment, and the hearing officer rationally concluded that such conduct presented a danger to the health, safety, and peaceful enjoyment of the other public housing tenants.

Although the hearing officer credited petitioner with voluntarily checking herself into an inpatient drug treatment facility some seven months before the hearing, and maintaining her sobriety during that time period, the penalty of termination does not shock the conscience *(see Matter of Coleman v*Rhea, 104 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 857 [2013]; *Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth.,*84 AD3d 630, 631 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### BOHLAND v. SMITH et al.

No. 712-D.

District Court, E. D. Illinois.

April 18, 1947.

See also 72 F.Supp. 229.

Ralph Swanson, of Danville, 111., for plaintiff.

John A. Appleman, of Urbana, 111., for defendant.

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Inasmuch as there is no dispute about the facts, the court can determine this motion upon the pleadings without the introduction of evidence.

Defendant William Smith was convicted in this court and is now confined in the United States Penitentiary at Terre. Haute. Service of summons herein was made upon him by serving, at the family residence, his wife as provided in Section *3654(d) of Civil Rules of Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. The sole question involved is whether it can be said that his absence from his home, brought about by his incarceration, brings about a change in the usual place of abode of defendant. I am of the opinion that where one voluntarily establishes a place of abode or residence but is prevented from occupying it, by act of his sovereign or otherwise, his place of abode is not changed. This seems to be the reasoning of other courts. McFadden v. Shore, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 8; Rovinski v. Rowe, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 687; Wendel v. Hoffman, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 63.

I conclude that defendant William Smith’s usual place of abode is his residence in this District and that service of process was made in the manner prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion to quash the summons and :he return is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

BRANDI LYNN DVORAK,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30005

D.C. No. 9:16

- cr

- 00002

- DLC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE

, CLIFTON , and BRESS , Circuit Judges

.

Brandi Lynn Dvorak appeals pro se from the district court ’s order denying

her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for a

sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018 . We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

* 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 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30005

The district court assumed Dvorak had exhausted the administrative process

with regard to her motion and denied the motion on the m erits. Dvorak contends

that the district court erred because (1) she is a first

- time offender with no prior

convictions for a violent crime

, and (2) she is eligible for a sentence reduction

under the First Step Act.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dvorak’s motion

for compassionate release

. 1 T he district court reasonably concluded that Dvorak

had not demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons ” to warrant a

sentence reduction notwithstanding the medical and persona l developments that

arose after her sentencing

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) ; U.S. S.G.

§ 1B1.13 (1)(A)

.

T he district court also did not err in declining to reduce Dvorak ’s sentence

under the section of the First Step Act that made certain portions of the Fair

Sentencing Act retroactive . That section applies only to offenders convicted of

crack cocaine offenses, see First Step Act § 404; United States v. Kelley , 962 F.3d

470, 472 (9th Cir. 2020), and Dvorak’s conviction involved methamphetamine.

AFFIRM ED.

1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the government’s undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) . However, even under de novo review

, t he

district court’s denial of Dvorak’s motion was reasonable.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel JUAREZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Hipolito Sanchez-Juarez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40534.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Juarez-Sanchez (Juarez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Juarez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Juarez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Because Juarez has shown no er*500ror in the judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
---

---

EXHIBIT 1.3

# CERTIFICATE OF NAME
CHANGE OF THE REGISTRANT  (Translated from
Hebrew)

# Certificate of Name
Change

I herby confirm that pursuant to a
decision and Section 31(b) of the Companies Law, 5759-1999, the Company

LANOPTICS LTD.

# changed its name and shall
be called from this date on

EZCHIP SEMICONDUCTOR LTD.

# Signed in Jerusalem

6 of Av 5768

22.07.2008 Company
Number 520038068

Aviad Sheldon, Adv.

On behalf/ The
Companies Registrar



---

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Archie Shannon, Appellant, v Sibatu Khahaifa, Superintendent, Orleans Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided October 19, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant has been released from custody and, therefore, his liberty is no longer restrained to such a degree as to entitle him to the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus *(see People ex rel. Wilder v Markley,*26 NY2d 648 [1970]).

Judge Pigott taking no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2652 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2652

   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on calcium chloride 
                          phosphate phosphor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on calcium chloride 
                          phosphate phosphor.

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

SECTION 1. CALCIUM CHLORIDE PHOSPHATE PHOSPHOR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to calcium chloride phosphate 
phosphor) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 
column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

July 6, 2015

Danny Shead

TDCJ-ID#01484832

Tulia Transfer Facility

400 Hwy 86 West

Tulia, TX 79088

Warren L. Clark

Asst. Criminal District Attorney

Randall County Justice Center

2309 Russell Long Blvd., Suite 120

Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-15-00164-CV, 07-15-00165-CV, 07-15-00166-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 8460B, 8461B, 19154B

Style: Danny Shead v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Shead and Counsel:F

Appellee's brief is filed on Wednesday, July 01, 2015.

Very truly yours,

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self-
Employed Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self Employed Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, July 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Issue Committee will be held Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 8:30 
a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. 
Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd 
Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-12769 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P