№ files_lp_4_process_2_52976
File format: docx
Character count: 6031
File size: 20 KB
Instructional grammar reference presenting rules and examples for transforming affirmative sentences into negative sentences while preserving or altering meaning.
Language:
English
Topic:
English grammar
Subject:
Sentence transformation
Document type:
Educational grammar notes
Grammatical focus:
Affirmative and negative sentence structures
Content elements:
Rules, sentence structure patterns, and examples
Number of rules:
12
Target learners:
Students learning English grammar
Educational level:
School-level English grammar practice
Structure:
Explanations with comparative examples and rule table
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Environmental Protection, Air Quality Regulations
Document Type:
Government Proposal
Agency / Organization:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Author:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Target Audience:
Industry stakeholders, environmental advocates, government agencies
Effective Period:
45 days from the date of publication
Approval Date:
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FR]
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Organization:
Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired
Address:
397 Azalea Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23227-3600
Policy type:
Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth of Virginia, United States
Legal basis:
Virginia Executive Order Number One (2018); DHRM Policy Number 2.05; Virginia Personnel Act of 1942 (revised 1985); U.S. Constitution; Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Equal Pay Act of 1963; Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Virginians with Disability Act of 1985; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Scope:
Employees and applicants for employment
Prohibited grounds of discrimination:
race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, political affiliation, disability
Affirmative action focus:
minorities, women, disabled persons, older Virginians, veterans
Enforcement body:
Human Resources Office of DBVI
Signatory:
Raymond E. Hopkins, Commissioner
Approval date:
January 15, 2018
Effective policy date:
January 15, 2018
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Virginia
Topic:
Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action
Document Type:
Policy
Institution:
Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services (DARS)
Author:
Kathryn Hayfield
Target Audience:
Employees and job applicants
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Henrico, Virginia
Subject:
Employment Policy
Document Type:
Policy
Organization:
Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
All employees and applicants for employment
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Theme:
Affirmative Action Compliance
Document Type:
Policy Guide
Target Audience:
Federal Contractors and Subcontractors
Year:
2000
Region / City:
Madison, NJ
Theme:
Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action
Document Type:
Affidavit, Supplement
Organization / Institution:
Madison Housing Authority
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Contractors, subcontractors, and public agencies
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Date:
June 11, 2024
Document Type:
Memorandum
Subject:
Redline/Strikeout for proposed amendments to remove remaining affirmative defense provisions from rules under Clean Air Act sections 111 and 112
Author:
Michelle Bergin
Author Title:
Physical Scientist
Organization:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0509
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act sections 111 and 112
Regulatory Citation:
40 CFR Part 60 and Part 63
Affected Source Categories:
Kraft Pulp Mills; Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Nitric Acid Plants; Steel Pickling; Pharmaceuticals Production; Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Surface Coating; Wood Furniture Surface Coating; Polymers & Resins IV; Printing and Publishing Surface Coating; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; Chromium Electroplating; Polyether Polyols Production; Pulp and Paper Industry; Primary Lead Processing; Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources; Secondary Lead Smelters; Marine Vessel Loading Operations
Number of Rules Addressed:
18
Nature of Amendments:
Removal of affirmative defense provisions for malfunction-related violations
Attachments:
Redline/strikeout regulatory text for specified subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Year:
2016
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Equal Employment Opportunity, Federal Contractors
Document Type:
Government Report
Agency:
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Author:
U.S. Department of Labor
Target Audience:
Federal contractors and subcontractors, government agencies
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Island Park, New York
Subject:
Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action
Document Type:
Policy Plan
Organization:
Village of Island Park
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Village of Island Park Employees
Period of Validity:
Indefinite
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Grade Level:
6th grade
Unit:
Unit 3 – A Day in My City
Subject:
English
Topic:
Present Continuous Tense – Affirmative Form
Document Type:
Grammar worksheet
Skills Focus:
Grammar, Writing, Speaking
Tense Focus:
Present Continuous
Activities Included:
Fill-in-the-blanks, Sentence completion, Guided speaking, Question and answer practice
Author:
Burçin Baydaş
Author Title:
English Teacher
Intended Audience:
6th grade students
Language:
English
Educational Context:
Classroom instruction and practice material
Year:
2026
Region / State:
Maryland, USA
Subject:
Minority Business Enterprise Participation in Federal Contracts
Document Type:
Contract Guidelines
Issuing Organization:
Maryland State Highway Administration
Author:
Maryland Department of Transportation
Target Audience:
Contractors and subcontractors bidding on federal-aid contracts
Legal Framework:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR Part 26
Contract Goal:
[DBE% (#)] percent utilization of socially and economically disadvantaged businesses
Enforcement Measures:
Withholding payments, sanctions, liquidated damages, disqualification from future bids
Year:
2026
Organization:
VINCI Services, Department of Veterans Affairs
Type of document:
Presentation transcript
Author:
Steve Oostema
Audience:
Researchers and VA staff
Topics:
VA data resources, data services, cohort assessments, patient recruitment, feasibility studies
Data sources mentioned:
VistA, Cerner Millennium, DaVINCI, OMOP, COVID-19 Shared Data Resource, Million Veteran Program, USVETS, VASQIP, Health Economics Data, Geocoded data
Services described:
Data Needs Assessment, Feasibilities, Patient Lists, Cohort Consultations, Education Arm
Geographic scope:
United States, VA medical centers, non-VA centers
Time period covered:
2018–present
Endnote:
Internal VA data management presentation for research facilitation
Organization:
National Government Affirmative Action Fund Board
Country:
Kenya
Legal Basis:
Public Finance Management Act (No. 18 of 2012)
Regulatory Framework:
Public Finance Management Act (National Government Affirmative Action Fund) Regulations, 2016
Document Type:
Public sector job vacancy advertisement
Positions Advertised:
Director – Corporate Affairs; Principal Internal Audit and Risk Assurance; Principal Legal Officer
Reference Numbers:
NGAAF/01/04/2025; NGAAF/02/04/2025; NGAAF/03/04/2025
Contract Duration:
Three (3) years, renewable subject to satisfactory performance
Remuneration Currency:
Kenyan Shilling (KShs.)
Annual Leave:
30 days / 30 working days per financial year
Allowances:
House allowance; Commuter allowance; Leave allowance
Employee Benefits:
Medical cover in accordance with prevailing government policy
Eligibility Requirements:
Relevant academic qualifications, professional membership where applicable, management training certificate, computer proficiency, compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya
Governance Requirements:
Compliance with principles of transparency, accountability, ethics and integrity
Institutional Functions Referenced:
Human resource management, finance, audit and risk assurance, legal services, corporate communications, information and communication technology
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Legal Analysis
Document Type:
Memorandum
Author:
Cory Bates-Rogers
Target Audience:
Legal professionals
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Neutral Citation Number:
[2022] EWCA Crim 1508
Case Number:
202200339 A3
Court:
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Originating Court:
Southwark Crown Court
Judge:
HHJ Tomlinson
Hearing Date:
9 November 2022
Judgment Date:
17 November 2022
Appellant:
Bupa Care Homes (ANS) Ltd
Respondent:
London Fire Commissioner
Legal Representatives Appellant:
Richard Matthews KC & Eleanor Sanderson (Browne Jacobson LLP)
Legal Representatives Respondent:
Saba Naqshbandi & Genevieve Woods
Type of Document:
Approved Judgment
Subject Matter:
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014
Incident Date:
13 March 2016
Location of Incident:
Manley Court, John Williams Close, Brockley, London, SE14 5XA
Resident Involved:
Cedric Skyers
Penalty:
Fine £937,500, Costs £104,425.42
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Ritzville, Washington
Subject:
Legal Judgment
Document Type:
Court Order
Agency:
Adams County District Court
Author:
Court
Target Audience:
Defendant, Legal Representatives
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Contextual Description:
Special Material to assist courts in determining sentence credit under Wisconsin Stat. § 973.155, focusing on pretrial custody and sentence credit calculation.