alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1924

___________ Gregory Alan Miles, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the South Dakota Department of Social * District of South Dakota. Services, Office of Child Support * Enforcement; United States Department * of Health and Human Services, * [UNPUBLISLHED] Administration for Children and * Families; Pamela Jean Miles, Client of * South Dakota Office of Child Support, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 16, 2003 Filed: July 25, 2003

___________ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Alan Miles appeals from the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his civil complaint. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Moore v. Sims , 200-2- F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Miles’s claims because the South Dakota Department of Social Services and the United States Department of Health & Human Services enjoy sovereign immunity, and Miles’s claims against the third defendant (his ex-wife) are not properly brought in federal court. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, but we modify it to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to any remedies Miles might have in state court or under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). We also deny the pending motion for a hearing. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         690,399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,733,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,927,122
<PP&E>                                     105,085,909
<DEPRECIATION>                              60,629,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,977,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,639,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,751,100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,977,559
<SALES>                                     11,542,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,118,357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,748,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,630,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,691,138)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,939,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,939,215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)
        



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In Re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent 

Litigation Case No. 1:11-cv-09308

Judge James F. Holderman

Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier This Document Relates To:

All Cases

ORDER SEALING CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS

The Court having received and reviewed the parties’ Supplemental Joint Motion to Seal 

Certain Trial Exhibits (hereinafter “Joint Motion”), orders the following:

The parties request to seal certain exhibits is GRANTED. DTX 2065 shall be maintained 

under seal. Counsel is required to retain all exhibits.

October 4, 2013 ____________________________________

James F. Holderman

United States District Judge

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 977 Filed: 10/04/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:41636
### §3353. Agricultural biosecurity

#### (a) Security at colleges and universities

#### (1) Grants

The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the "Secretary") may award grants to covered entities to review security standards and practices at their facilities in order to protect against bioterrorist attacks.

#### (2) Covered entities

Covered entities under this subsection are colleges or universities that—

(A) are colleges or universities as defined in section 3103 of this title; and

(B) have programs in food and agricultural sciences, as defined in such section.

#### (3) Limitation

Each individual covered entity may be awarded one grant under paragraph (1), the amount of which shall not exceed $50,000.

#### (4) Contract authority

Colleges and universities receiving grants under paragraph (1) may use such grants to enter into contracts with independent private organizations with established and demonstrated security expertise to conduct the security reviews specified in such paragraph.

#### (b) Guidelines for agricultural biosecurity

#### (1) In general

The Secretary may award grants to associations of food producers or consortia of such associations for the development and implementation of educational programs to improve biosecurity on farms in order to ensure the security of farm facilities against potential bioterrorist attacks.

#### (2) Limitation

Each individual association eligible under paragraph (1) may be awarded one grant under such paragraph, the amount of which shall not exceed $100,000. Each consortium eligible under paragraph (1) may be awarded one grant under such paragraph, the amount of which shall not exceed $100,000 per association participating in the consortium.

#### (3) Contract authority

Associations of food producers receiving grants under paragraph (1) may use such grants to enter into contracts with independent private organizations with established and demonstrated expertise in biosecurity to assist in the development and implementation of educational programs to improve biosecurity specified in such paragraph.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 107–188, title III, §334, June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 679.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and not as part of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter.
#### § 552.114 Violations.

Violations of the provisions of this regulation are subject to disciplinary actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, judicial action as authorized by state or federal law, or administrative action as provided by controlling regulation.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance ) Docket No. TBA 

) 

) 

) ______________________) 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910076 

Judge Goodwin 

ANSWER 

Respondent Jett Pro line Maintenance hereby files its Answer to the FAA Complaint in this 

matter as follows. 

I. 

Admitted. 

II. 

1. Admitted. 

2. Admitted. 

3a. Admitted. 

3b. Admitted. 

3c. Admitted. 

3d. Admitted. 

3e. Admitted. 

3f. Admitted. 

3g. Denied. 

3h. Denied. 
3i. Denied. 

3j. Denied. 

3k. Admitted. 

31. Admitted. 

3m. Admitted. 

3n. Denied. 

3o. Denied. 

3p. Denied. 

3q. Admitted. 

3r. Admitted. 

3s. Admitted. 

3t. Admitted. 

4a. Admitted. 

4b. Admitted. 

4c. Admitted. 

4d. Admitted. 

4e. Admitted. 

4f. Admitted. 

4g. Admitted. 

4h. Admitted. 

4i. Admitted. 

4j. Denied. 
4k. Admitted. 

41. Admitted. 

4m. Admitted. 

4n. Denied. 

4o. Denied. 

4p. Admitted. 

4q. Denied. 

4r. Admitted. 

4s. Admitted. 

4t. Admitted. 

Sa. Denied. 

Sb. Admitted. 

Sc. Admitted. 

Sd. Admitted. 

Se. Denied. 

Sf. Admitted. 

Ga. Admitted. 

Gb. Denied. 

Gc. Denied. 

Gd. Denied. 

Ge. Denied. 

7a. Denied. 
7b. Denied. 

8a. Denied. 

8b. Denied. 

Ill. 

la. Denied. 

lb. Denied. 

lc. Denied. 

ld. Denied. 

le. Denied. 

lf. Denied. 

2. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, by counsel, respectfully requests that this matter be dismissed. 

Dated: March 11 , 2014 

~· 

r-'• '\ ' \ 

~ ( J J_Q,-v"' 

John Craig Weller 

Aerlex law Group 

2800 28'h Street 

Suite 200 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

TEL: (530) 205-9884 

FAX: (530) 205-9371 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance) 

) 

) 

) ______________________) 

Docket No. TBA 

FAA Case No. 2011WP910076 

Judge Goodwin 

CERTFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I served a copy of the attached Answer by U.S. First Class Mail on the 

persons listed below. In addition, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the Procedural Order, I 

also served a copy by facsimile on the presiding Judge and FAA counsel. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

Sam Nugud, President 

Jett Pro Line Maintenance 

8517 Earhart Road, Suite 210 

Oakland, CA 94621 

Sam Nugud, President 

Jett Pro line Maintenance 

P.O. Box 3190 

Ontario, CA 91761 

Autumn Killingham, Esq. 

Enforcement Division, AGC-600 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: 202-267-5769 

ONE COPY 
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative law Judge 

Office of Hearing, M·20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated: March 11, 2014 

John Craig Weller 

Aerlex Law Group 

2800 281

h Street 

Suite 200 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

TEL: 530-205-9884 

FAX: 530-205-9371
### §2256. Inspections, analyses, and tests for other Government departments and agencies; reimbursement

The head of any department or independent establishment of the Government requiring inspections, analyses, and tests of food and other products, within the scope of the functions of the Department of Agriculture and which that Department is unable to perform within the limits of its appropriations, may, with the approval of the Secretary, transfer to the Department for direct expenditure such sums as may be necessary for the performance of such work.

(Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, title VII, §702(a), 58 Stat. 741.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section was enacted as part of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944.

Section was formerly classified to section 571 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elmo Cherry, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 28, 1976, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted murder of a peace officer, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, plea vacated, and case remanded to Criminal Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. The court erred when it instructed the defendant that his lack of knowledge that his intended victim was a peace officer acting in the course of his official duties was not a defense to the crime to which he ultimately pleaded (see *People v Harris,*67 AD2d 665). Under these circumstances, defendant’s plea cannot be permitted to stand, as it may not be considered knowing and voluntary (see *People v Serrano,*15 NY2d 304; cf. *People v Francis,*38 NY2d 150). Mollen, P. J., Rabin, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.111 Recovery rates in government facilities.

The Federal Register contains the rates set by the Office of Management and Budget, of which judges take judicial notice. Apply the rates in effect at the time of care to claims.

[81 FR 83699, Nov. 22, 2016]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 We, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Philip A.
Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the
quarterly period March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. LudrofPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. GarciaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer August 20, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Erie Family Life
Insurance Company and will be retained by Erie Family Life Insurance Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Margit Kosma, Respondent, v. Regina Blau et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The name of Vincent Trerotola is stricken from the appearances noted on the record. Only lawyers may appear for parties in this court. Workmen’s compensation representatives who are not lawyers are without right to appear.
Attachment B 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3) fees. 

See web cite at: PRIA 3; Tables - FY 2014/15 Fee Schedule for Registration Applications | Pesticides | US 

EPA
### §3222b–1. Grants to upgrade agriculture and food sciences facilities at the District of Columbia land-grant university

#### (a) Purpose

It is the intent of Congress to assist the land-grant university in the District of Columbia established under section 208 of the District of Columbia Public Postsecondary Education Reorganization Act (Public Law 93–471; 88 Stat. 1428) in efforts to acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $750,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1447A, as added Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7124, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1222, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7124, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1983.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 208 of the District of Columbia Public Postsecondary Education Reorganization Act (Public Law 93–471; 88 Stat. 1428), referred to in subsec. (a), is not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.
#### In the Matter of C. A. Sullivan, Appellant, v Victor S. Bahou et al., Constituting the New York State Civil Service Commission, et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 17, 1978 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to declare null and void petitioner’s results on an oral examination. Judgment affirmed, without costs (see *Matter of Dixon v Bahou,*67 AD2d 767). Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Domonic
J. Carney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
 Section
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, 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 Company.
  /s/ Domonic J. CarneyDomonic
      J. CarneyChief Financial
      Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
  Date:May 29,
2009
#### Parisian Novelty Company, appellant, v. Matthew T. Dunn and Frank Dunn, trading as Dunn Brothers, appellees.

Gen. No. 29,591.

Action for breach of warranty of goods sold. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Lupe, Judge,' presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 3, 1925.

Edgar J. Schoen, for appellant; Maurice J. Green, of counsel.

Krauss, Goldman & Allshouse, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
- 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

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | HomeAdult Ed and LiteracyPrograms/InitiativesCareer and Technical EdOffice ContactsCommunity CollegesReports & ResourcesCorrectional Education NewsCareer and Technical Education
The Division of Academic and Technical Education (DATE) is responsible for helping all students acquire challenging academic, technical, and employability skills to succeed in postsecondary education and in-demand careers. 

To this end, the division:
-  Administers formula and discretionary grant programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins).
-  Provides assistance to help State improve program administration, implementation, and accountability.
- Implements national initatives that support high-quality career and technical education programs.

For the latest information and reosurces about career and technical education, please visit our Perkins Collaborative Resource Network.
   Printable view  Last Modified: 08/18/2016 |
#### In the Matter of Harry Shafer et al., Doing Business as 6623 Ridge Co., et al., Appellants, v. Hortense W. Gabel, as City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, Respondent.

Judgment dismissing petition in article 78 proceeding against City Rent Administrator unanimously affirmed, with costs. Petitioner applied to respondent City Rent Administrator for a hardship increase in rents based on the purchase price. Respondent denied an increase based on the purchase price but allowed an increase based on the assessed valuation. It appears that the property changed hands four times within a period of one month. Petitioner’s original application was based on the price to him of $492,000. Upon a remission he based his application on the first of the four sales which realized a price of $435,000. Respondent’s ground for rejecting the use of the purchase price was that the financing was abnormal. Several grounds for this finding were advanced, of which we consider only one, namely, that the total amount of the mortgages exceeded the assessed valuation. We have pointed out that a ratio adopted by the respondent of mortgages to assessed valuation must have some support either in proof of the customary ratio in sales of like property or in some other demonstrable indication of abnormality. *(Matter of Van Cortland*Assoc. v. *Gabel,*21 A D 2d 192.) Here the respondent’s opinion meets that test. Prior to the transactions eventuating in petitioner’s acquisition of the property the mortgages were less than the assessed valuation. The increase came about by the placing of a third mortgage on the property, the proceeds of which were used to make the required cash payment. Without the use of these funds the cash payment would only have amounted to 11%. It therefore appears that the resulting excess was brought about by the necessity of providing a 20% cash payment. Had the seller accepted a purchase-money mortgage, the paucity of cash would have rendered the sale suspect. It follows that in this instance respondent has demonstrated that the use of her ratio is valid as an indication of abnormality. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valen te and McNally, JJ.; Breitel and Bastow, JJ., concur in the result.
|    |                                                                                                       |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of EXCO Resources, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |  |
| Date: August 29, 2013 |   | /s/ Mark F. Mulhern |
|                  |   | Mark F. Mulhern |
|                  |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |