alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *Eugene You-Chi Soong, Petitioner, v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.*

*Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the*Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 10, 1978, which affirmed a determination of the State Division of Human Rights that no probable cause existed to believe that respondent Hofstra University engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice. Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The record contains no evidence that respondent Hofstra University had unlaw*fully discriminated against petitioner. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and*Hawkins, JJ., concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 02, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1155

Lower Tribunal No. 11-15636

________________



### R.T., the father,

Appellant,

vs.



### Florida Department of Children & Families

, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber

, Judge.

Sanford Rockowitz

, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Florida Department of Children & Families;

Laura E. Lawson, for appellee The Guardian ad Litem Program (Sanford)

.

Before SHEPHERD, ROTHENBERG and LOGUE, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his

daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgmentfor termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of

R.T.’s parental rights was based on abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(1)(b),

Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive

means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in

desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.

The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have

different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for

approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The

mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated,

and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also

have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the

child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for,

support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the

child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with

whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family

that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to

the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings

are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of

Children & Family Servs.

, 905 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

2
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

# OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

## MEMORANDUM

TO:Juliette Rizzo, Acting Director, Special Projects, Partnerships & Events &

Anya Ashe, Director, Conference Policy and Operations

Office of Communications and Outreach

FROM:The Chief of Staff

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority 

I.DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Secretary, EA/EA/153, certified on May 13, 2004, and subject to the reservations noted below, I redelegate to you and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or officially performing the functions and duties of your position the authority to solicit and accept gifts, bequests, devises of property, both real and personal, or unconditional donations of services, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department, as provided under Sec. 421 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3481.

II.RESERVATIONS

The authority under this delegation may not be exercised without advance written concurrence by the Office of the General Counsel.  This delegation does not delegate the authority to accept gifts of in-kind travel pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1353.

The authority under this delegation is limited strictly to solicitation and acceptance of gifts, bequests, devises of property, and donations of services.  The authority to certify funds available for administering the functions and responsibilities of the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Communications and Outreach, the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, the Office of the Under Secretary, and the Office of the Deputy Secretary is maintained by the Office of the Secretary’s Executive Office.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

Page 2 – Redelegation of Authority

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification of the Department's Principal Delegations

Control Officer. This delegation does not supersede delegation EA/EA/172, certified on January 14, 2016 to the Director and Deputy Director, Office of the Strategic Partnerships, Office of the Secretary.  This delegation does, however, supersede delegation EA/EOBE/11, certified on May 17, 2012, to (formerly) Anya Smith, now Anya Ashe. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

___________/s/___________ 

Emma Vadehra

OGC Clearance: Debbie Friendly

OGC Clearance Date: 3/17/16

Certified Date: 3/22/16

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EA/EOPF/13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          96,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,598,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                    91,900
<INVENTORY>                                  2,471,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,514,497
<PP&E>                                       7,804,086
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,475,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,128,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,422,312
<BONDS>                                      1,415,970
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       423,855
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,441,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,128,041
<SALES>                                      4,547,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,547,725
<CGS>                                        2,934,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,934,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                    88,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            144,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   144,944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 142 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 566 

[Report No. 115–106] 

To withdraw certain land in Okanogan County, Washington, to protect the 

land, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain land in Okanogan County, Washington, 

to protect the land, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Methow Headwaters 

5 Protection Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 566 RS

1 SEC. 2. METHOW VALLEY, WASHINGTON, FEDERAL LAND 

2 WITHDRAWAL. 

3 (a) DEFINITION OF MAP.—In this Act, the term 

4 ‘‘Map’’ means the Forest Service map entitled ‘‘Methow 

5 Headwaters Withdrawal Proposal Legislative Map’’ and 

6 dated May 24, 2016. 

7 (b) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

8 the approximately 340,079 acres of Federal land and in9 terests in the land located in the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

10 National Forest within the area depicted on the Map as 

11 ‘‘Proposed Withdrawal’’ is withdrawn from all forms of— 

12 (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 

13 public land laws; 

14 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

15 laws; and 

16 (3) disposition under the mineral leasing and 

17 geothermal leasing laws. 

18 (c) ACQUIRED LAND.—Any land or interest in land 

19 within the area depicted on the Map as ‘‘Proposed With20 drawal’’ that is acquired by the United States after the 

21 date of enactment of this Act shall, on acquisition, be im22 mediately withdrawn in accordance with this section. 

23 (d) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be kept 

24 on file and made available for public inspection in the ap25 propriate offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

26 Land Management. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 142 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 566 

[Report No. 115–106] 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain land in Okanogan County, 

purposes. Washington, to protect the land, and for other 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Angelo D. D’Ambrosio et al. v. City of New York et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before May 1, 1962, with notice of argument for the June 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or.submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 37.105 Does this part cover all types of instruments that 10 U.S.C. 2371 authorizes?

No, this part covers only TIAs, some of which use the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371 (*see* appendix B to this part). This part does not cover assistance instruments other than TIAs that use the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371. It also does not cover acquisition agreements for prototype projects that use 10 U.S.C. 2371 authority augmented by the authority in section 845 of Public Law 103-160, as amended.
### §464d. Additional funds for training

In fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, funds appropriated in this account shall be available, at the discretion of the Director, for the following: training United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and Postal police officers; State and local government law enforcement training on a space-available basis; training of foreign law enforcement officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation, except that reimbursement may be waived by the Secretary for law enforcement training activities in foreign countries undertaken under section 801 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (28 U.S.C. 509 note); training of private sector security officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; and travel expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend course development meetings and training sponsored by the Center.

(Pub. L. 108–90, title IV, Oct. 1, 2003, 117 Stat. 1151.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

"Funds appropriated in this account", and "this appropriation", referred to in text, mean funds appropriated under the headings "Federal Law Enforcement Training Center" and "salaries and expenses" of title IV of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. 108–90.

Section 801 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, referred to in text, is section 801 of Pub. L. 104–132, which is set out as a note under section 509 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

The Center, referred to in text, means the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 108–7, div. J, title I, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 431.

Pub. L. 107–67, title I, Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 516.

Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(3) [title I], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–127.

Pub. L. 106–58, title I, Sept. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 432.

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(h) [title I], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–480, 2681–483.

Pub. L. 105–61, title I, Oct. 10, 1997, 111 Stat. 1276.

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, §101(f) [title I], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–314, 3009–317.

Pub. L. 104–52, title I, Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 470.

Pub. L. 103–329, title I, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2383.
#### Chester L. Blakeman, appellee, v. Illinois Power & Light Corporation, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,817.

Action for personal injuries sustained in collision of plaintiff’s automobile with defendant’s street car. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. Harry C. Stuttle, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 11, 1925.

Bellatti, Bellatti & Moriarty, for appellant.

Hugh P. Green and A. M. Fitzgerald, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
33wr

m-tf 3S3-/JT 33WJ* 335W

337*/JT ELECTRONIC RECORD 33&-/£ 33^-/C"

COA# 10-15-00055-CR

Miscellaneous/Other Criminal

including Misdemeanor or

OFFENSE: Felony

William Arthur Mcintosh v. The Stat

STYLE: Texas

TRIAL COURT: 40th District Court

TRIAL COURTS: 20084CR

e of

COUNTY: Ellis

FOR REHEARING IS:

MOTION

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. Bob Carroll DATE:

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED JUDGE:

DATE: March 5, 2015

JUSTICE: Scoggins , PC S YES

PUBLISH: DNP: YES

CLK RECORD: SUPPCLKRECORD:

RPTRECORD: SUPPRPTRECORD:

STATE BR: SUPP BR:

APPBR: PROSE BR:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

rkO ££ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE : *^ulv, Zl 2.Q/<

JUDGE: '•F'O

CCA IS:.

JUDGE:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN

ON

CCA# S$l*/STHMO 34Q~lg

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

ON

JUDGE:
# EdHistory

&"Arial,Regular"&10October 26, 2018 

&P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4908

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:05-cr-01331-PMD)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Michael Hisker, Duncan, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000).

He was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Martinez’ attorney

on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for

appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in

applying the sentencing guidelines as mandatory in violation of

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because the district

court in fact appropriately applied the guidelines as advisory in

sentencing Martinez post-Booker, and advised him of the advisory

nature of the guidelines at the plea hearing, we find counsel’s

claim meritless.

Martinez was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but has not done so. In accordance with

Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm

Martinez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that

counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We
- 3 -

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
636 

OFFICE OF THE ACTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ronorable J. M. Alla 

CoURt: yAuQl.tor 

Hunt aolmty 

&wnrille, Texar 

Dear Slrr 

oaunty hare the aut 

a term OS one 

tlon to a t 

Zbat statute, htmefer, oontatnr Xi5 zUthOTlPotlQl3 

*hatever tar hlaltlng the durrtlon of a ooXUO?.ldatlOn but 

sohoot di6trbte oensolldatea therslmder aM oansollduteQ 

for all intents euid~ pwpoaes wlt.hOut qaal~,fl~&ti~~ OF 
Honorable J. M. Allen, Page 2 

11mltation. The only method whrrebr oonoolidateil dlstriotr 

may be diasolwd and restored to their original rtatur ta: 

that provided in Artlole N.6. R. C. 8.. ,iQ&5, vhfoh rrauirea 

a n l liotllon ln the mame manned aa is ptivided-for ,their-oonrolldatlon under Artiole 2806. 

tire. 

Your quertion 1s therefore anrwored Sn the nrgaYour8 very tmly 

AmmY QEUERbL OF TEXAS 

4CotW 

EmLo8URJc6 

APPROVEDAPR 1, 1941 

-,.-wJ 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
##### 



ENNIS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FORM 10Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2007
 EXHIBIT 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Keith S. WaltersKeith S. WaltersChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
Date: September 28, 2007 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
#### § 761.17 Revocation.

Entry authorizations will be revoked only by an Entry Control Commander upon being advised of the discovery of information which would have been ground for denial of the initial request. Such a revocation will be confirmed in writing to the holder of an entry authorization. No reason for revocation of the entry authorization will be given. When an entry authorization is revoked, a one-way permit will be issued as appropriate, to permit the ship, aircraft, or person to transit the defense area in order to depart from a contiguous area.
#### Noel Wilmot, Respondent, v. Robert Frank, as President of Garage Employees Union, Local 272, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action by an individual member of a local labor union against it to recover damages by reason of its alleged interference with his rights as guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, defendants Frank and Bessler, as the union officers, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 19, 1962, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The complaint alleges violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and the motion papers reveal that the National Labor Relations Board has refused to process the case for lack of evidence but not for lack of jurisdiction. Under such circumstances the State courts must yield to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal authority *(San Diego Unions*v. *Garmon,*359 U. S. 236; *Inores S. S. Co.*v. *International Mar. Workers Union,*10 N Y 2d 218). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
- 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

## Deputy Secretary

## Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Secretary

Top

----

 

 Printable view

## 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

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov