alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM

TO: Principal Officers

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act (DEOA) (Public Law 96-88), 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to 

you for employees in your Principal Office the authority described in 34 C.F.R. Part 

8 regarding demands issued to Departmental employees for testifying or records in 

legal proceedings. This authority only applies to legal proceedings in which the 

United States is not a party.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

existing authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATION

The authority should be exercised in consultation with the Office of the General 

Counsel.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may be redelegated to Senior officials in your office who report 

directly to you. No other redelegation is permitted.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

authority.

_______/s/___________

 Richard W. Riley
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ R. Wexler, 9/2/92

Certified Date: 9/4/92

Control No. EA/ET/34

Certified by: /s/ Wilma J. Hodo______________

 Departmental Delegations Control Officer

Addressees:

Principal Officers and List and PO Control No.

EA/EB/132 – Deputy Secretary

EA/EC/150 – Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

EA/EE/3 – Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning

EA/EF/58 – Inspector General

EA/EG/54 – General Counsel

EA/EH/61 – Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

EA/EJ/22 - Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs

EA/EK/75 - Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

EA/EL/43 – Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget/CFO

EA/EM/180 – Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration

EA/EP/183 - Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

EA/ES/42 - Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education

EA/ET/34 - Director, OBEMLA

EA/EV/40 - Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education

EA/EI/2 – Chief Information Officer

EA/EN/2 – Chief Operating Officer, FSA

EA/EQ/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools

EA/ER/1 – Director, Institute of Education Sciences

EA/EU/2 – Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
NOS. 07-07-0215-CR

 07-07-0216-CR

 07-07-0217-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 10, 2008

______________________________

LONNIE R. BLACK, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 364 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; TH

NOS. 2007-415379, 2007-415380, 2007-415381;

 HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lonnie R. Black, pleaded guilty, without benefit of a plea bargain, to three

separate indictments, each alleging commission of the offense of robbery. Subsequently,

appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division. All sentences are to be served concurrently. We affirm.
2

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion

to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion,

the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-

45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel

has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial

court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy

of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se

response. Although, appellant requested and was granted an extension of time to file a

pro se response, appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,

but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an

independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346,

102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We

have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a 1

copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a

pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

3

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.1

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32.2
     Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
             Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David A. O'Neil,
Principal 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; and

      2.    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: February 13, 2004


                                       /s/ David A. O'Neil
                                       ---------------------------
                                       David A. O'Neil
                                       Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer


                                       16
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO: Addressees (See Below)

FROM: Director, Risk Management Service

Office of the Secretary

SUBJECT: Amendment to the Redelegation of Authority for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me from the Secretary by delegation EA/EAR/165,

certified on March 26, 2008, I hereby amend your respective redelegations of 

authority to perform the functions related to the award, management and oversight of 

formula and discretionary grants and cooperative agreements within your 

programmatic authority, certified on April 11, 2008, to include the authority to 

approve State applications, consolidated State applications, State plans, and 

consolidated State plans for formula grants.

II. RESERVATIONS

The provisions under the “Reservations” section in the original delegation apply

to this amendment.

III. REDELEGATION

The provision under the “Redelegation” section in the original delegation applies

to this amendment.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This amendment is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 
Page 2 - Amendment to the Redelegation of Authority for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements

authority. I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the 

addressees prior to the date of certification.

 

_________/s/____________

 Phil Maestri

ADDRESSEE LIST:

Deputy Secretary 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Director, Institute of Education Sciences 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 

Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director for English Language Acquisition ◄▬▬▬

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 1/15/2010

Certified Date: 2/2/2010

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EAR/ET/59-A
SUMMARY OF COMPANY'S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 Exhibit 10.28 
  
 SUMMARY OF THE COMPANY’S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
  
 Non-employee directors are paid an annual retainer of $40,000 and fees of
$2,500 for each Board meeting attended, $1,000 for each committee meeting attended and $1,000 for certain telephone meetings. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee and the Chairman of
the Executive Compensation Committee each are pair $5,000 per annum for their services as such. Other members of the Audit Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Executive Compensation Committee each are paid $2,500 per annum for
their services as such. All directors are reimbursed for their expenses related to attendance at meetings. 
  
 In accordance with the Company’s 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, each non-employee director who is a director at the annual meeting of
stockholders receives an automatic grant of an option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the closing price on the date of grant. Upon becoming a director, each non-employee director is granted an option to
purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the closing price of Common Stock on the date of grant. Each such option expires ten years after the date of grant and becomes exercisable in three equal annual installments
beginning on the first day of the month of each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant. If the director ceases to be a director prior to the date the option becomes fully exercisable, the unvested portion of the option will
immediately expire. Any vested options will remain exercisable for a period of one year following cessation of service as a director of the Company. All unexercised options will become exercisable in full beginning 20 days prior to the consummation
of a merger or consolidation, acquisition, reorganization or liquidation and, to the extent not exercised, shall terminate immediately after the consummation of such merger, consolidation, acquisition, reorganization or liquidation. Except as the
Board may otherwise determine, options granted to non-employee directors are not transferable.
§ 516.62 PFD and HQ USACIDC coordination. PFD and HQ USACIDC will coordinate as follows: ( a ) Discuss the status of significant procurement fraud or corruption investigations being conducted by USACIDC and possible remedies. These discussions should take place on a regular basis.
( b ) Discuss the coordination of possible criminal, civil, contractual, or administrative remedies with prosecutive authorities.
( c ) PFD will maintain liaison with other DOD centralized organizations and will coordinate remedies with those centralized organizations affected by a significant investigation of fraud or corruption that relates to DOD procurement activities.
( d ) Ascertain the effect on any ongoing investigation of the initiation of civil, contractual, or administrative remedies as follows: ( 1 ) PFD will maintain liaison with USACIDC and other DOD criminal investigative organizations in order to determine the advisability of initiating any civil, contractual, or administrative actions.
( 2 ) USACIDC will advise PFD of any adverse effect on an investigation or prosecution by the initiation of civil, contractual, or administrative actions.
Ely District Fire Management Plan 




1.3 Environmental Compliance 

Impacts of the Fire Management Program have already been analyzed in the environmental 

documents that accompany the Ely District (RMP) and the Nevada and Northeastern California 

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARM PA). Inclusion of 

these decisions made in the Land Use Plans meets all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and mandatory Tribal 

Consultation requirements. 

• Programmatic Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and District Wide Vegetation Management 

Plan (2016/2017 In progress) 

1.3.1 Fire Management Plan Compliance 

A Biological Opinion was issued to the BLM in July 2008 and July 2015 that showed concurrence 

with the BLM's findings that the RMP actions may affect but are not likely to adversely affect 

any endangered species. 

NH PA-All RMP(s) actions/decisions are in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA per the terms 

of the programmatic agreement between the BLM State Director and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. The Nevada SHPO stated that the RMP(s) were consistent with the State 

Comprehensive Preservation Plan. 

1.3.2 Incident or Implementation Compliance 

This section documents the protocols and requirements of specific environmental and cultural 

resource laws in the development of the Ely District Fire Management Plan. Specific 

consultations were initiated and completed during the development and implementation of the 

associated Resource Management Plans, as amended (see section 1.4 for list). The following 

documents provide additional restrictions and/or guidance. 

Nevada State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) Protocol agreement. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS) Emergency Consultation Protocols. 

Tribal Consultation Protocols (BLM Manual 8100). 

Attachment 1- 6
### §674. Short title

This Act may be cited as the "Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937".

(June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §6, 50 Stat. 249.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act June 3, 1937, ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, which among other things enacted this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.26 Claims not payable. A claim is not payable if: ( a ) It is not incident to the claimant's service.
( b ) The loss or damage is caused in whole or in part by the negligence or wrongful act of the claimant, the claimant's spouse, agent, or employee.
( c ) It is a subrogation or assigned claim.
( d ) The loss is recovered or recoverable from an insurer or other source unless the settlement authority determines there is good cause for not claiming against the insurer.
( e ) It is intangible property including bank books, promissory notes, stock certificates, bonds, baggage checks, insurance policies, checks, money orders, travelers checks and credit cards.
( f ) It is government property, including issued clothing items carried on an individual issue supply account. (Clothing not carried on an individual issue supply account which is stolen or clothing lost or damaged in transit may be considered as a payable item when claimed.)
( g ) It is enemy property.
( h ) It is a loss within the United States at offbase quarters the government did not provide.
( i ) It is damage to real property.
( j ) It is an appraisal fee, unless the settlement authority requires one to adjudicate the claim.
( k ) It is property acquired or shipped for persons other than the claimant or the claimant's immediate family; however, a claim for property acquired for bona fide gifts may be paid.
( l ) It is an article held for sale, resale, or used primarily in a private business.
( m ) It is an item acquired, possessed, shipped, or stored in violation of any U.S. Armed Force directive or regulation.
( n ) It is an item fraudulently claimed.
( o ) It is for charges for labor performed by the owner or immediate family member.
( p ) It is for financial loss due to changed or cancelled orders.
( q ) It is for expenses of enroute repair of a mobile or manufactured home.
( r ) It is a loss of use of personal property.
( s ) It is an attorney or agent fee.
( t ) It is the cost of preparing a claim, other than estimate fees.
( u ) It is an inconvenience expense.
( v ) It is a loss of, or damage to POV driven during PCS.
( w ) It is a personal property insurance premium.
( x ) It is a claim for a thesis or other similar papers, except for the cost of materials.
( y ) It is damage to, or loss of a rental vehicle which TDY or PCS orders authorized.
( z ) It is a cost to relocate a telephone or mobile or manufactured home due to a government ordered quarters move.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83688, 83689, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §6915. Combination of field offices

#### (a) Combination of offices required

Where practicable and to the extent consistent with efficient, effective, and improved service, the Secretary shall combine field offices of agencies within the Department to reduce personnel and duplicative overhead expenses.

#### (b) Joint use of resources and offices required

When two or more agencies of the Department share a common field office, the Secretary shall require the agencies to jointly use office space, equipment, office supplies, administrative personnel, and clerical personnel associated with that field office.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §215, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3211.)
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:12-cv-09431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: Al Counsel of Record

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 

counsel may be heard, the undersigned counsel shall appear before the Honorable Charles P. 

Kocoras, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Courtroom 2325 of the United States Courthouse for 

the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, and then and there present Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Briefing Schedule on 

Motions for Class Certification and Summary Judgment, and for Excess Pages, a true and 

accurate copy of which has been filed and served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s 

CM/ECF electronic filing system.

* * *
2

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY ESPEJO AND FAYE LEVINS, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Dated: May 27, 2016 By: s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Jay Edelson

jedelson@edelson.com

Benjamin H. Richman

brichman@edelson.com

J. Dominick Larry

nlarry@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Rafey S. Balabanian

rbalabanian@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

329 Bryant Street, Suite 2C

San Francisco, California 94107

Tel: 415.234.5342

Fax: 415.373.9435
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 27, 2016, I served the above and foregoing Notice of Motion

by causing a true and accurate copy of such paper to be filed and served on all counsel of record 

via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

s/ Benjamin H. Richman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darlena Lopez, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 759]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), rendered October 21, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so. appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1232Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [4]). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review her challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Gibbs,*31 AD3d 1186 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 867 [2006]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in *People v Lopez*(71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, “[t]he proof that the People intended to offer at trial, placed on the record by the prosecutor, contained strong evidence of defendant’s guilt” *(People v Peralta,*231 AD2d 958 [1996], *lv denied*90 NY2d 909 [1997]). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly refused to suppress her statements to the police. The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s conclusion that defendant was not in custody when she made those statements to the investigating officers at her home, the hospital and the police department. A reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody when the statements were made *(see People v Yukl, 25*NY2d 585, 589 [1969], *cert denied*400 US 851 [1970]; *People v Andrews,*13 AD3d 1143, 1144-1145). Present—Gorski, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Green and Fine, JJ.
#### 1314.407 Mistakes in bids.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131558 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131558 

 COA: 269393 

Monroe CC: 04-034045-FH 

 04-034047-FH 

 04-034050-FH 

 04-034056-FH 

LEWIS JACK RUSSELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2006 order 

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. 

s1122 

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. 

November 30, 2006 

 Clerk