alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 1352.209-72 Restrictions against disclosure.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1309.507-2(b), insert the following clause:

# Restrictions Against Disclosure (APR 2010)

(a) The contractor agrees, in the performance of this contract, to keep the information furnished by the Government or acquired/developed by the contractor in performance of the contract and designated by the Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer's Representative, in the strictest confidence. The contractor also agrees not to publish or otherwise divulge such information, in whole or in part, in any manner or form, nor to authorize or permit others to do so, taking such reasonable measures as are necessary to restrict access to such information while in the contractor's possession, to those employees needing such information to perform the work described herein, *i.e.,* on a “need to know” basis. The contractor agrees to immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing in the event that the contractor determines or has reason to suspect a breach of this requirement has occurred.

(b) The contractor agrees that it will not disclose any information described in subsection (a) to any person unless prior written approval is obtained from the Contracting Officer. The contractor agrees to insert the substance of this clause in any consultant agreement or subcontract hereunder.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### 1317.502 General.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Davon Samuels, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 575]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered May 13, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in *570the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the showup identification was unduly suggestive. The defendant’s contention is without merit. The showup took place within 30 minutes of the crime and less than one mile away from the crime scene. The fact that the defendant and his codefendants were handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed officers did not render the showup unduly suggestive *(see People v Gilyard,*32 AD3d 1046 [2006], *lv denied 8*NY3d 846 [2007]; *People v Loo,*14 AD3d 716 [2005]; *People v Pierre,*2 AD3d 461 [2003]). Nor does the fact that the defendant was viewed together with his codefendants render the showup unduly suggestive *(see People v Colson,*148 AD2d 626 [1989]). The factual circumstances represent one unbroken chain of events—crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension, and identification—all of which occurred in rapid sequence within a limited geographic area *(see People v Mitchell,*185 AD2d 249 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention as to the admission of the police officer’s testimony pursuant to CPL 60.25 is without merit. The evidence must establish a lack of present recollection as a basis for the lack of identification *(see People v Quevas,*81 NY2d 41, 45 [1993]; *People v Hernandez,*154 AD2d 197, 202 [1990]). Here, there was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the complainant was unable to identify the defendants in court due to a lack of present recollection. Santucci, J.P, Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.
:vlL Bri;m Swanson 

# omcc L Du;w ML Swanson:



### in our fhere1cre, ask the '"'rve the 

### Bminerd and International Falls 

# t>OT- Ost"·**l'i~~-** 

# Sf':f-5" 

# t:>Ol .. oSl .. 

# t.oH- ol 

# '55**~ervice,** We nit 

### servi;;e 1o the lew! that 

### their servlce in M.irmesota 

### and !ook 

### an excell.en1 L:vd 

### ofservlee 

### tn the to aeetpt the 

### bid lO 

## lb

thtmk you for your considaatlon ofour reqliest and the J!ne work thai**or~:c<>Ue(j** process and us to be able to share our with ymL

Adair, Interim 

### fv1unagcr Bmincrd Lakes Kt:'lll•lJJil:U 

### Cc iv!r. Dermis L Bob /\nderson, Chair 

### ln

### lernati mwl Commission
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,944,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,415,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                   566,641
<INVENTORY>                                    424,020
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,415,694
<PP&E>                                       9,200,994
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,624,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,726,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,919,666
<BONDS>                                     18,740,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,059,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,726,531
<SALES>                                     69,443,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,443,141
<CGS>                                       56,585,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,585,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,581,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,776,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                499,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                   419,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,871
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,871
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
FISCAL YEAR 1998

LOAN VOLUME UPDATE REPORT

FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 1998

STAFFORD LOANS (Subsidized)

STAFFORD LOANS (Unsubsidized)

PLUS LOANS

ConCONSOLIDATED LOANS

Prepared by:

Policy and Budget Development Unit

(202) 708-9069

December 1998
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(b)

                             REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL



I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account C (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the
Post-Effective Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it
ineligible to become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                         /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                         -----------------------
                                         Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.


April 20, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EMONS
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE 
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,814,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,219,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,349
<INVENTORY>                                     70,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,377,577
<PP&E>                                      29,486,309
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,949,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,538,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,389,004
<BONDS>                                     10,868,494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,494
<COMMON>                                        58,998
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,596,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,538,639
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,102,957
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,774,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             348,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                241,977
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            220,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   220,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
#### Helen McKelvey et al., Respondents, v. Charles L. Oltmann et al., Appellants. Robinson & Gales, Respondents.

In a negligence action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 27, 1961, which granted the motion of Robinson & Gales, Esqs., to withdraw as the attorneys for said defendants. The order provides that said attorneys, Robinson & Gales, deliver all of the pleadings in the action to defendants, and that the granting of the motion and the delivery of the pleadings are without prejudice to any rights of defendants or the plaintiffs against defendants’ insurance carrier pursuant to the terms of the contract or to the provisions of the New York State Insurance Law. Order modified by adding a provision that, in addition to the pleadings, the withdrawing attorneys shall deliver to defendants all reports, depositions and other papers in their possession or control relating to this action and to the accident which gave rise thereto. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Said attorneys were retained to act as defendants’ attorneys by an insurance carrier which had its office and principal place of business in Havana, Cuba. Sometime after the attorneys undertook the defense of the action, the carrier and all of its assets were seized by the Cuban government and all communication with the carrier has ceased. Said attorneys have not been paid for their services or disbursements and have no funds with which to settle the action. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that they have shown good cause for withdrawing from the defense of the action. We are also of the opinion, however, that defendants are entitled to the withdrawing attorneys’ entire file, in order to enable them to continue properly with the defense of the action. It appears from the record presented that the attorneys were not retained by defendants and that the attorneys have no claim for compensation against defendants. Hence, it would be unfair and inequitable to require defendants to pay the attorneys for their services, on pain of being seriously prejudiced in the conduct of their defense if they failed to make such payment. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [32 Misc 2d 36.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISON

FASCIA EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 12 C 371

v. ) Hon. Marvin Aspen

)

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

TO BAR PLAINTIFF FROM CLAIMING THE “FAILURE TO 

INTERACT” AS A SEPARATE CLAIM UNDER THE ADA.

Defendant, by and through its attorney, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General for Illinois, 

hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter the following order in limine:

1. Plaintiff claims that Defendant refused to reasonably accommodate her return to 

work and failed to engage in the interactive process with her. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 30, ECF No. 

44.

2. It is well-established that failure to engage in the interactive process does not

provide an independent basis for liability under the ADA. Basden v. Prof’l Transp., Inc., 714 

F.3d 1034, 1039 (7th Cir. 2013).

3. Defendant respectfully moves this Court to bar the Plaintiff from asserting

“Failure to Interact” as a separate claim under the ADA because it is not an independent basis for 

liability and is redundant to Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate and retaliation claims under the 

ADA. See Basden, 714 F.3d at 1039; Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2806
WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court enter an Order excluding 

“Failure to Interact” as a separate claim in this matter, and for such further relief that the Court 

finds reasonable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

LISA MADIGAN s/ Kevin Lovellette

Illinois Attorney General Kevin Lovellette

Assistant Attorney General

General Law Bureau

100 W. Randolph Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3720

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on March 16, 2017, he electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF 

users who will be served by the CM/ECF system.

s/ Kevin Lovellette

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2807
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey P.
      Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
      best of my knowledge:




(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
              Geoffrey P.
              Talbot**Geoffrey
              P. Talbot**
              **Chief
                Executive Officer**
              **July
                14, 2006**




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 Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank S. Macner, Appellant.

Same decision as in case of *People*v. *Fiore*(16 A D 2d 875). (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Extraordinary Special and Trial Term convicting defendant of the crimes of conspiracy to obstruct justice and perjury, first degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 1222.810-70 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.222-72, Contractor Cooperation in Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment Investigations, in solicitations, contracts, and orders that include the clause at FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.
§ 536.135 Statutory authority for the Foreign Claims Act. ( a ) The statutory authority for this subpart is the Act of August 10, 1956, 10 U.S.C. 2734 (70 Stat. 154), commonly referred to as the Foreign Claims Act (FCA), as amended by Public Law 86-223, September 1959 (73 Stat. 453); Public Law 86-411, April 1960 (74 Stat. 16); Public Law 90-521, September 1968 (82 Stat. 874); Public Law 91-312, July 1970 (84 Stat. 412); Public Law 93-336, July 1974 (88 Stat. 292); Public Law 96-513, Title V, § 511 (95), December 1980 (94 Stat. 2928). It is posted on the USARCS Web site; for the address see § 536.2(a).
( b ) Claims arising from the acts or omissions of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia are settled in accordance with Art. XV, Non-contractual Claims, of the U.S.-Marshall Islands and Micronesian Status of Forces Agreement (the “SOFA”) (posted on the USARCS Web site; for the address see § 536.2(a)). This is pursuant to the “agreed upon minutes” that are appended to the SOFA, pursuant to Section 323 of the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, enacted by Public Law 99-239, January 14, 1986. (The Compact may be viewed at *http://www.fm/jcn/compact/relindex.html*). The “agreed upon minutes” state that “all claims within the scope of paragraph 1 of Article XV [Claims], [of the Compact] * * * shall be processed and settled exclusively pursuant to the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. 2734, and any regulations promulgated in implementation thereof.” Therefore, Title I, Article 178 of the Compact, regarding claims processing, is not applicable to claims arising from the acts or omissions of the U.S. armed forces, but only to other federal agencies. Those agencies are required to follow the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2672.
#### Clinton E. Barnes et al., Respondents, v State of New York, *1066Appellant.

(Claim No. 59224.)

— Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered October 11, 1977, which directed the State to make available for copying by claimants, a real estate appraisal report utilized by the Department of Transportation to obtain reimbursement from the Federal Government. The State appropriated a portion of claimants’ property on September 13, 1973, for which taking claimants commenced suits against the State in the Court of Claims on March 31, 1975. Claimants sought production of a prior appraisal which they contend was used by the State to obtain reimbursement from the Federal Highway Administration (hereinafter FHWA) for costs incurred in constructing Interstate Route No. 508. It was for this highway that claimants’ property was taken. The State contended that it was entitled to an order of protection. The Court of Claims found the State’s conduct to have stripped the prior appraisal of immunity from discovery. We agree. In seeking a protective order, the State bears the burden of proof to show the impropriety of disclosure *(Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287; *Stengel v Long Is. Light. Co.,*61 AD2d 838). The State’s reply affidavits indicate that a prior appraisal was conducted by the State, that an advance payment was made by the State to the claimants for the appropriated property and that the State sought partial reimbursement from the Federal Government for- these payments. The conclusion is inescapable, therefore, that the State used the prior appraisal in order to arrive at the reimbursement figure. The claimants’ affidavit adequately demonstrates then that the appraisal is material and necessary and meets the test of CPLR 3101 (subd [a]). The State contends also that in accepting advance payments, the claimants bound themselves by the agreements signed by the parties, which stated that in the trial of any claim brought by claimants no appraisals shall be evidence of the value of the claim or of the property affected by said claim. We deem it premature to pass on this point, which would be more properly raised at trial and not in this discovery proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
15.606 Agency procedures. ( a ) Agencies shall establish procedures for controlling the receipt, evaluation, and timely disposition of unsolicited proposals consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The procedures shall include controls on the reproduction and disposition of proposal material, particularly data identified by the offeror as subject to duplication, use, or disclosure restrictions.
( b ) Agencies shall establish agency points of contact (see 15.604) to coordinate the receipt and handling of unsolicited proposals.
Exhibit 32.3
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Current Report on Form 10-Q of Claire's Stores, Inc.
(the  "Company")  for  the quarterly period ended November 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ira
D.  Kaplan,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18  U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.


                                           /s/ Ira D. Kaplan
                                           --------------------
                                           Ira D. Kaplan
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           December 15, 2003




<PAGE>
### SUBCHAPTER II—INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.215 Military representation.

Military officers, except those acting pursuant to specific detailing by appropriate authorities desiring to act for or on behalf of an applicant in the presentation of a case before an NDRB Panel are advised to consult legal counsel before undertaking such representation. Such representation may be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 205.
#### 1432.402 General.

The HCA is authorized to approve determinations and findings, as well as contract terms, for advance payments. The CO shall submit a recommendation for approval or disapproval of the contractor's request to the HCA through the head of the bureau finance office.