alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7736. Court jurisdiction

#### (a) In general

The United States district courts, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of American Samoa, and the United States courts of other territories and possessions are vested with jurisdiction in all cases arising under this chapter. Any action arising under this chapter may be brought, and process may be served, in the judicial district where a violation or interference occurred or is about to occur, or where the person charged with the violation, interference, impending violation, impending interference, or failure to pay resides, is found, transacts business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.

#### (b) Exception

This section does not apply to the imposition of civil penalties under section 7734(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §426, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 451.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.
#### 1352.242-70 Postaward conference.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1342.503-70, insert the following provision:

# Postaward Conference (APR 2010)

A postaward conference with the successful offeror may be required. If required, the Contracting Officer will contact the contractor within 10 days of contract award to arrange the conference.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                         10.1(c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ROHN Industries, Inc.

                               6718 W. Plan Road
                                 P.O. Box 2000
                               Peoria, IL  61656
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 July 24, 1998


Mr. Brian B. Pemberton
President & CEO
ROHN Industries, Inc.
6718 W. Plank Road
Peoria, IL  61604

     Re:  Employment terms

Dear Brian:

     This letter is to confirm our mutual agreement to terminate the attached
Change of Control Agreement, dated September 2, 1998, that was a part of my
prior employment terms with ROHN Industries, Inc.  This mutual termination is in
exchange for the new employment terms that are set forth in your letter to me
dated July 24, 1998, a copy of which is also attached.

     I look forward to providing continuing service to ROHN.

                                Very truly yours,



                                 /s/ David V. LaRusso
                                ----------------------------------------
                                David V. LaRusso
                                Vice President & Chief Financial Officer


TWK/ms1444
Attachments
#### 10.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for conducting market research to arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting supplies and services. This part implements the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 3306(a)(1), 41 U.S.C. 3307, 10 U.S.C. 3453 , and 6 U.S.C. 796.

[60 FR 48237, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 52849, Oct. 14, 2009; 79 FR 24199, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1, 2022]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DONTEE M. BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 462

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Dontee Bennett (“Bennett”) has tendered the original of a 42

U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint against the City of

Chicago, its police officer Michael Katonda and what are listed

as “three unknown detectives John Does.” This Court expresses 1

no views as to the potential viability of Bennett’s

constitutional claim for Section 1983 purposes, but what he has

submitted to this point is incomplete in several respects.

For one thing, Bennett has not furnished the required copies

of the Complaint for service of process, nor has he provided the

necessary summonses for the same purpose. In addition, he has

neither paid the $350 filing fee nor submitted an Application To

Proceed In Forma Pauperis together with a printout of his trust

fund account at the Cook County Jail, where he is now in custody

(in the latter respect, see 28 U.S.C. §1915). If he does not

cure the flaws referred to here on or before February 10, 2012,

 Because the Complaint was handprinted on a sheet longer 1

than a standard 8-1/2 x 11 inch page, the Clerk’s Office has

reduced it in size both for filing purposes and to provide a copy

for this Court.

Case: 1:12-cv-00462 Document #: 4 Filed: 01/25/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:11
this action will be dismissed.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 25, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00462 Document #: 4 Filed: 01/25/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:12
#### 1342.102 Assignment of contract audit services.
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/EF/58

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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLIFFORD WILSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 249 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
13.305-2 Agency responsibilities. Each agency using imprest funds and third party drafts shall— ( a ) Periodically review and determine whether there is a continuing need for each fund or third party draft account established, and that amounts of those funds or accounts are not in excess of actual needs;
( b ) Take prompt action to have imprest funds or third party draft accounts adjusted to a level commensurate with demonstrated needs whenever circumstances warrant such action; and
( c ) Develop and issue appropriate implementing regulations. These regulations shall include (but are not limited to) procedures covering— ( 1 ) Designation of personnel authorized to make purchases using imprest funds or third party drafts; and
( 2 ) Documentation of purchases using imprest funds or third party drafts, including documentation of— ( i ) Receipt and acceptance of supplies and services by the Government;
( ii ) Receipt of cash or third party draft payments by the suppliers; and
( iii ) Cash advances and reimbursements.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                          FIRST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)



                                              For the Years Ended December 31, 
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                1995        1994        1993
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------

Net income                                   $   56,910  $   50,308  $   45,965
Less: Preferred stock dividend                        -         129       1,210
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
Income applicable to common shares           $   56,910  $   50,179  $   44,755
                                             ==========  ==========  ==========

Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding during the period             26,221,023  25,607,960  25,714,354

Earnings per common share                         $2.17       $1.96       $1.74
#### 1322.302 Liquidated damages and overtime pay.

The designee authorized to find that the administratively determined liquidated damages due under FAR 22.302(a) are incorrect or that the contactor or subcontractor inadvertently violated the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Mandalay Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009 of the Company
(the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Dated: July
14, 2009


/s/ Russell BurkeRussell
      BurkeChief
      Financial Officer
### §9205. Budget and report

#### (a) Budget

Concurrently with each budget submission to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9, shall jointly submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an integrated budget plan for the defense and protection of the food supply of the United States, including the operation and use of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.

#### (b) Report

Not later than 60 days after the date on which the budget of the United States Government is submitted by the President under section 1105 of title 31 for each fiscal year, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing an integrated budget plan described in subsection (a), which shall be consistent with the budget submission of the President under that section for the defense and protection of the food supply of the United States, including the operation and use of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. P, §6, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2161.)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theodore Feuerbach, Respondent, v. Fuller Brush Co. et al., Appellants, and Rainville Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion for dismissal of the appeal denied, without costs. The panel and full board decisions appealed from are affirmed *(Matter of Gordon*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*300 N. Y. 652; 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 43.53, 45.23), with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### 1422.604-2 Regulatory exemptions.

The AS/PMB is authorized to request the Secretary of Labor to exempt contracts from the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act under FAR 22.604-2(b). A written finding justifying the exemption shall be prepared by the CO and submitted by the HCA to the Director, PAM for further action.
### §4813. Refunds

#### (a) Demand for refund; persons eligible

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, prior to the approval of the continuation of an order pursuant to the referendum required under section 4811(a) of this title, any person shall have the right to demand and receive from the Board a refund of an assessment collected under section 4809 of this title if such person—

(1) is responsible for paying such assessment; and

(2) does not support the program established under this chapter.

#### (b) Form and time within which demand to be made

Such demand shall be made in accordance with regulations, on a form, and within a time period prescribed by the Board and approved by the Secretary, but not later than 30 days after the end of the month in which the assessment was paid.

#### (c) Payment of refund on submission of satisfactory proof

Such refund shall be made not later than 30 days after demand is received therefore 1 on submission of proof satisfactory to the Board that the producer, person, or importer—

(1) paid the assessment for which refund is sought; and

(2) did not collect such assessment from another producer, person, or importer.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1624, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1619.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1631 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 4801 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "therefor".
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DOES 1-100 and DOES 102-500, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-00377 

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

Magistrate Judge Sheila M. 

Finnegan 

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday February 10, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff, by 

counsel, shall appear before the Honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman in Room 1219 at the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, 

and then and there present Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process by Email, Electronic 

Publication and Publication. 

Dated this 7th day of February 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_____/s/ Justin R. Gaudio_____________

Kevin W. Guynn 

Amy Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

 jgaudio@gbclaw.net 

Case: 1:12-cv-00377 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:732
### SUBCHAPTER III—FOREIGN COMMERCE
1403.104-7 Violations or possible violations. ( a ) ( 1 ) The CO's determination that there is no impact on the procurement due to a possible violation of the Procurement Integrity Act and decision to proceed with contract award shall receive concurrence from an individual one level above the CO.
( 2 ) In case of nonconcurrence with the CO's determination, the HCA shall provide a copy of the reported violation and recommended action to the OIG in accordance with Part 111 DM 3. The CO, in consultation with the SOL and the OIG, must justify the compelling circumstances for immediate award and obtain approval to proceed from the BPC without the power of redelegation. Copies of the determination to proceed with the award will be sent to the Director, PAM, for submission to the AS/PMB.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    Exhibit 23.2





                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors
Intelect Communications, Inc.


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-35841) and on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-03246 and 33-05918) of Intelect Communications, Inc. of our report
dated March 27, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Intelect
Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
the year ended December 31, 1997, and the related schedule, which report appears
in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Intelect Communications,
Inc..


/S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1998
### §2009cc–16. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6027(e), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1183, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6027(e), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1944

Section, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §384Q, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6029, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 401, related to interagency agreement to carry out day-to-day management and operation of the program.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

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

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal 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 an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-50442 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Carlos Alfonso Dominguez,
Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:20-CR-2348-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges

Per Curiam: * Carlos Alfonso Dominguez pleaded gu ilty to one count of importation of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He challenges

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50442 Document: 00516189707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2022No. 21-50442

2 the procedural and substantive rea sonableness of his within-guidelines sentence of 63 months of imprisonment. We review sentencing decisions for reasonableness using a “bifurcated review process.” United States v. Nguyen , 854 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 2017); see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, we “examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error.” Nguyen , 854 F.3d at 280. “If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” Id . Dominguez’s arguments at se ntencing alerted the district court to, and so preserved for appeal, hi s claims of procedural and substantive

error. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 764, 766-67(2020). We therefore review the district court’s interpretation of the safetyvalve provisions de novo and the deci sion whether to apply a safety-valve adjustment for clear error. United States v. Flanagan , 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Towns , 718 F.3d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 2013). Despite Dominguez’s arguments to th e contrary, the record reflects that the district court applied safety-val ve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to sentence him below the 120-month mandatory minimum and correctly calculated the applicable guidelin es range of 63 to 78 months of imprisonment. Additionally, there is no merit to his claim of substantive unreasonableness. A within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Hernandez , 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017). There is no indication that an important factor was overlooked, that an improper factor was given significant weight, or that th e court failed to provide any required explanation. Instead, Dominguez’s argument is no more than a request for us to reweigh the statutory sentencing factors, which we will not do. Id. at 167; see also Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-50442 Document: 00516189707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2022
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1113

)

GEARXS, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants have filed their Answer to the First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) brought against them by Microsoft Corporation

(“Microsoft”). Although this Court has made no effort to treat

with that responsive pleading in any detail (that after all is

Microsoft’s responsibility), it has noted the inexplicable

departure of Answer ¶¶10, 15, 17, 22 and 44 from the plain

roadmap marked out by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5)--see App’x ¶1 to

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278

(N.D. Ill. 2001). Accordingly those paragraphs of the Answer are

stricken, with leave however granted to file properly amended

versions of those paragraphs on or before May 31, 2012.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 22, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-01113 Document #: 27 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:116