alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ex. No. 147.

#### State *v.*Louis Ambrosino.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *Louis Ambrosino,*pro se, *Judith Hodge Porteus,*Boston, Mass., for defendant.

The pro se motion of defendant to correct the records is denied. The motion for leave to reargue and correct the record is denied.

Paolino, J. not participating.
#### 1352.231-70 Precontract costs.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1331.205-32, insert the following clause:

# Precontract Costs (APR 2010)

The contractor is entitled to reimbursement for allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs incurred during the period of ________ to the award date of this contract in an amount not to exceed $________.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
### §2266b. Eligibility for operators on heirs property land to obtain a farm number

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Eligible documentation

The term "eligible documentation", with respect to land for which a farm operator seeks assignment of a farm number under subsection (b)(1), includes—

(A) in States that have adopted a statute consisting of an enactment or adoption of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, as approved and recommended for enactment in all States by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2010—

(i) a court order verifying the land meets the definition of heirs property (as defined in that Act); or

(ii) a certification from the local recorder of deeds that the recorded owner of the land is deceased and not less than 1 heir of the recorded owner of the land has initiated a procedure to retitle the land in the name of the rightful heir;

(B) a fully executed, unrecorded tenancy-in-common agreement that sets out ownership rights and responsibilities among all of the owners of the land that—

(i) has been approved by a majority of the ownership interests in that property;

(ii) has given a particular owner the right to manage and control any portion or all of the land for purposes of operating a farm or ranch; and

(iii) was validly entered into under the authority of the jurisdiction in which the land is located;

(C) the tax return of a farm operator farming a property with undivided interests for each of the 5 years preceding the date on which the farm operator submits the tax returns as eligible documentation under subsection (b);

(D) self-certification that the farm operator has control of the land for purposes of operating a farm or ranch; and

(E) any other documentation identified by the Secretary under subsection (c).

#### (2) Farm number

The term "farm number" has the meaning given the term in section 718.2 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on December 20, 2018).

#### (b) Farm number

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall provide for the assignment of a farm number to any farm operator who provides any form of eligible documentation for purposes of demonstrating that the farm operator has control of the land for purposes of defining that land as a farm.

#### (2) Eligibility

Any farm number provided under paragraph (1) shall be sufficient to satisfy any requirement of the Secretary to have a farm number to participate in a program of the Secretary.

#### (c) Eligible documentation

The Secretary shall identify alternative forms of eligible documentation that a farm operator may provide in seeking the assignment of a farm number under subsection (b)(1).

(Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12615, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 5014.)

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

#### Definition of "Secretary"

"Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture, see section 2 of Pub. L. 115–334, set out as a note under section 9001 of this title.
No. 89-6522.

#### Allen *v.*Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 9308 (MDL 2303) DATE 1/10/2012

CASE

TITLE

In Re: Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The cases transferred to this Court, along with case number 11 C 1638, which was previously pending before

this Court, are consolidated for pretrial purposes. Any “tag-along” actions later filed in, removed to, or

transferred to this Court will be consolidated automatically with this action. All filings shall be made in the

lead case no. 11 C 9308. The Clerk of the Court is directed to add all counsel in the “tag-along” cases to the

lead docket no. 11 C 9308 and to its service list. Status hearing is set for 2/14/2012 at 9:30 AM. Plaintiff’s

joint motion to modify discovery pretrial schedule (filed in case no. 11 C 1638) is entered and continued to

2/14/2012 at 9:30 AM. Parties to meet and prepare Form 52 for filing by 2/10/2012. 

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

AMM

11C9308 In Re: Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 3 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.124 Delegation of authority. ( a ) The Secretary of the Air Force has authority to make an advance payment of $100,000 or less.
( b ) The Judge Advocate General has delegated authority to make an advance payment of $100,000 or less.
( c ) The following individuals have delegated authority to make an advance payment of $25,000 or less: ( 1 ) The Deputy Judge Advocate General.
( 2 ) The Director of Civil Law.
( 3 ) The Chief, Deputy Chief, and Branch Chiefs, Claims and Tort Litigation Staff.
( 4 ) SJAs of the Air Force component commander of the U.S. geographic combatant commands for claims arising within their respective combatant command areas of responsibility.
( d ) This authority may be redelegated either orally or in writing. Oral redelegations should be confirmed in writing as soon as practical.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83701, Nov. 22, 2016]
April 27, 2015

Mr. Scott Eveld

Aerial Information Technologies

27543 Ethan Allen Way

Menifee, CA 92585

Dear Mr. Eveld :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your January 23, 2015 exemption request on behalf of the Aerial Information

Technologies into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0153 ) , but we are unable to process

your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclose d). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or requ ire additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 4264

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst

, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Nicholas Martin

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00215

Honorable Morton Denlow

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, July 9, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Motion hearing held on

7/9/2012. Plaintiff's motion to compel [33] is granted. All outstanding discovery issued by

Plaintiff to defendant Dun & Bradstreet to be responded to by 8/15/2012 unless otherwise

agreed to by Plaintiff's counsel. Status hearing set for 8/7/2012 is stricken and reset to

8/21/2012 at 10:00 A.M.Mailed notice(ldg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-00215 Document #: 36 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:134
#### 1426.7102-1 Statutory basis.

Executive Order 12432, dated July 14, 1983, established the requirement for the Department of Commerce (i.e., MBDA) to collect information on acquisition and financial assistance awards to minority businesses, as well as credit assistance to such firms.
### §1366. Annual report on criminal aliens

Not later than 12 months after September 30, 1996, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report detailing—

(1) the number of illegal aliens incarcerated in Federal and State prisons for having committed felonies, stating the number incarcerated for each type of offense;

(2) the number of illegal aliens convicted of felonies in any Federal or State court, but not sentenced to incarceration, in the year before the report was submitted, stating the number convicted for each type of offense;

(3) programs and plans underway in the Department of Justice to ensure the prompt removal from the United States of criminal aliens subject to removal; and

(4) methods for identifying and preventing the unlawful reentry of aliens who have been convicted of criminal offenses in the United States and removed from the United States.

(Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §332, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–634.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lester Martin, Deceased. Sylvia Martin, Appellant; Jane L. M. Ginsburg et al., Respondents.

Appeal by Sylvia Martin, one of three executors, from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 30, 1963, which granted the application of the other two executors (the respondents Ginsburg) to determine the controversy between them and the appellant in respect of certain payments on account to be made to the said respondents’ accountants and tax counsel; which directed the respondents to make such payments; and which imposed the following terms and conditions: (1) that respondents should assume responsibility for said payments: (2) that the payments should be without prejudice to the right of appellant or any other interested person to raise in any appropriate proceeding any question as to the amount or propriety of said payments; and (3) that if it should be determined that said payments were improper or excessive, then respondents should be surcharged with the amount of such payments or overpayments and the accountants and tax counsel should be required to refund to the estate the amount thereof. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to each party filing a brief, payable out of the estate. A settlement agreement entered into between the parties and others provided, among other things, that “so long as Sylvia Martin shall be an executrix, any and all things to be done in the operation and administration of the estate shall require her approval and joinder therein ”, The parties also agreed that “ any controversy or difference in the performance or enforcement of this agreement which they cannot resolve among themselves, shall be submitted to and determined by the court.” We are of the opinion that the court, under sections 40 and 222 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, had jurisdiction to determine the controversy, submitted to it pursuant to the provision of the agreement last quoted (cf. *Matter of Raymond*v. *Davis,*248 N. Y. 67, 72; *Matter of Stevens,*261 App. Div. 48). We are also of the opinion that, under the circumstances presented by this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing the payments on account as requested by respondents. Appellant does not contend that respondents, their accountants or tax counsel are or will be financially unable to comply with any directions of the court which may ultimately be made with respect to improper or excessive payments; and the interests of the estate are adequately protected by the provisions of the order for the surcharge of respondents and the refund by tax counsel and the accountants of any such improper or excessive payments. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., not voting.
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
Case: 1:11-cv-09261 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/11 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11
- 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

About EDOVERVIEW
|  | **MS Word (371 KB)** |
|--|----------------------|

Technical Assistance

Technical  assistance to educational institutions helps them comply with federal civil  rights requirements, while assistance to parents, students, and others informs  them of their rights under the law.  OCR  provides information and other support services through a variety of methods,  including on-site consultations, conferences, training, community meetings, and  publication and dissemination of materials to many interested parties,  including students, parents, teachers, administrators, schools, colleges,  universities, and community groups.   Appendix C lists a sample of the technical assistance publications  available on OCR’s Web site (www.ed.gov/ocr/"www.ed.gov/ocr">).

| **We  are grateful to [OCR] for assisting us in this complex matter, which had proved  intractable for two years.... [T]he students and I cannot thank you enough for  all your work, which has opened the door for them to a more equal educational  opportunity....**
***Comment  from an OCR complainant, 2005*** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                           |
|-------------------------------------------|
|   7 | 8 | 9 | TOC | Printable viewShare this page |
|                                           |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Mission |  |
|  |
|  | Priorities |  |
|  |
|  | Welcome to ED.gov |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

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

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
District Court O f Appeal Of The State Of Florida Fourth District Jul y Term 2014

REYNOLDS BROOKS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 12

- 3949

[July 30, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Edward H. Fine , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12CF900002AMB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant At torney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

F ORST , J

.
A jury found Appellant to b e a sexually violent predator (“SVP” ), and th e trial court granted the State’ s petition to involuntarily commit Appellant for treatment as a Jimmy Ryce Act SVP. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and err ed in overruling the defense’ s objection to brief statistical testimony about the Jimmy Ryce Act screening process. Although there is some merit to Appellant’s argument, we affirm the tria l court’s involuntary commitment order.

This court has previously address ed similar testimony and found the

“ testimony regarding the multidisciplinary team’s commitment recommendation statistics was not relevant

, ” as it “had no probative value in determining whether [the defendant] met the statutory criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator. ” Marshall v. State , 915 So. 2d 264, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

, receded from on other grounds by Special v. Baux , 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ; s ee also Paige v. State , 962 So. 2d 968, 9 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (testimony regarding the civil commitment screening process is inadmissible on grounds of relevancy);2

Ortega

- Mantilla v. State , 898 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“ [T] estimony regarding the process used in filing the petition for civil commitment against the [defendant] was irrelevant because the sole issue in this case was whether the [defendant] could be classified as a sexually violent predator

. ”). Marsh all

, Paige , and Ortega

- Mantilla are the three cases relied upon by Appellant in arguing for reversal. However, in each of those cases, the reviewing court ultimately found the error to be harmless. Marshall , 915 So. 2d at 268 ; Paige , 962 So. 2d at 9 69; O rtega

Mantilla , 898 So. 2d at 1167 (finding the error was harmless as "testimony was not made a feature of the trial, nor was it repeated by either side during closing arguments ” ). Similarly, we find any such error on the part of the trial court in the in stant case to be harmless

, and that competent and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s commitment order

. Nonetheless, we caution prosecutors in future commitment trials to refrain from attempting to introduce this type of evidence, as it has be en firmly established that such evidence is inadmissible under the circumstances found in this case.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN , C.J., and T AYLOR , J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §607. Sale by Secretary; additional options; validation of assignments; publication of information

The Secretary shall sell cotton held or acquired by him pursuant to authority of this chapter at his discretion subject only to the conditions and limitations of this chapter: Provided, That the Secretary shall have authority to enter into option contracts with producers of cotton to sell to or for the producers such cotton held and/or acquired by him in such amounts and at such prices and upon such terms and conditions as he, the Secretary, may deem advisable, and such option contracts may be transferred or assigned in such manner as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe.

Notwithstanding any provisions contained in option contracts heretofore issued and/or any provision of law, assignments made prior to January 11, 1934, of option contracts exercised prior to January 18, 1934, shall be deemed valid upon determination by the Secretary that such assignment was an assignment in good faith of the full interest in such contract and for full value and is free from evidence of fraud or speculation by the assignee.

Notwithstanding any provision of existing law, the Secretary of Agriculture may, in the administration of this chapter, make public such information as he deems necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §7, 48 Stat. 34; June 16, 1933, ch. 90, title II, §221, 48 Stat. 210; Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §33, 49 Stat. 775.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1935—Act Aug. 24, 1935, among other changes, inserted provisions as to presumption of validity of assignments made prior to Jan. 11, 1934 of option contracts exercised prior to Jan. 18, 1934 if in good faith, for full value, and without fraud or speculation by the assignee.

1933—Act June 16, 1933, amended section generally.