alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Thurman Ross

Career Education Corp. et al

Case No: 12 C 276

Judge: John W. Danah

ORDER

Ruling on motion hearing and final approval hearing for the class action settlement hearing held.

Lead Plaintiffs'Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Distribution of

Settlement Proceeds and Award of Attorneys'Fees and Expenses is granted [116]. Enter

amended final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice. Civil case closed. Lead plaintiffs

shall submit a proposed order for fees for the Court's approval and signature.

(T:) 00:10

Date:4116/14 /s/ Judge John W. Darrah

' '^ 1i l1lu l-sl0 's'n

, '.ra*tn h-JJ lJ

Si ,9 l{Y 8- UUI{ \l0t

, , ..; 1-1 ;li1 ,

. l,''-'-'r r'--:

ti,i-,.,

Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 128 Filed: 04/16/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3065
Fiscal Year 2012 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DELAWARE

FY 2012 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

1000080 Appoquinimink School District 920,517

1001240 Brandywine School District 2,710,759

1000180 Caesar Rodney School District 2,302,076

1000170 Cape Henlopen School District 1,678,353

1000190 Capital School District 4,441,957

1000200 Christina School District 8,547,728

1000230 Colonial School District 4,091,897

1000270 Delmar School District 445,879

1000680 Indian River School District 3,066,861

1000790 Lake Forest School District 1,189,869

1000810 Laurel School District 1,007,881

1001080 Milford School District 1,264,468

1001300 Red Clay Consolidated School District 5,749,739

1001530 Seaford School District 3,384,312

1001620 Smyrna School District 1,169,883

1001850 Woodbridge School District 1,459,701

1099999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2012 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
NUMBER 13-16-00125-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF J.F. AND S.F., CHILDREN

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant’s brief in 

this matter was due on April 11, 2016. Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time 

seeking 45 days of additional time to file her brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals, but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that 
2

appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the 

shortened appellate deadlines, the Court does not favor motions for extension of time to 

file the record or briefs. In accordance with the limited time for consideration of these 

appeals, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief to one tenday extension of time absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.6(d).

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time in part and 

ORDER appellant’s counsel, Michael D. George, to file the brief within ten days of the 

date of this order. No further extensions of time will be granted absent truly exigent and 

extraordinary circumstances. All other requested relief is denied.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

5th day of May, 2016.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No. FAA - 20 13 - 0401 Directorate ID: 20 12 - SW - 047 - AD Helicopter Model: MD Helicopters Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 827 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent a pitch horn from cracking, leading to vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and subsequent loss of tail rotor and helicopter control Cost s : Parts per Helicopter $ 20 for the inspection; $15,951 to replace the tail rotor blade. Labor per Helicopter ( 4.5 work-hour s x 

### $85/work hour for the inspection; 1 work -hour x $85/work -hour to replace the tail rotor blade.) $ 383 for labor for the inspection; $85 to replace the tail rotor blade. Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 403 for the inspection; $16,036 to replace the tail rotor blade. Total US Fleet Cost $ 333,281 for the inspection. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be consi dered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Fred Guerin
**EXHIBIT 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTAUDITORS 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-45788, 33-48972, 33-55487,333-49557, 333-83509, 333-87637, 333-95135, 333-56546, 333-81360 and 333-107457) ofTellabs, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Tellabs, Inc. included and incorporated by referencein the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2004. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Chicago, Illinois
§ 750.7 Claims: Action by receiving command. ( a ) *Record date of receipt.* The first command receiving a claim shall stamp or mark the date of receipt on the letter or claim form. The envelope in which the claim was received shall be preserved.
( b ) *Determine the military activity involved.* The receiving command shall determine the Navy or Marine Corps activity most directly involved with the claim—usually the command where the incident is alleged to have occurred—and forward a copy of the claim to that activity. The original claim (and the transmittal letter, if a copy is forwarded to a more appropriate activity) should immediately be sent to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk.
( c ) *Initiate an investigation.* A JAGMAN Litigation Report Investigation shall be commenced immediately by the command most directly involved with the claim. Once the investigation has been completed, an advance copy shall be forwarded by the convening authority to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk. Waiting until endorsements have been obtained before providing a copy of the investigation to the Tort Claims Unit Norfolk is neither required nor desirable. The facts of the incident must be made known to cognizant claims personnel as soon as possible.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53419, Sept. 19, 2007]
#### BAMBERGER, Respondent, v. ZECKENDORF et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Ira Leo Bamberger against Arthur W. Zeckendorf and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
### §6995. Informal hearings

#### (a) In general

If an officer, employee, or committee of an agency makes an adverse decision, the agency shall hold, at the request of the participant, an informal hearing on the decision.

#### (b) Farm Service Agency

With respect to programs carried out through the Farm Service Agency (or other office, agency, or administrative unit of the Department assigned to carry out the programs authorized for the Farm Service Agency under section 6932 of this title), the Secretary shall maintain the informal appeals process applicable to such programs, as in effect on October 13, 1994.

#### (c) Mediation

If a mediation program is available under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) as a part of the informal hearing process, the participant shall—

(1) be offered the right to choose such mediation; and

(2) to the maximum extent practicable, be allowed to use both informal agency review and mediation to resolve disputes under that title.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §275, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3230; Pub. L. 110–234, title XII, §12032, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1391; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XII, §12032, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2153; Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12404(b)(3), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4975.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 100–233, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1568. Title V of the Act is classified principally to chapter 82 (§5101 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1988 Amendments note set out under section 2001 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–334 substituted "Farm" for "Consolidated Farm" in two places.

2008—Pub. L. 110–246, §12032, designated the three sentences of existing provisions as subsecs. (a) to (c), respectively, inserted headings, and in subsec. (c) designated part of existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment 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.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 298-299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, January 7, 2021, 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public. Note: Because of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting will be held as an audio-only 
conference. The public may listen to the audio-only conference by 
following the instructions that will be posted on www.eeoc.gov 24 hours 
before the meeting. Closed captioning services will be available. The 
following items will be considered at the meeting:

Final Rule Updating the Commission's Conciliation Procedures
Formal Opinion Letter Concerning Individual Coverage Health 
Reimbursement Arrangements Under the ADEA
Final Rule Amending the Commission's Official Time Regulation for the 
Federal Sector

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the public will be able 
to listen to the Commission's deliberations

[[Page 299]]

and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission 
meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides 
information about Commission meetings on its website, www.eeoc.gov. and 
provides a recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission 
meetings.)
    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) or (202) 921-2750, or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6f636161657f7f6563626169697865626b6f6361616962787f4c6969636f226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e2eeecece8f2f2e8eeefece4e4f5e8efe6e2eeecece4eff5f2c1e4e4eee2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a> at any time for information on this 
meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Rachel V. See, Acting Executive 
Officer, (202) 921-2545.

    Dated: December 31, 2020.
Rachel V. See,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2020-29286 Filed 12-31-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Lucy Solt Corning Incorporated t- 607-974-4012 

# CORNING Procurement & Transportation 1 Museum Way soltl@corning.com Global Travel Manager HP-ME-01-08 www.coming.com Corning NY 14831

The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE .'**-~-'-~'~-Washingtoh;T)C** 20590

Dear Secretary LaHood:

As the Global Travel Manager for Coming Incorporated, I am V\oTiting to express our strong support for the application ofDeltaAir Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda.
Coming Incorporated operates inthirteen states throughout the United States, and in twenty-seven other countries around the world. Our customers and suppliers also conduct business on a global scale. The growth ofourbusiness ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers lookto the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport.

Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and an airport that can support transpacific routes. This summer Deltais adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Deltamade to DTWto make itthe airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit ourbusiness travelers.

Thank you for consideration ofthis request.

# Re~lw!f Lucy Solt Global Travel Manager
#### Steven Sugar et al., Respondents, v. Daniel Miller, Defendant, and Benjamin Paris, as Administrator of the Estate of Philip H. Paris, Deceased, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff Steven Sugar, and by plaintiff administrator for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of decedent Steven Natowitz, arising out of the collision on March 27, 1961 of motor vehicles on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, defendant administrator Paris appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 18, 1963, denying his motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for a stay of the action, made pursuant to subdivision 3 of former rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon the grounds: (a) that there is another action pending between the same parties; (b) that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter; (c) that the defendant is immune from suit in this State; and (d) that the Supreme Court, Kings County, is *forum non conveniens.*Order affirmed, with *797$10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. (For companion appeal, see *Matter of Paris,*21 A D 2d 794.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

TREMAYNE CORA #B79855, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9230

)

MARCUS HARDY, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In principal part this Court’s January 5, 2012 memorandum

order (“Order”) identified what appears to be a potential

untimeliness problem that must be faced by pro se habeas

petitioner Tremayne Cora (“Cora”) in his federal challenge to his

July 2000 conviction on a first degree murder charge on which he

is currently serving a 35-year sentence. Because it was almost 1

certain that Cora’s criminal defense lawyer Lee Boyd, Jr.

(“Boyd”) would be better equipped than Cora himself to provide

the necessary input in that respect, the Order concluded with a

respectful request “that on or before January 26, 2012 attorney

Boyd provide a filing that sets out the relevant timetable from

which this Court can make the necessary calculations under

Section 2244(d).”

 In addition to that substantive matter, the Order also 1

identified for Cora his need to pay the nominal $5 filing fee

applicable to this action (obviously unaware of how small the

required amount was, Cora had also submitted an In Forma Pauperis

Application). Cora has since paid the $5.
Nothing but silence has since been forthcoming from

Boyd--indeed, he has not had the courtesy to respond to telephone

messages left for him by this Court’s minute clerk. This Court

therefore converts its respectful request into an order that Boyd

appear in court at 9:15 a.m. February 13, 2012, with the

requested filing either having been delivered before that date

and time or being brought to court by Boyd. If he were to

deliver the requested filing early enough to allow this Court to

review it and confirm that it provides the necessary information,

this Court’s minute clerk might be able to call to excuse his

personal presence on February 13.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 3, 2012

2
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 15



TXU Gas Company:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial information of TXU Gas Company and subsidiaries (TXU Gas)
for the periods ended March 31, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in our report dated
May 15, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on
that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Gas'
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-85769, 333-85769-
01, 333-85769-02, 333-85769-03 and 333-43811 on Form S-3, and Registration
Statement No. 333-43811-01 on Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, of TXU
Gas.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 15, 2000
### MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: Brent Ruminski , ERG

DATE: 10 December 2012

SUBJECT: 2012 International Water Conference Materials

On November 4 th 

### through the 8 th



### , EPA attended the 2012 International Water Conference

in San Antonio, TX . The c onference materials in the following table are provided as attachments:

### Memorandum

10 December 2012 Page 2 of 3

Attachment

Number Presentation

File Name Presenter Name and

Affiliation Presentation Title Abstract

1 IWC 12

- 21 Avijit Dey, Bechtel Corporation Overview of Produced Water and EOR Water

Treatment This presentation provides general information on shale gas wastewater quality and treatment of oil and gas wastewater.

2 IWC 12

- 53 Mark Galimberti VSep

– New Logic Research, State College, PA Treatment of Flowback

– Shale Plays This presentation summarizes pilot test results of a treating Marcellus shale gas flowback using Nanofiltration called VSep.

3 IWC 12

- 54 Chuck Kozora & Robert Bealko Field Operatio n Results for Treatment of Frac

W

ater with Aquatech’s MoVap a Mobile

Industrial Distillation This presentation summarizes pilot test results of treating Marcellus shale gas wastewater using a

mobile ev aporation/condensation treatment unit from AquaTech called MoVap.

4 IWC 12

- 56 James Silva, GE Global

Research Center Shale Gas Produced Water Pretreatment for

Barium and Radium Removal This presentation investigates the economics of shale gas wastewater pretreatment for barium and radium removal prior to evaporation/condensation

treatment.

5 IWC 12

- 69 Timothy S. Keizer, An Ecolab Company Opportunities for Treatment and Reuse of Acid Mine Drainage and Produced Water in Oil and

Gas Shale This presentation summarizes bench test results of treating Marcellus shale gas produced water using

Nanofiltration.

6 IWC 12

- 72 Timothy Keister, ProChemTech International, Inc. Sequential Precipitation

- Fractional Crystallization Treatment of Marcellus Shale

Flowback and Production Wastewaters This presentation investigates the economics of treating Marcellus shale gas wastewater chemical precipitation followed by fractional crystallization.

### Memorandum

10 December 2012 Page 3 of 3

A TTACHMENTS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           32630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   172398
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2340
<INVENTORY>                                     212943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                437641
<PP&E>                                          763750
<DEPRECIATION>                                  319141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1102553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           188694
<BONDS>                                         353129
<COMMON>                                        118444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      312136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1102553
<SALES>                                         845674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                845674
<CGS>                                           592386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   720389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (1258)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               18650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 107893
<INCOME-TAX>                                     40266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              67627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     67627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
#### Florence McDermott *v.*Commissioner of Children and Youth Services

*John F. Gill,*assistant attorney general, in support of the motion.

Submitted November 21

decided November 26, 1974

The defendant’s motion for a review of the order of the trial court terminating the stay of execution in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.