alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Salvatore Albicocco, Respondent, v. Vincent Nicoletto, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for assault and battery in which it is alleged that defendant assaulted plaintiff by shooting Mm with a pistol, inflicting serious and permanent injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 13, 1959, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out, as insufficient in law, the first separate defense pleaded in defendant’s answer. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defense which was struck out pleaded: (1) that plaintiff subjected defendant to a long course of conduct which defendant characterizes as *“*arrogant, * * * haughty, * * * overbearing, * * * insulting ”, but wMeh did not involve any physical assault or mistreatment; (2) that plaintiff’s conduct was calculated to upset defendant emotionally, to make him lose his sense of proportion and to drive him to temporary insanity and to violent reaction; (3) that plain-tiff intended such result; and (4) that because of the acts of plaintiff, the defendant became temporarily unbalanced and deranged, in consequence of which he committed the assault complained of. The defense pleaded did not allege that defendant was insane to such extent as to be unable to entertain -an intent to commit the assault complained of; or that he did not understand the nature of his act; or that it was wrong. Nor did it allege that plaintiff intended to bring about an assault of the character described in the complaint or that plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly exposed himself to such an assault. In our opinion the defense as pleaded was insufficient. Defendant, even if temporarily insane -as alleged in his answer, was, nevertheless, responsible for the assault complained of to the same extent as though he were sane (cf. *Williams*v. *Hays,*143 N. Y. 442), and hence the allegations of the answer which were struck out were insufficient as a justification or defense. No provocative act, conduct, insult, or word, if unaccompanied by an overt act of hostility, will justify an assault, no matter how offensive or exasperating the provocative conduct may be (3 N Y Juris., Assault & Battery, § 12 and cases cited). The allegations which were struck out were properly permitted to remain as a partial defense in mitigation of dam-ages. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert E. Schulze, President of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
July 11, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                       

Dated: August 25, 2003

| |  |                                                           
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                           
| |  |                                                           
| |  | Robert E. Schulze                                         
| |  | Robert E. Schulze, President
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### 1552.217-71 Option to extend the term of the contract—cost-type contract.

As prescribed in 1517.208(b), insert this contract clause in cost-reimbursement type term form contracts when applicable. If only one option period is used, enter “NA” in the proper places of the clause. If more than two option periods apply, the clause may be modified accordingly.

# Option To Extend the Term of the Contract—Cost-Type Contract (APR 1984)

The Government has the option to extend the term of this contract for ______ additional period(s). If more than 60 days remain in the contract period of performance, the Government, without prior written notification, may exercise this option by issuing a contract modification. To exercise this option within the last 60 days of the period of performance, the Government must provide to the Contractor written notification prior to that last 60-day period. This preliminary notification does not commit the Government to exercising the option. The Government's estimated level of effort is ______ direct labor hours for the first option period and ______ for the second. Use of an option will result in the following contract modifications:

(a) The “Period of Performance” clause will be amended to cover a base period from __________________________ to ____________________________ and option periods from ____________________________ to __________________________ and ____________________________ to ____________________________.

(b) Paragraph (a) of the “Level of Effort” clause will be amended to reflect a new and separate level of effort of __________________________________ for the first option period and a new and separate level of effort of ____________________________ for the second option period.

(c) The “Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee” clause will be amended to reflect increased estimated costs and fixed fee for each option period as follows:

| | Option 1 | Option 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Estimated cost | | |
| Fixed fee | | |
| Total | | |

(d) If the contract contains “not to exceed amounts” for elements of other direct costs (ODC), those amounts will be increased as follows:

| Other direct cost item | Option 1 | Option 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

(End of clause)
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking**

**1990 K Street, N.W., 8th Floor Conference Center**

**Washington, D.C.**

**Team II – School-Based Loan Issues**

**February 25, 2009, 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.**

**February 26 & 27, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.**

**Agenda***

**Welcome**

**Introductions**

**Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process**

**Review and Adopt Protocols**

# Petitions for Membership

**Overview of the School-Based Loan Issues**

**Review Agenda of Issues to be Negotiated**

**Workshop-Style Review of Issues**

1. Required Disclosures for Covered Entities

2. Program Participation Agreement (PPA):  Code of Conduct

3. Disclosures of Reimbursements for Service on Advisory Boards

4. PPA: Private Education Loan Certification

5. Information and Dissemination Activities

6. Exit Counseling

7. PPA:  Preferred Lender Lists

8. Cohort Default Rate Calculation, Institutional Eligibility, and Default Prevention Plans 

9. Entrance Counseling 

10. Direct Loan Borrower Disclosures

11. Mandatory Assignment of Defaulted Loans 

12. Expansion of Teacher, Head Start, and Law Enforcement Cancellation Categories

13. Addition of New Public Service Cancellation Categories

14. Military Service Cancellation 

# Logistics

# Schedule of future meetings

# Identify additional information needs

**Next Steps**

Draft Regulatory Text

Agenda for Meeting 2:  April 1 – 3, 2009

Meeting Summary

Other

*  Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.

2/17/2009
#### Carmen Sposito, Appellant, v. Thomas J. Martin, Individually and Doing Business as Martin’s Restaurant, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing the complaint on the merits, on motion by defendant at the end of plaintiff’s ease, in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of MDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Collier Sparks,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/
      J. Collier SparksJ.
      Collier SparksPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMarch
      31, 2008
#### 1852.225-8 Duty-free entry of space articles (FEB 2000).

As prescribed in 1825.1101(e), add the following paragraph (k) to the basic clause at FAR 52.225-8:

(k) The following supplies will be given duty-free entry:

[Insert the supplies that are to be accorded duty-free entry.]

(End of addition)

[65 FR 10033, Feb. 25, 2000]
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking – Violence Against Women Act**

**1990 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C.**

**8th Floor Conference Center**

**March 31-April 1, 2014, 9:00 am – 5:00 p.m.**

**AGENDA**

**Welcome**

**Housekeeping Items**

**Review and Adoption of the Session 2 Meeting Summary**

**Overview**

**Discussion of the Issues**

· Definitions 

· Prevention Programs 

· Disciplinary Proceedings

· Counting Crimes 

· Sexual Assault Prevention Policy Statement 

**Request for Consensus Approval**

**Opportunity for Public Comment**

**Next Steps in the Regulatory Process**
### SUBCHAPTER II—ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS PROGRAMS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

144758

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144758

COA: 304011

Wayne CC: 04

- 001116

- FC

TRACY BARNES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

H ATHAWAY

, J. , not participating. Justice Hathaway recuses herself and will not

participate in this case as she was the presiding trial co urt judge. See MCR 2.003(B).
#### 1602.170-12 OPM.

*OPM* means the Office of Personnel Management.

[52 FR 16038, May 1, 1987. Redesignated at 53 FR 51783, Dec. 23, 1988 and further redesignated at 62 FR 47574, Sept. 10, 1997]
16.302 Cost contracts. ( a ) *Description.* A cost contract is a cost-reimbursement contract in which the contractor receives no fee.
( b ) *Application.* A cost contract may be appropriate for research and development work, particularly with nonprofit educational institutions or other nonprofit organizations.
( c ) *Limitations.* See 16.301-3.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 72 FR 27384, May 15, 2007]
CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Sample FERPA Prison Education Program Consent Form – February 2024

**Note:**Below is a sample consent form that can be edited for use as part of the Prison Education Program (PEP) to provide an institution of higher education (IHE) with the prior written consent of an eligible student who is incarcerated in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). This sample consent form is for disclosure of such student’s education records (or personally identifiable information contained within) to a prison/correctional facility or oversight entity for purposes of participation in the PEP and the accompanying reporting and progress monitoring that is required under the PEP. An IHE using this form must ensure that it has specified below all of the education records that will be disclosed to the prison/correctional facility or oversight entity.

**Sample FERPA Prison Education Program Consent Form**

I, _______________________ [**name of eligible student**], provide my consent to allow [**insert name of Institution of Higher Education (IHE)**] to disclose the following of my education records and personally identifiable information from my education records to **[insert name of prison/correctional facility or oversight entity**] for the purpose of my participation in the Prison Education Program (PEP) and accompanying reporting and progress monitoring:

My consent does not include permitting the above-specified prison/correctional facility or oversight entity to re-disclose my education records or personally identifiable information from my education records or to use them for any other purpose.

I understand that I may withdraw my consent for [**insert name of IHE**] to disclose the education records and personally identifiable information from education records listed above at any time. Should I choose to withdraw my consent, I will submit a signed, written request to withdraw my consent to [**insert name of IHE**]. I understand that withdrawing my consent may result in me being unable to participate in the PEP.

__________________________________________

Name of eligible student

__________________________________________

Signature of eligible student	

__________________________________________

Date

Sensitive in accordance with 32 CFR 2002

Sensitive in accordance with 32 CFR 2002
#### 1631.200 Scope of subpart.

The cost principles under this subpart apply only to contracts in which premiums and subscription income are determined on the basis of experience rating, in which cost analysis is performed, or in which price is determined on the basis of actual costs incurred.
### §93. Establishment of official naval stores standards

For the purposes of this chapter the kinds of spirits of turpentine defined in subdivisions (c), (e), and (f) of section 92 of this title and the rosin types heretofore prepared and recommended under existing laws, by or under authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, are made the standards for naval stores until otherwise prescribed as hereinafter provided. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish and promulgate standards for naval stores for which no standards are herein provided, after at least three months' notice of the proposed standard shall have been given to the trade, so far as practicable, and due hearings or reasonable opportunities to be heard shall have been afforded those favoring or opposing the same. No such standard shall become effective until after three months from the date of the promulgation thereof. Any standard made by this chapter or established and promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance therewith may be modified by said Secretary whenever, for reasons and causes deemed by him sufficient, the interests of the trade shall so require, after at least six months' notice of the proposed modifications shall have been given to the trade, so far as practicable, and due hearings or reasonable opportunities to be heard shall have been afforded those favoring or opposing the same; and no such modification so made shall become effective until after six months from the date when made.

The various grades of rosin, from highest to lowest, shall be designated, unless and until changed, as hereinbefore provided, by the following letters, respectively: X, WW, WG, N, M, K, I, H, G, F, E, D, and B, together with the designation "gum rosin" or "wood rosin", as the case may be.

The standards herein made and authorized to be made shall be known as the "Official Naval Stores Standards of the United States," and may be referred to by the abbreviated expression "United States Standards", and shall be the standards by which all naval stores in commerce shall be graded and described.

(Mar. 3, 1923, ch. 217, §3, 42 Stat. 1435.)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, William L. Bridgford, Chairman of
Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | 1. |  | the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 11, 2008
      (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d));
      and
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   
| | 2. |  | the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                         
| |   

|Dated: August
      29, 2008 | /s/ William L. Bridgford       |  |  | 
|---------------------------- | ------------------------------ |  |  | 
|                             | William L. Bridgford, Chairman
|                             | (Principal Executive Officer) 

26

---
**Exhibit 10.5**

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION 

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2007

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

Effective October 17, 2007 

**DIRECTOR COMPENSATON**

At its quarterly meeting on October 17, 2007, the Board of Directors modified compensation arrangements for directors. 

Effective immediately, each nonemployee director receives an annual retainer fee of $150,000, of which $75,000 is payable in cash and $75,000 is payable in restricted or deferred shares of the company’s commonstock. The shares vest when the director retires as a director. While the director is serving on the board, his or her restricted stock receives cash dividends, and deferred stock accrues additional shares of deferred stock in lieu of a cashdividend. In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee receives $10,000 in restricted or deferred stock annually, the chairmen of the Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee receive $7,500 in restricted or deferred stockannually, and each member of the Audit Committee receives $5,000 in restricted or deferred stock annually. 

Under the Deferred CompensationPlan for Directors, any nonemployee director may elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of his or her director’s compensation until any date but no later than the year in which the director attains the age of 73 years. Participants mayelect to have cash deferred amounts (1) credited with interest quarterly at 80% of the prevailing prime rate, or (2) converted into common share units based on the deferral date closing price of Briggs & Stratton’s commonstock. Shares of Briggs & Stratton common stock that are deferred will be credited to a common stock account. Any balance of either the common share unit account or the common stock account will be credited with an amount equivalent to anydividend paid on Briggs & Stratton’s common stock, which will be converted into additional common share units. Common share units may be distributed in cash or stock at the election of the directors. The balance in the common stockaccount will be distributed in shares of Briggs & Stratton common stock. All other distributions will be paid in cash. Nonemployee directors are also provided with $150,000 of coverage under Briggs & Stratton’s Business TravelAccident Plan while on corporate business. 

Nonemployee directors are encouraged to use company products to enhance their understanding andappreciation of the company’s business. Each such director may purchase at retail up to $10,000 annually of company products and products powered by the company’s engines. The company reimburses directors for the purchase price of theseproducts and also pays directors the applicable tax liability associated with the reimbursement. The amount of the reimbursement and tax payment is included in the director’s taxable income.
#### In the Matter of Littleton H. Smith, an Attorney.

Order entered upon resignation striking name of attorney from roll of attorneys and counselors at law. Order entered June 30, 1960. Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
1436.602-1 Selection criteria. ( a ) The CO may include specific evaluation criteria to be used in the evaluation of potential contractors, in accordance with the requirements of FAR 36.602-1.
( b ) HCAs are authorized to approve the use of design competition.
#### 1328.106-6 Furnishing information.

When a payment bond has been provided for a contract, the designee authorized to furnish a certified copy of the bond and the contract to any person who makes a proper request is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert E. Schulze, President of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
April 18,
2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                        

Dated: June 2, 2003

| |  |                              
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | /s/ Robert E. Schulze        
| |  | Robert E. Schulze, President 
| |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### ROWLEY, Appellant, v. NELLIS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Caroline Rowley, as executrix, etc., against James B. Nellis and others.

PER CURIAM.

Order appealed from (84 N. Y. Supp. 841) reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Held that, under the circumstances of this case, it was not a proper exercise of its discretion for the court below to hold that it was necessary that the plaintiff, in the action to foreclose the mortgage, should have made all the heirs parties thereto, and litigated the questions with reference to their liability for any deficiency arising in the foreclosure action.

STOVER, J., not voting.
#### 1602.170-11 Negotiated benefits contracts.

*Negotiated benefits contracts* are FEHBP contracts in which benefits provided and subscription income are based on either community rating or experience rating.

[62 FR 47574, Sept. 10, 1997]
#### 1408.102 Policy.

Inquiries on available excess or surplus personal property should be directed to the PMO or the designee in each Bureau or Office.