alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exceptional Performer 

Submitted by Thomas J. Dalton 

Excelsior College 

This is meant to give institutions of higher education that are exceptional 

performers, regulator relief from the Gainful Employment regulations. The 

relief would exempt these institutions from the reporting metrics for the 

gainful employment programs that they administer. 

Schools would be classified as an exceptional performer if their 

institutional 3 year cohort default rate (CDR) was 10% or below for three 

consecutive years. By the time the current gainful employment regulations 

are implemented all schools will have 3 years of cohorts established. The 

only exception would be new schools to Title IV eligibility. These schools 

would have to wait until they established 3 consecutive years of CDR's to 

be eligible for this exemption. 

The rationale for using this metric is that it is an established and 

recognized metric by all and has been around for decades. Ten percent is the 

recommended threshold as this is already an established standard used to 

determine other factors with Federal Student Aid. For example, schools 

with an established CDR for 3 consecutive years may disburse FSA funds to 

students 10 days in advance of a term. Schools that don't meet this 

standard are subject to a 30 day delay in disbursing Federal Student Aid 

funds to their students. 

Currently, there are just under 1,900 schools with 2 consecutive years of 

CDR's less than 10 percent. Of the 1,900 schools, 254 of them are 

for-profit institutions. By granting these schools exemptions it relieves 

the administrative burden for these schools and the Department of 

Education. 

It is also recommended that schools would not be eligible for this 

exemption if it were determined that they manipulated their CDR by placing 

the majority of their borrowers in the category of "forebearance" or certain 

"out of school deferments". These categories should only be used for short 

term relief and when it is in the best interest of the students. In 

addition, eliminate the ability to grant back-to-back forebearances. It 

also should be noted that the use of the 3 year CDR versus the 2 year rate 

makes it a lot less likely that a school can manipulate their CDR. 

The exceptional performer designation does not need to be limited to the 

CDR metric outlined above but could include institutions that have 

borrowers with extremely high repayment rates or institutions that spend a 

significant portion of tuition dollars on instruction.
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 108-9 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1420
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 108-9 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1421
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,938,059
<SECURITIES>                                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                   000
<INVENTORY>                                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,225
<PP&E>                                         12,381,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,775,636)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,635,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,259
<BONDS>                                        3,832,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          000
<PREFERRED>                                    000
<COMMON>                                       000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,400,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,635,088
<SALES>                                        1,867,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,153,130
<CGS>                                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,672,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,817,558)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,817,558)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                7,829,940
<CHANGES>                                      000
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,012,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  116.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  116.06
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.216-70 EPA Form 1900-41A, CPAF Contract Summary of Significant Performance Observation.

As prescribed in 1516.404-278, EPA Form 1900-41A shall be used to document significant performance observations under CPAF contracts.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 4113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
(Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota)

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming 
compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.

DATES: The extension takes effect on January 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An extension to an existing Tribal-State 
Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if 
the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 
293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have 
reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing 
Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to April 26, 2021. This 
publication provides notice of the new expiration date of the compact.

Tara Sweeney,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-00778 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CAROLYN RUSIN, individually, and on 

behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:12-cv-01135

Hon. Edmond E. Chang

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR FINAL

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN EXCESS OF 15 PAGES

Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, hereby requests leave to file a Memorandum in 

Support of the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in excess of 15 pages. In 

support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff seeks Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement affecting members of 

the Settlement Class provisionally certified on February 5, 2013.

2. In order to fully discuss the benefits conferred upon the Settlement Class, as well 

as the factors favoring final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiff seeks leave from the Court to 

file a Memorandum of Law in excess of 15 pages and not to exceed 23 pages. 

3. Defendant does not oppose this motion.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant this motion for leave to file 

a Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of the Parties’ Class Action Settlement in 

excess of 15 Pages and for a total not to exceed 23 pages.

Case: 1:12-cv-01135 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/17/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:183
2

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 17, 2013

s/Maureen A. Salas

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Douglas M. Werman – dwerman@flsalaw.com

Maureen A. Salas – msalas@flsalaw.com

David E. Stevens – dstevens@flsalaw.com

Werman Law Office, P.C. 

77 W. Washington, Suite 1402

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 419-1008

Case: 1:12-cv-01135 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/17/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:184
#### 1252.237-71 Certification of Data.

As prescribed in 1237.7003, insert the following provision:

# Certification of Data (NOV 2022)

(a) The offeror represents and certifies that to the best of its knowledge and belief, the information and/or data (*e.g.,* company profile; qualifications; background statements; brochures) submitted with its offer is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of its offer.

(b) The offeror understands that any inaccurate data provided to the Department of Transportation may subject the offeror, its subcontractors, its employees, or its representatives to: (1) prosecution for false statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or; (2) enforcement action for false claims or statements pursuant to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 and 49 CFR part 31 and/or; (3) termination for default or for cause under any contract resulting from its offer and/or; (4) debarment or suspension.

(c) The offeror agrees to obtain a similar certification from its subcontractors and submit such certification(s) with its offer.

Signature:

Date:

Typed Name and Title:

Company Name:

This certification concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and the making of a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

(End of provision)
1631.205-70 FEHBP public relations and advertising costs. ( a ) The cost of media messages that are directed at advising current FEHBP subscribers on how to obtain benefits shall be an allowable expense within the meaning of FAR 31.205-1 because this service is directly related to performance of the FEHBP contract. If there is any question about the allowability of such a cost, the carrier may request advance approval regarding the content and cost of the message.
( b ) Costs of media messages not provided for in paragraph (a) of this section are allowable if the content is specifically approved by the contracting officer and all of the following criteria are met: ( 1 ) The primary effect of the message is to disseminate information on health care cost containment or preventive health care;
( 2 ) The costs of the carrier's messages are allocated to all underwritten and non-underwritten lines of business; and
( 3 ) The contracting officer approves the total dollar amount of the carrier's messages to be charged to the FEHBP in advance of the contract year.
( c ) Costs of messages that are intended to, or which have the primary effect of, calling favorable attention to the carrier (or subcontractor) for the purpose of enhancing its overall image or selling its health plan are not allowable.
16.405-1 Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts. ( a ) *Description.* The cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for the initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. This contract type specifies a target cost, a target fee, minimum and maximum fees, and a fee adjustment formula. After contract performance, the fee payable to the contractor is determined in accordance with the formula. The formula provides, within limits, for increases in fee above target fee when total allowable costs are less than target costs, and decreases in fee below target fee when total allowable costs exceed target costs. This increase or decrease is intended to provide an incentive for the contractor to manage the contract effectively. When total allowable cost is greater than or less than the range of costs within which the fee-adjustment formula operates, the contractor is paid total allowable costs, plus the minimum or maximum fee.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is appropriate for services or development and test programs when— ( i ) A cost-reimbursement contract is necessary (see 16.301-2) and
( ii ) A target cost and a fee adjustment formula can be negotiated that are likely to motivate the contractor to manage effectively.
( 2 ) The contract may include technical performance incentives when it is highly probable that the required development of a major system is feasible and the Government has established its performance objectives, at least in general terms. This approach may also apply to other acquisitions, if the use of both cost and technical performance incentives is desirable and administratively practical.
( 3 ) The fee adjustment formula should provide an incentive that will be effective over the full range of reasonably foreseeable variations from target cost. If a high maximum fee is negotiated, the contract shall also provide for a low minimum fee that may be a zero fee or, in rare cases, a negative fee.
( c ) *Limitations.* No cost-plus-incentive-fee contract shall be awarded unless all limitations in 16.301-3 are complied with.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated at 62 FR 12696, Mar. 17, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 44815, Aug. 22, 1997]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 30, 2013

t0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

146999

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY,

P laintiff/Defendant

- Appellant,

v SC: 146999

COA: 297190

Macomb CC: 2007

- 003964

- CK

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION GROUP 2007

- 004647

- CK

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant/Plaintiff

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

V IVIANO , J., did not participate be cause he presided over this case in the circuit

court.
Fiscal Year 2016 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

FY 2016 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4300030 Puerto Rico 408,719,744

4399999 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 2016 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### Emma N. Arnold, appellee, v. Frederick W. Cox et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 28,922.

Bill to foreclose a trust deed. Decree for complainant. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

Frederick Mains, for appellants.

Adolph H. Easter and Charles H. Mitchell, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

| 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Issuer. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Jay Gottlieb                                                                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jay      GottliebChief      Executive and Principal OfficerNovember       13, 2009  |   |

----
#### 1913.505 Purchase order and related forms.
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 87 Filed: 12/23/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:473
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 87 Filed: 12/23/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:474
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 87 Filed: 12/23/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:475
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 87 Filed: 12/23/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:476
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 87 Filed: 12/23/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:477
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 108-8 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1417
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 108-8 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1418
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 108-8 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1419
#### 1406.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

HCAs are authorized to approve the determinations and findings (D&Fs) to establish or maintain an alternative source or sources for supplies or services.
1816.405-275 Award fee evaluation rating. ( a ) All award fee contracts shall utilize the adjectival rating categories and associated descriptions as well as the award fee pool available to be earned percentages for each adjectival rating category contained in FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv). Contracting officers may supplement these descriptions with more specifics relative to their procurement but they cannot alter or delete the FAR adjectival rating descriptions.
( b ) The following numerical scoring system shall be used in conjunction with the FAR adjectival rating categories and associated descriptions (see FAR 16401(e)(3)(iv)). ( 1 ) *Excellent* (100-91)
( 2 ) *Very good* (90-76)
( 3 ) *Good* (75-51)
( 4 ) *Satisfactory* (50)
( 5 ) *Unsatisfactory* (less than 50) No award fee shall be paid for an unsatisfactory rating.
( c ) As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated “Excellent” overall, the contractor would typically be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and providing outstanding technical performance.
( d ) A weighted scoring system appropriate for the circumstances of the individual contract requirement should be developed. In this system, each evaluation factor (*e.g.,* technical, schedule, cost control) is assigned a specific percentage weighting with the cumulative weightings of all factors totaling 100. During the award fee evaluation, each factor is scored from 0-100 according to the ratings defined in 1816.405-275(b). The numerical score for each factor is then multiplied by the weighting for that factor to determine the weighted score. For example, if the technical factor has a weighting of 60 percent and the numerical score for that factor is 80, the weighted technical score is 48 (80 × 60 percent). The weighted scores for each evaluation factor are then added to determine the total award fee score.
[76 FR 6698, Feb. 8, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 12937, Mar. 12, 2015]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter C. Bullis, Appellant.

— Motion to dismiss appeal granted by default and appeal dismissed. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM to Docket

FROM: Sharon Nizich, US EPA

SUBJECT: Discussion with a Brick and Structural Clay rulemaking stakeholder

DATE: September 10 2015

A short discussion by phone was held today with the following stakeholder regarding clarification on

the attached late c omment.



### Ryan L. Parker Endicott Brick P.O. Box 17 | Fairbury, NE 68352
### §450. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 450 was editorially reclassified as section 1633 of this title.
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:2465
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2466
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:2467
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:2468
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:2469
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:2470
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:2471
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:2472
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:2473
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:2474
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:2475
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:2476
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:2477
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:2478
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:2479
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:2480
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:2481
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:2482
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:2483
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:2484
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:2485
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:2486
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:2487
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:2488
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:2489
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:2490
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:2491
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:2492
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:2493
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:2494
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:2495
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:2496
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:2497
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:2498
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:2499
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:2500
Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 144 Filed: 11/06/13 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:2501