alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
122 STAT. 720 PUBLIC LAW 110–208—MAY 2, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2954: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

May 1, considered and passed House and Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–208 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend Public Law 110–196 to provide for a temporary extension of programs 

authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond 

May 2, 2008. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURAL 

PROGRAMS AND SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE 

SUPPORT AUTHORITIES. 

Effective April 25, 2008, section 1 of Public Law 110–196 (122 

Stat. 653) (as amended by Public Law 110–200 (122 Stat. 695) 

and Public Law 110–205 (122 Stat. 713)) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘May 2, 2008’’ and 

inserting ‘‘May 16, 2008’’; and 

(2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘May 2, 2008’’ and 

inserting ‘‘May 16, 2008’’. 

Approved May 2, 2008. 

Effective date. 

May 2, 2008 

[S. 2954] 


dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 30, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01405

- CV

CANDII LAVETTE JACKSON AND ONE HUND RED SIXTY FIVE DOLLA RS AND NO/100 (165.00) IN U NITED STATES OF AMER ICA CURRENCY , Appellants

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court At Law No. 1 Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 86450CC



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Lew is Opinion by Justice Lewis

By letter dated June 21, 2013, the Court notified appellant Candii Jackson that the time

for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file, within ten days, both her brief and

an extension motion. We warned appe llant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed her brief or an extension

motion, nor has she communicated with the Court regarding the appeal. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

121405F.P05 /David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CANDII LAVETTE JACKSON AND ONE

HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS AND
NO/100 (165.00) IN UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA CURRENCY, Appellants

No. 05

- 12

- 01405

- CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court At Law
No. 1, Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 86450CC.
Opinion delivere d by Justice Lewis,
Justices Bridges and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution. We ORDER that appellee the State of Texas recover its costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant Candii Lavette Jackson.

Judgment entered this 30 th day of October, 2013.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
### SUBCHAPTER IX—MISCELLANEOUS REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was originally added as subtitle I of title II of Pub. L. 103–354, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3235, and subsequently redesignated subtitle J of title II of Pub. L. 103–354 by Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(a) [title X, §1001(2)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–41, and then subtitle K of title II of Pub. L. 103–354 by Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12413(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4980.
#### 1552.211-75 Working files.

As prescribed in 1511.011-75, insert the following clause in all applicable EPA contracts.

# Working Files (APR 1984)

The Contractor shall maintain accurate working files (by task or work assignment) on all work documentation including calculations, assumptions, interpretations of regulations, sources of information, and other raw data required in the performance of this contract. The Contractor shall provide the information contained in the contractor's working files upon request of the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984. Redesignated at 55 FR 39622, Sept. 28, 1990, as amended at 21994, May 4, 1995. Redesignated at 61 FR 57339, Nov. 6, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 33573, June 20, 1997; 80 FR 29986, May 26, 2015]
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Team I – Teacher Preparation Issues

April 3, 2012, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

April 4, 2012, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

April 5, 2012, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

Agenda1

Facilitator’s Welcome

Agenda Overview

Meeting Summary from Prior Session

Housekeeping and Other Issues

Review of Issues and Proposed Regulatory Language:

I. Rulemaking issues

1. Draft regulatory text on 612.2, 612.3, 612.4, 612.5, and 612.6 (covers the following issues):

Issue 1: Recommendations regarding current institution of higher education, teacher 

preparation program, and State reporting requirements on teacher education 

program quality

Issue 2: Recommendations for supplemental State reporting on teacher education 

program quality that would either replace or augment current reporting 

requirements

Issue 3: Criteria used by States to assess the performance of teacher preparation 

programs

Issue 4: Standards for State identification of low-performing or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs

 

1

Twenty-minute morning and afternoon breaks on each day will begin at approximately 10:30 a.m. and 3:15 p.m. 

The lunch recess on each day will begin at approximately 12 noon. Time will be made available for public 

comment during the meeting.
2

2. Draft regulatory text: Definition of “high quality teacher preparation program” (covers 

Issue 6)

3. Draft regulatory text 612.7 (covers Issue 5: Termination of the eligibility of teacher 

preparation programs to enroll students receiving Title IV student assistance in cases 

where the State has withdrawn its approval or terminated its financial support based on 

the State’s identification of the program as low-performing)

4. Draft regulatory text 612.8 (covers Issue 5: How a low-performing teacher preparation 

program may regain eligibility to accept or enroll students receiving Title IV, HEA funds)

5. Issue 8: Teaching in a high-need field to fulfill the TEACH Grant Agreement to Serve

6. Re-affirm tentative consensus on Issues 7, 9, and 10

Issue 7: Service and repayment obligations for the TEACH Grant Program: Teaching 

service performed for an Educational Service Agency

Issue 9: Eligibility for a new TEACH Grant after receiving a discharge of the TEACH Grant 

agreement to serve based on total and permanent disability

Issue 10: Discharge of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve based on the total and 

permanent disability of a TEACH Grant recipient

7. Call for final consensus on the proposed regulatory package

II. Non-rulemaking issues (items for OMB Clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act)

 Institutional Report Card

 State Report Card

 Call for agreement on non-rulemaking issues
15.307 Proposal revisions. ( a ) If an offerors proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror's proposal shall be accepted or considered.
( b ) The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The contracting officer is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.
#### In the Matter of Ryan L. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Debbie L.-T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Stephanie C. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Debbie L.-T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[835 NYS2d 250]

In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated December 27, 2005, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered .that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disburséments, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a new fact-finding hearing and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing in accordance herewith.

The mother’s consent to the admission of the caseworker’s file into evidence was predicated upon the representation, made at a prior hearing date, that the caseworker would later testify on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, be available for cross-*653examination by the mother. When it became apparent that the caseworker would not testify, the Family Court should have permitted the mother to withdraw her consent to the admission of the caseworker’s file. Since the Family Court failed to do so, a new fact-finding hearing is required *(cf. Matter of Leon RR.,*48 NY2d 117, 123-124 [1979]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the mother’s remaining contentions. Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### Henry Ott, Plaintiff, v. Jack Harrington et al., Defendants.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before November 21, 1960.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 265 )

WELFARE FUND, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 0636

)

ANTHONY DORMAN, individually and d/b/a ) JUDGE EDMOND E. CHANG

JDR, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, andmove for entryof judgment bydefault against

Defendant, ANTHONY DORMAN, individually and d/b/a JDR, in the total amount of $31,365.31,

plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,812.75. 

On February 19, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Defendant,

personally, at his residence/place of business (a copy of the Summons and Affidavit of Service is

attached hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on March 12, 2012. As Defendant has

failed to timely answer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion for Entry of Default and Judgment) with the Clerk of Court using the

CM/ECF system, and further certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United

States Mail to the following non-CM/ECF participant on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 18th

day of April 2012:

Mr. Anthony Dorman

JDR

23 W. Willow Street

Lombard, IL 60148

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: jdunitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\265J\JDR\motion.jdg.df.wpd
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: __2011________-NM-____116______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### 1552.217-75 Option to extend the effective period of the contract—time and materials or labor hour contract.

As prescribed in 1517.208(f), insert this clause in time and materials or labor hour type contracts when applicable. This clause will be modified to reflect the actual number of option periods for the acquisition. If only one option period is used, modify (c) accordingly.

# Option To Extend the Effective Period of the Contract—Time and Materials or Labor Hour Contract (APR 1984)

(a) The Government has the option to extend the effective period of this contract for ____ additional period(s). If more than sixty (60) days remain in the contract effective period, the Government, without prior written notification, may exercise this option by issuing a contract modification. To unilaterally exercise this option within the last 60 days of the effective period, the Government must issue written notification of its intent to exercise the option prior to that last 60-day period. This preliminary notification does not commit the Government to exercising the option.

(b) If the option(s) are exercised, the “Ceiling Price” clause will be modified to reflect a new and separate ceiling price of $________ for the first option period and a new and separate ceiling price of $________ for the second option period.

(c) The “Effective Period of the Contract” clause will be modified to cover a base period from ____________________ to __________________ and option periods from ____________________ to __________________ and ____________________ to ______________________.

(End of clause)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984; 49 FR 24734, June 15, 1984]
- 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

FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan: PDF (2M)

**APR Individual Sections:**
                - Mission and Organizational Structure PDF (169KB)
                - About This Report and Overview PDF (52KB)
                - Performance Results Details PDF  (643KB)
                - Performance Plan Summary PDF (220KB)
                - Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification Assurance  PDF (146KB)
                - Appendix B: Performance Results for Discontinued Measures PDF (70KB)
                - Appendix C: Additional Programs by Goal PDF (63KB)
                - Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During FY 2013 and Expected During FY 2014–15  PDF (135KB)
                - Appendix E: Selected Department Web Links and Education Resources  PDF (37KB)
                - Appendix F: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations PDF (33KB)

 

President's FY 2015 Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Education

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable view |
|        |

## 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

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | President's Education Budget Request |  |
|  |
|  | Budget Tables |  |
|  |
|  | Budget News |  |
|  |
|  | ED Budget Process and Calendar |  |
|  |

----

*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
#### PEOPLE ex rel. CUMMINGS v. GREENE, Police Com’r.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

March 2, 1906.)

Cebtiorabi—Return—Inferios Tribunals.

Where the return to a writ oí certiorari to review a determination of a police commissioner, dismissing relator from the police force of the city of New York, recited that on the 5th day of September, 1902, such commissioner “was duly designated to hear the evidence upon the said charges,” and relator did not move for a further return, such recital prima facie established that the commissioner had jurisdiction to hear the charges.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent: Dig. Certiorari, § 143.]

Certiorari by the people, on the relation of James Cummings, against Francis V. Greene, as police commissioner of the city of New York, to review proceedings of the respondent dismissing relator from the police force of the city of New York.

Affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Jacob Rouss (Louis J. Grant, on the brief), for appellant.

James D. Bell, for respondent.

JENKS, J.

I think that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the

determination of the commissioner. The relator raises the point that the determination was void because the deputy police commissioner had not been duly authorized or delegated to make it. No particular defect is assigned, and obviously the contention is based upon the proposition that, inasmuch as the determination up for review was that of an inferior tribunal, it was incumbent on it to show its jurisdiction. The return is that on.or before the 5th day of September, 1902,.Frederick H. E. Ebstein, second deputy commissioner of police, “was duly designated to hear the evidence upon the said charges.” With this return the relator was satisfied, and came to a hearing thereon. I think, under the circumstances, the relator is confronted with the rule that jurisdiction prima facie may be established by recitals in the record. Potter v. Merchants’ Bank of Albany, 28 N. Y. 641, 653 et seq., 86 Am. Dec. 273; Barber v. Winslow, 12 Wend. 102; Belden v. Meeker, 2 Lans. 470; Smith v. Reid, 134 N. Y. 568, 31 N. E. 1082; Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 396, 403, 18 L. Ed. 34. If the relator was not satisfied, he could have moved for a further return. People ex rel. Miller v. Wurster, 149 N. Y. 549, 44 N. E. 298.

Determination confirmed, with costs. All concur.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 798 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 

Education Enhancement Program to apply to individuals pursuing programs of education while on active duty, to recipients of the Marine 

Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and to programs of 

education pursued on half-time basis or less, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Yellow 

Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to apply 

to individuals pursuing programs of education while on 

active duty, to recipients of the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and to programs of 

education pursued on half-time basis or less, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 798 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yellow Ribbon Im3 provement Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF YELLOW RIBBON G.I. EDUCATION 

5 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM. 

6 Subsection (a) of section 3317 of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In instances where the edu10 cational assistance provided pursuant to subsections 

11 (c)(1)(A), (e)(2)(A), and (f)(2)(A) of section 3313 of 

12 this title does not cover the full cost of established 

13 charges (as specified in section 3313), the Secretary 

14 shall, subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, 

15 carry out a program under which colleges and uni16 versities can, voluntarily, enter into an agreement 

17 with the Secretary to cover a portion of those estab18 lished charges not otherwise covered under sub19 sections (c)(1)(A), (e)(2)(A), and (f)(2)(A) of section 

20 3313 of this title, which contributions shall be 

21 matched by equivalent contributions toward such 

22 costs by the Secretary. 

23 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The program carried out 

24 under paragraph (1) shall only apply to covered indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:25 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S798.IS S798

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 798 IS

1 viduals described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (9) of 

2 section 3311(b) of this title.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23

                                    "EXHIBIT 23"
                                ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
International Bancshares Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-15655
on Form S-8 of International Bancshares Corporation of our report dated March
14, 1997, relating to the consolidated statements of condition of International
Bancshares Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of International Bancshares Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for the impairment of
long-lived assets and for long-lived assets to be disposed of, a change in the
method of accounting for mortgage servicing rights and to the adoption of
provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 "Accounting for Stock-based Compensation" in 1996.
Our report also refers to a change in the method of accounting for impairment of
loans receivable in 1995 and to a change in the method of accounting for
investment securities in 1994.

/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Antonio, Texas
March 27, 1997
#### Tillie Rafkin et al., as Executors of Victor Rafkin, Deceased, Respondents, v. Continental Diamond Mines, Inc., Appellant.

Order entered on March 28, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. On this record questions of fact are present at least as to plaintiffs being holders in due course and whether the negotiation of the notes was in violation of the alleged agreement between the maker and the payee not to negotiate them so long as the pledged diamonds were in the possession of the payee. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 156.]