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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 844 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to consider certain time spent by 

members of reserve components of the Armed Forces while receiving 

medical care from the Secretary of Defense as active duty for purposes 

of eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5 (legislative day, APRIL 4), 2017 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. MARKEY) 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 consider certain 

time spent by members of reserve components of the 

Armed Forces while receiving medical care from the Secretary of Defense as active duty for purposes of eligibility 

for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act 

5 of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 844 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN TIME SPENT RECEIV2 ING MEDICAL CARE FROM SECRETARY OF 

3 DEFENSE AS ACTIVE DUTY FOR PURPOSES 

4 OF ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL 

5 ASSISTANCE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3301(1)(B) of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘12301(h),’’ 

8 after ‘‘12301(g),’’. 

9 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—The amendment 

10 made by subsection (a) shall apply as if such amendment 

11 were enacted immediately after the enactment of the Post12 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Public 

13 Law 110–252). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Trends in College Pricing 2011 - Table 4

Academic 

Year

Private 

Nonprofit 

Four-Year % Change

Public FourYear% 

Change

Public TwoYear % Change

1981-82 $10,144 $2,242 $1,070

1982-83 $10,749 6.0% $2,389 6.6% $1,096 5.0%

1983-84 $11,518 7.1% $2,596 8.7% $1,194 6.0%

1984-85 $12,058 4.7% $2,665 2.7% $1,267 7.0%

1985-86 $12,828 6.4% $2,762 3.6% $1,343 5.0%

1986-87 $13,737 7.1% $2,917 5.6% $1,362 5.0%

1987-88 $13,992 1.9% $2,948 1.1% $1,467 4.0%

1988-89 $15,260 9.1% $3,008 2.0% $1,523 4.0%

1989-90 $15,733 3.1% $3,080 2.4% $1,527 2.0%

1990-91 $16,182 2.9% $3,306 7.3% $1,570 9.0%

1991-92 $16,276 0.6% $3,495 5.7% $1,942 7.0%

1992-93 $16,800 3.2% $3,753 7.4% $1,795 9.0%

1993-94 $17,221 2.5% $3,966 5.7% $1,948 1.0%

1994-95 $17,841 3.6% $4,118 3.8% $1,994 3.0%

1995-96 $18,097 1.4% $4,164 1.1% $1,970 3.0%

1996-97 $18,698 3.3% $4,281 2.8% $2,108 4.0%

1997-98 $19,404 3.8% $4,379 2.3% $2,206 3.0%

1998-99 $20,362 4.9% $4,495 2.6% $2,151 2.0%

1999-00 $21,031 3.3% $4,556 1.4% $2,235 -1.0%

2000-01 $21,013 -0.1% $4,586 0.7% $2,147 -1.0%

2001-02 $22,117 5.3% $4,793 4.5% $2,047 -2.0%

2002-03 $22,655 2.4% $5,141 7.2% $2,100 3.0%

2003-04 $23,280 2.8% $5,706 11.0% $2,345 11.7%

2004-05 $23,910 2.7% $6,114 7.2% $2,480 5.7%

2005-06 $24,257 1.5% $6,350 3.9% $2,523 1.7%

2006-07 $24,766 2.1% $6,443 1.5% $2,516 -0.3%

2007-08 $25,754 4.0% $6,715 4.2% $2,488 -1.1%

2008-09 $25,859 0.4% $6,770 0.8% $2,436 -2.1%

2009-10 $27,412 6.0% $7,396 9.3% $2,684 10.2%

2010-11 $28,254 3.1% $7,889 6.7% $2,825 5.3%

2011-12 $28,500 0.9% $8,244 4.5% $2,963 4.9%

This table was prepared in October 2011.

TABLE 4: Average Published Tuition and Fees in Constant 2011 Dollars, 1981-82 to 

2011-12 (Enrollment-Weighted)

Sources: 1987-88 and after: Annual Survey of Colleges , the College Board, weighted by 

full-time undergraduate enrollment; 1986-87 and prior: Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) , U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, weighted by full-time equivalent enrollment.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY ESPEJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:12-cv-09431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: See attached certificate of service. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned counsel shall appear before the Honorable 

Charles P. Kocoras, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Courtroom 2325 of the United States 

Courthouse for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, and then and there present Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to 

File Documents Under Seal, a true and accurate copy of which has been filed and served upon 

all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.
2

Respectfully submitted,

FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, and HENRY ESPEJO,

Dated: June 13, 2016 By: s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Jay Edelson

jedelson@edelson.com

Benjamin H. Richman

brichman@edelson.com

J. Dominick Larry

nlarry@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Rafey S. Balabanian

rbalabanian@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

329 Bryant Street, Suite 2C

San Francisco, California 94107

Tel: 415.234.5342

Fax: 415.373.9435
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 13, 2016, I served the above and foregoing by causing a true 

and accurate copy of such paper to be filed and served on all counsel of record via the Court’s 

CM/ECF electronic filing system.

s/ Benjamin H. Richman
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOVERVIEW
|  | **MS Word (417 KB)** |
|--|----------------------|

Higher Education Agreements

 In *United States v. Fordice* the U.S. Supreme Court set out  standards for determining whether states that previously operated racially  segregated higher education systems have met their affirmative duty to dismantle  those systems and their vestiges under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution and Title VI. After the decision, OCR negotiated and entered into  agreements to eliminate such vestiges in Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  Maryland, and Virginia. 

 During FY 2004, OCR continued to monitor the implementation of its higher  education agreements with the seven states. The states made progress in enhancing  the facilities of their historically black institutions. For example, Prairie  View A&M and Texas Southern are continuing to enhance their facilities  and also strengthen high demand academic programs. Florida made significant  progress in the graduation of minority students from its two-year community  colleges and increased the number of minority associate degree recipients who  enroll in the state university system. It also increased funding for need-based  and merit scholarships at its vocational schools, two-year colleges, and four-year  universities.

|                                              |
|----------------------------------------------|
|   16 | 17 | 18 | TOC | Printable viewShare this page |
|                                              |

## How Do I Find...

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

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

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

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

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

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

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

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

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 76 Filed: 07/01/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:266
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,044
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,821,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,689,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,795,079
<PP&E>                                       2,169,112
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,187,055)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,029,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,386,306
<BONDS>                                        362,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,710
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,941,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,029,366
<SALES>                                      4,200,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,200,528
<CGS>                                        3,116,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,116,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### Stelios Coutsodontis, Appellant, v George Peters et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 902]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 6, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action, which seeks, inter alia, to adjudicate plaintiff the owner of shares in defendant corporation as the donee of an inter vivos gift, was properly dismissed at this juncture *(see 401 W. 14th St. Fee LLC v Mer Du Nord Noordzee, LLC,*34 AD3d 294 [2006]; *Leder v Spiegel,*31 AD3d 266 [2006]) on the ground that plaintiff’s allegations were contradicted by the alleged donor’s August and September 2000 writings unequivocally demonstrating her intent that the transfers of the shares take effect after her death. Thus, the required element of present donative intent was lacking *(see Gruen v Gruen,*68 NY2d 48, 53 [1986]).

*275In light of the existence of other pending actions involving the issue of ownership of the shares, we note that an order granting a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion will have res judicata effect with respect to matters decided on the merits *(see Amsterdam Sav. Bank v Marine Midland Bank,*140 AD2d 781 [1988]; *Plattsburgh Quarries v Palcon Indus.,*129 AD2d 844 [1987]; *Furia v Furia,*116 AD2d 694 [1986]; Siegel, NY Prac § 276 [4th ed]). Here, the only determination made on the merits is that no inter vivos gift was made to plaintiff under New York law. Concur—Tom, J.B, Mazzarelli, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ. *[See*11 Misc 3d 1066(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50402(U) (2006).]
#### 1631.203-71 Business unit General and Administrative (G&A) expenses.

G&A expenses shall be allocated to final cost objectives by a base or method that represents the total activity of the business unit.

[70 FR 31391, June 1, 2005]
### §6616. Loans to economically disadvantaged rural communities

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall establish, may make loans to economically disadvantaged rural communities for the purposes of securing technical assistance and services to aid in the development and implementation of action plans, including planning for—

(1) improving existing facilities in the community that may generate employment or revenue;

(2) expanding existing infrastructure, facilities, and services to capitalize on opportunities to diversify economies now dependent on National Forest System land resources; and

(3) supporting the development of new industries or commercial ventures unrelated to National Forest System land resources.

#### (b) Interest rates

The interest rates on a loan made pursuant to this section shall be as determined by the Secretary, but not in excess of the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable to the maturity of such loan, plus not to exceed 1 percent, as determined by the Secretary, and rounded to the nearest one-eighth of 1 percent.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2378, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4048; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(3) [title III, §345(f)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–204.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Subsec. (a)(2), (3). Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "National Forest System land resources" for "national forest resources".
#### 1552.332-39 Unenforceability of unauthorized obligations (far deviation).

As prescribed in 1513.507(b) and 1532.1070, use clause 1552.332-39 (FAR DEVIATION) instead of the nondeviated version for purchase orders, modifications and contracts that include commercial supplier agreements.

# Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (FAR Deviation) (OCT 2021)

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this clause, when any supply or service acquired under this contract is subject to any commercial supplier agreement (as defined in 1502.100) that includes any language, provision, or clause requiring the Government to pay any future fees, penalties, interest, legal costs or to indemnify the Contractor or any person or entity for damages, costs, fees, or any other loss or liability that would create an *Anti-Deficiency Act* violation (31 U.S.C. 1341), the following shall govern:

(1) Any such language, provision, or clause is unenforceable against the Government.

(2) Neither the Government nor any Government authorized end user shall be deemed to have agreed to such language, provision, or clause by virtue of it appearing in the commercial supplier agreement. If the commercial supplier agreement is invoked through an “I agree” click box or other comparable mechanism (*e.g.,* “click-wrap” or “browse-wrap” agreements), execution does not bind the Government or any Government authorized end user to such clause.

(3) Any such language, provision, or clause is deemed to be stricken from the commercial supplier agreement.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this clause does not apply to indemnification or any other payment by the Government that is expressly authorized by statute and specifically authorized under applicable agency regulations and procedures.

(End of clause)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 3, 2014

Decided February 13, 2014

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 13‐3432

ADAM THOMAS GRAY,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

KEVWE AKPORE,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 12 C 1743

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of:

1. Petitioner‐Appellant’s Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, filed

on December 27, 2013, by Appellant Adam Thomas Gray,

2. Petitioner‐Appellant’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability, filed

on December 27, 2013, by Appellant Adam Thomas Gray,

Case: 13-3432 Document: 00712185684 Filed: 03/07/2014 Pages: 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 83 Filed: 03/07/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1933
No. 13‐3432 Page 2

3. Respondent‐Appellee’s Response to Petitioner‐Appellant’s

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, filed on January 8, 2014, by Respondent

Kevwe Akpore,

4. Respondent‐Appellee’s Response to Petitioner‐Appellant’s Motion

for a Certificate of Appealability, filed on January 8, 2014, by Respondent Kevwe

Akpore

IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The

collateral‐order doctrine does not provide appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s

order denying Gray’s motion to lift the stay on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED as moot.

Case: 13-3432 Document: 00712185684 Filed: 03/07/2014 Pages: 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 83 Filed: 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1934
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11301]


Review and Amendment of the Designation of ISIL-Sinai Province 
(and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant 
to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in consultation with 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that 
the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the 
aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation 
of the designation and that the national security of the United States 
does not warrant a revocation of the designation. I also conclude that 
there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the following are 
additional aliases of the aforementioned organization (and other 
aliases): ISIS-Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham--
Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham--Sinai Province, 
ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained. Additionally, pursuant to Section 219(b) of the INA, as 
amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(b)), I hereby amend the designation of the 
aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization to include the following new aliases: ISIS-Sinai Province, 
Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham--Sinai Province, Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Sham--Sinai Province, ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00600 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### 1409.407 Suspension.
EXHIBIT 2 

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 04/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:69
Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 04/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:69
#### 1852.219-75 Individual Subcontracting Reports.

As prescribed in 1819.708-70(b), insert the following clause:

# Individual Subcontracting Reports (APR 2015)

When submitting Individual Subcontracting Reports in eSRS in accordance with FAR 52.219-9(l) (1), the contractor shall enter goals as a percentage of total contract value as well as a percentage of total subcontract dollars.

(End of clause)

[80 FR 12947, Mar. 12, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 50212, Aug. 19, 2015]
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000093

22-JAN-2018

09:18 AM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 CR 800-2

)

SALIOU MBAYE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

During yesterday’s arraignment proceeding this Court granted

the motion filed on behalf of defendant Saliou Mbaye (“Mbaye”)

for appointment of a federal defender to represent him in these

proceedings (having cautioned Mbaye that if it were to develop

that he could afford to retain counsel, the law requires

reimbursement of the government for any fees paid to counsel

under the Criminal Justice Act (“Act). At the time of

arraignment this Court had not yet received the Pretrial Services

Report (“Report”), which was delivered to chambers later in the

day.

According to the Report Mbaye’s compensation as a high

school teacher amounts to $6,000 monthly, while the pretrial

services officer listed monthly expenses aggregating only $1,745. 

At the time of the arraignment Mbaye’s handwritten responses on

his financial statement form had been amended to increase the

monthly expense amount to $5,000, but that was done without

itemization. Accordingly Mbaye’s counsel is ordered to obtain
and to submit a revised (and detailed) financial statement to

support Mbaye’s entitlement to representation under the Act.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 17, 2011

2
#### 1552.215-76 [Reserved]