alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
17.603 Limitations. ( a ) Management and operating contracts shall not be authorized for— ( 1 ) Functions involving the direction, supervision, or control of Government personnel, except for supervision incidental to training;
( 2 ) Functions involving the exercise of police or regulatory powers in the name of the Government, other than guard or plant protection services;
( 3 ) Functions of determining basic Government policies;
( 4 ) Day-to-day staff or management functions of the agency or of any of its elements; or
( 5 ) Functions that can more properly be accomplished in accordance with Subpart 45.3, Authorizing the Use and Rental of Government Property.
( b ) Since issuance of an authorization under 17.602(a) is deemed sufficient proof of compliance with paragraph (a) immediately above, nothing in paragraph (a) immediately above shall affect the validity or legality of such an authorization.
( c ) For use of project labor agreements, see subpart 22.5.
[61 FR 39204, July 26, 1996, as amended at 66 FR 27415, May 16, 2001; 72 FR 27384, May 15, 2007; 74 FR 34207, July 14, 2009; 75 FR 19177, Apr. 13, 2010]
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 9117 DATE 1/17/2012

CASE

TITLE

Angela Marie Smith vs. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the instant action is hereby ordered dismissed. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis [4] and for appointment of counsel are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Angela Marie Smith’s (Smith) pro se motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (Section 1915(e)),

“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the

case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. . . .” Id. Smith has filed a complaint pro se, and thus the court

construes the complaint liberally. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000)(stating

that “pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and not held to the stringent standards expected of

pleadings drafted by lawyers”). 

Smith entitles her pro se complaint “Emergency Petition to Enforce Order.” (Compl. 1). Smith

attaches to the complaint an order and various filings from a charge that she apparently filed before the

Illinois Department of Human Rights. Smith indicates that she is bringing this action pursuant to certain state

court rules and rules of professional conduct. (Compl. 1). Smith also makes general references to fraud and

“immoral and unethical behavior” that “has brought shame to the legal profession.” (Compl. 1). Smith also

asserts that “[a]ttorneys have a duty to courts and the courts have the corresponding authority to discipline

11C9117 Angela Marie Smith vs. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

attorneys who practice before them.” (Compl. 1). Smith indicates that she is bringing this action “[i]n

support for an investigation.” (Compl. 1). Even when liberally construing the allegations in the complaint,

Smith has failed to plausibly suggest a federal cause of action. To the extent that Smith seeks to bring a

charge against an attorney for a violation of the professional rules of conduct, this court is not the proper

forum in which to make such a charge. Therefore, since Smith has not plausibility suggested any valid

federal claim for relief, this action is dismissed. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the

motion for appointment of counsel are denied as moot.

11C9117 Angela Marie Smith vs. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago Page 2 of 2
#### Lewis, Auditor of Hamilton County, *v.*The State ex rel. Harris, Exrx., etc.

(No. 8426

Decided February 2, 1904.)

Syllabus same as in case 8425.—[Reporter.

Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

This case was heard and submitted with the preceding case, No. 8425.

In the circuit court the parties agreed upon the facts, which show that Harris owned two lots with separate buildings thereon, and that each of these properties was changed, remodeled and improved in the year 1899, and that the improvements were as radical and substantial as in the preceding case. The annual assessor for the year 1900 added $1,000 to the valuation of one property because of its improvements, and $750 to the other and so made his return to the auditor. The annual board of equalization confirmed the addition and ordered it placed on the duplicate which was done.

The owner received no notice of the increased valuation under section 2804, Revised Statutes.

For the reasons given in the principal case (8425), and which we need not repeat here, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the petition of relator dismissed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Spear, Davis, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.

Burket, C. J., not sitting.
#### Simon Cruz, Respondent, v. Samuel Wallach, Appellant.

Order, entered on December 19, 1961, which order resettled an order entered on November 3, 1961 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. It is true that, if the plaintiff’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment by 455 West 50th Street Corporation, the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law will bar a recovery bv him against defendant, the president of the corporation, for his acts in behalf of the corporation. (See *Williams*v. *Hartshorn,*296 N. Y. 49; *Cunningham*v. *Rafalsky & Co.,*281 App. Div. 609, affd. 306 N. Y. 712; *Roberts*v. *Gagnon.,*1 A D 2d 297.) The defendant, however, in support of his defense, is not entitled to rely upon the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Board as establishing plaintiff’s employment and injury causally related thereto. The award of the board based upon such findings was rescinded by it. The compensation case was thereupon closed without a final determination by the board. Under the circumstances, the findings of the board are in a vacuum and do not stand as supporting any final determination. Until such determination, the jurisdiction of the board is continuing and its findings are subject to rescission or modification by the board (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 123) and, thus, are not conclusive under the doctrine of *res judicata*or doctrine of collateral estoppel. (See *Webb*v. *Buckelew,*82 N. Y. 555, 559; *Rudd*v. *Cornell,*171 N. Y. 114, 127; *Bonner*v. *Industrial Acc. Comm.,*140 P. 2d 1000, 1008 [Cal.].) Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### 16.207 Firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contracts.
(June 21, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sandy Brown, Appellant.

Order entered on February 20, 1961 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### Nicoletta Leo, Respondent, and Frank Leo, Appellant, v. Laura Reile, Appellant-Respondent.

— Motion granted and time for argument of appeal extended to include September I960 Term of court. Respondent directed to file and serve brief by August 1, 1960.
§ 50.4 Policy. ( a ) It is DoD policy to safeguard and promote the welfare of DoD personnel as consumers by setting forth a uniform approach to the conduct of all personal commercial solicitation and sales to them by dealers and their agents. For those individuals and their companies that fail to follow this policy, the opportunity to solicit on military installations may be limited or denied as appropriate.
( b ) Command authority includes authority to approve or prohibit all commercial solicitation covered by this part. Nothing in this part limits an installation commander's inherent authority to deny access to vendors or to establish time and place restrictions on commercial activities at the installation.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

LORI RAVENSCROFT GEARE and Case No. 11-cv-09074 (JJT)
ROBERT J. CASEY, I, Derivatively for the
Benefit of Hospira, INC.,

Plaintiffs,
Vv.

CHRISTOPHER B. BEGLEY, F. MICHAEL
BALL, THOMAS E. WERNER, IRVING W.
BAILEY, Il, JACQUE J. SOKOLOV,
BARBARA L. BOWLES, ROGER W. HALE,
JOHN C. STALEY, CONNIE R. CURRAN,
HEINO VON PRONDZYNSKI, MARK F.
WHEELER, TERRENCE C. KEARNEY,
RONALD A. MATRICARIA, and BRIAN J.
SMITH,

Defendants,
~and—

HOSPIRA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Nominal Defendant.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE B. SCHEELE REGARDING POSTING OF NOTICE
OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT



I, Katherine B. Scheele, being first duly sworn, state under penalty of perjury that:

1. Iam an employee of Robbins Arroyo LLP (the "Firm"), one of Co-Lead Counsel
for the Illinois Plaintiffs in the above-captioned shareholder derivative action.

2. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order issued by the Court on November 14,
2014, I caused true and correct copies of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Shareholder Derivative Actions ("Notice") and the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") to be
posted on November 18, 2014 on the Firm's website. The Notice and Stipulation can be found at
www.robbinsarroyo.com/notices.

3. The Notice and Stipulation have remained on the Firm's website through the date
of my signature below, and will remain on the website until the Court grants final approval of

settlement and the deadline to appeal any final judgment has expired.

4, In addition, on November 20, 2014, Hospira, Inc. furnished a Form 8-K to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which attached the Notice as Exhibit 99.1
and the Stipulation and Attachment A (which details the settlement terms) as Exhibit 99.2.
These documents remain publicly available on the SEC's EDGAR website at
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1274057/0001 104659 14082222/0001 104659-14-082222-

index.htm.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

true and correct. Executed this 7th day of January, 2015 at San Diego, California.

KATHERINE B. SCHEELE

1000722


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 9, 2015, I

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail

addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List.

/s/ George C. Aguilar

GEORGE C. AGUILAR
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
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 Quarterly Report of Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Nicora, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 16, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert W. Nicora                 
|               |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

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 Quarterly Report of Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David H. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  | 
|March 16, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ David H. Johnson   
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synthetic Blood
International, Inc. and will be retained by Synthetic Blood International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Unsafe Schools Choice Option

(USCO) appears in Title IX, section 9532 of ESEA.

***Program summary***:  

· Generally, this program requires that students in unsafe situations be allowed to transfer to other, safer, public schools.  Specifically, transfers must be allowed for two reasons: (1) when a school is determined to be “persistently dangerous” and (2) when a student becomes the victim of a violent crime at a school.

· To the extent possible, LEAs should allow transferring students to transfer to a school that is making adequate yearly progress and has not been identified as being in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.  The LEA is encouraged to take into account the needs and preferences of the affected students and parents to the extent possible.

***Persistently dangerous schools and the school choice option***:

· The State, in consultation with a representative sampling of LEAs, should develop the criteria to be used in identifying unsafe schools.

· Such criteria must be objective and could include data such as the number of times a firearm was brought into a school, the number of fights, etc.

· The State should look for trends in the data or patterns of incidents within the current or most recent school year in determining if a school should be designated as persistently dangerous.

· When a school has been identified as persistently dangerous, the LEA must inform parents of the designation within 10 days and offer the students the option to transfer to a safe public school within 20 days.  Students should be allowed to transfer within 30 days.  

***Criminal offenses and the school choice option***:

· If a student becomes the victim of a violent criminal offense at school, the LEA must allow the student to transfer to another public school.

· The transfer is optional – the student is not required to transfer, but the offer for such a move must be made.

***Compliance***:  

· States must develop an USCO policy, and ESEA funding is contingent upon compliance with USCO.  

· The guidance document directs that States that have not fully complied with the USCO provisions qualify their certification by August 15, 2002, to include (1) what steps remain to be completed, and (2) a timetable for their completion.  It also requires quarterly reporting to the Secretary on the State’s progress in completion of these steps.  

· The timeline should provide for full compliance no later than July 1, 2003. 

## Guidance Document:  

The guidance document for the *Unsafe Schools Choice Option* is available at:  http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.doc

##
QUICK

CARDTM

Hand Hygiene

in Hurricane-Affected Areas 

Floodwater can be contaminated with microorganisms,

sewage, industrial waste, chemicals, and other substances that can cause illness or death.

Wear Protective Gloves

• Wear protective gloves when: working in contaminated

floodwaters, handling contaminated objects, or handling human or animal remains.

• Gloves should be heavy, cut-resistant, made of waterproof material (nitrile or similar washable material). 

Wash Hands with Soap and Clean 

(or disinfected) Water

• After cleanup or decontamination work; before preparing or eating food; and after toilet use.

Wound Care

• Wash wounds with soap and clean (or disinfected)

water or a hand sanitizer immediately.

• Seek immediate medical attention if wound becomes

red, swollen, or oozes pus.

Disinfecting Water for Hand Washing

• Contaminated water can be bleach-disinfected by 

mixing 1/4 teaspoon of household bleach per 1 gallon

of water. 

• Let bleach-water mixture stand for 30 minutes.

• Label containers (e.g., “bleach disinfected water – 

DO NOT DRINK”).

Disinfecting Water for Tool/Surface

Decontamination

• It is preferrable to use soap and clean water when

available.

• If only contaminated water is available, prepare solution of 1/4 cup household bleach per 1 gallon of water. 

• Prepare fresh solutions daily, preferably just before use.

• Immerse objects in the solution for 10 minutes.

• Label containers (e.g., “bleach disinfected water – 

DO NOT DRINK”).

• Warning: Bleach can damage firefighters’ turnout gear;

consult manufacturer.

OSHA 3262-09N-05

U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

For more complete information:

Occupational

Safety and Health

Administration
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4741

_____________________________ S TANLEY G ORDON W HEELER , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circui t Court for Escambia County

. Jan Shackelford , Judge

. June 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARSHA A. TYLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9262

)

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT )

INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Comprehensive Health Management Inc. (“Comprehensive”) has

moved to dismiss part (although not all) of the employment

discrimination Complaint that had been filed pro se by its exemployee Marsha Tyler (“Tyler”) : the box checked in Complaint 1

¶12(f) that asserted Comprehensive had “failed to stop

harassment” and the box checked in Complaint ¶12(g) that said

Comprehensive had “retaliated against the plaintiff because the

plaintiff did something to assert rights protected by the laws

identified in paragraphs 9 and 10 above.” To that end

Comprehensive points to Tyler’s Charge of Discrimination filed

with the EEOC that was limited to asserted disability-based

discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities

Act. Comprehensive’s motion has been fully briefed and is ripe

 Tyler had employed the Complaint of Employment 1

Discrimination form made available by the Clerk’s Office for use

by unrepresented litigants. This Court then granted Tyler’s

motion for the appointment of counsel, drawing on this District

Court’s trial bar for that purpose.

Case: 1:11-cv-09262 Document #: 39 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:152
for decision.2

There is no question that the claim of retaliation omitted

from an ex-employee’s administrative charge (so that the asserted

retaliation had to have taken place before the charge was filed)

is barred by a failure-to-exhaust contention (McKenzie v. Ill.

Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473, 482-83 (7th Cir. 1996)). And the

same is true as to an omitted charge of harassment (Vela v. Vill.

of Sauk Vill., 218 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2000); Rush v.

McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1111-12 (7th Cir. 1992)). Hence

Comprehensive’s partial motion to dismiss is granted, so that

those two theories are not assertable as independent predicates

for relief in this action.

But the scope of this ruling must not be misunderstood. 

Because discriminatory intent is a necessary component of Tyler’s

discrimination claim, evidence of such things as deliberate

harassment and retaliation may well be admissible at trial. That

is of course a matter that remains for the future.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 23, 2012

 No space will be devoted here to the assertion by Tyler 2

of waiver (or more accurately forfeiture) of Comprehensive’s

failure-to-exhaust-administrative-remedies defense. That

argument is patently unfounded.

2

Case: 1:11-cv-09262 Document #: 39 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:153
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 Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Donald Speer, II, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



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
result of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    L. DONALD SPEER,
IIL. Donald Speer, II Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: September 21, 2004
#### In the Matter of Theodore Grieco, Jr., Appellant, v Francis Fugaro, Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 18, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by M. Evans, *872J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur— Lane, J. P., Markewich, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
### §5691. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §225(e)(1), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3214

Section, Pub. L. 95–501, title V, §501, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3686, established position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs.

A prior section 501 of Pub. L. 95–501 enacted section 2211a of this title, amended section 5314 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 2211a of this title, prior to the complete revision of Pub. L. 95–501 by Pub. L. 101–624.