alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York v. Richard Harwood.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied with leave to renew upon papers showing that the defendant qualifies for such relief. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
14.403 Recording of bids. ( a ) Standard Form 1409, Abstract of Offers, or Optional Form 1419, Abstract of Offers—Construction (or automated equivalent), shall be completed and certified as to its accuracy by the bid opening officer as soon after bid opening as practicable. Where bid items are too numerous to warrant complete recording of all bids, abstract entries for individual bids may be limited to item numbers and bid prices. In preparing these forms, the extra columns and SF 1410, Abstract of Offers—Continuation, and OF 1419A, Abstract of Offers—Construction, Continuation Sheet, may be used to label and record such information as the contracting activity deems necessary.
( b ) Abstracts of offers for unclassified acquisitions shall be available for public inspection. Such abstracts shall not contain information regarding failure to meet minimum standards of responsibility, apparent collusion of bidders, or other notations properly exempt from disclosure to the public in accordance with agency regulations implementing subpart 24.2.
( c ) The forms identified in paragraph (a) of this section need not be used by the Defense Energy Support Center for acquisitions of coal or petroleum products or by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia for perishable subsistence items.
( d ) If an invitation for bids is cancelled before the time set for bid opening, this fact shall be recorded together with a statement of the number of bids invited and the number of bids received.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 29280, July 11, 1989; 69 FR 59704, Oct. 5, 2004]
#### 1699.70 Cost accounting standards.

With respect to all experience-rated contracts currently existing under the FEHB Program, the Cost Accounting Standards, found at 48 CFR part 9904, of the Code of Federal Regulations, do not apply.
Exhibit 31.1
**Certifications**
I, Danny W. Mills, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American BuildingControl, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Dated: April 9, 2004 By  /s/ Danny W. Mills    Danny W. Mills    Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of William J. Mezzetti Associates, Inc., Petitioner, v State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority which, after a hearing, found that petitioner had violated subdivision 5 of section 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, suspended its retail store license for a certain period and forfeited its bond in the sum of $1,000. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. Section 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law falls well within the intended scope of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution and constitutes State action which does not conflict with the Sherman Antitrust Act (see *Matter of Theodore Polon, Inc. v State Liq. Auth., 59*AD2d 946). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gulotta, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.

Suozzi, J. P., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum:

The majority holds that section 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law falls within the scope of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution and constitutes State action which does not conflict with the Sherman Antitrust Act. In so holding, the majority relies upon a prior decision of this court *(Matter of Theodore Polon, Inc. v State Liq. Auth.,*59 AD2d 946). I concur in the result reached by the majority solely on constraint of *Polon.*However, it is my view that section 101-bbb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act and, in that regard, I agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the Supreme Court of California in *Rice v Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.*(146 Cal Rptr 585), which struck down a statute virtually identical to the one at bar as violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Exceptional Programs

Proposal

The Department seeks to recognize and reward gainful employment programs with exceptional outcomes.

Questions
        - What is exceptional performance?  How can it be measured?
        - Should a mechanism to recognize or reward exceptional programs be added to the gainful employment regulation or should this occur informally outside of the rule?
        - How can exceptional performance be recognized or rewarded? 

DRAFT for discussion purposes 9.11.13

DRAFT for discussion purposes 9.11.13
Appeal No. 74-251.

#### Russell N. Andrews *v.*Joseph H. Masse *et al.*

*Nugent & Nugent, J. Joseph Nugent, Jr.,*for plaintiff-appellee. *Roberts & Willey Incorporated, Bruce G. Tucker,*for defendants-appellants.

Motion of appellee to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court under Rule 16, as amended, is denied.

Roberts, C. J. not participating.
#### Richard D. Rosenblatt et al., Respondents, v. Richard Firestone, Appellant. Richard M. Firestone, Appellant, v. Atwood A. Klinger et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law, to delete therefrom all of the ordering and adjudicating paragraphs excepting only the final paragraphs thereof, with costs to appellant, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. It appears from the record that there exist issues of fact which may only be resolved at a trial. The affirmance of the order insofar as it denies defendant’s cross motion is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs Rosenblatt and Klinger for a stay of the action brought by Firestone against them pending the trial of the action by Rosenblatt and Klinger. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Gatti and Gino Albini, Appellants.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include September 1962 Term on condition appellants’ briefs are filed and served on or before July 2, 196-2.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                              FAB INDUSTRIES, INC.

                            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 Fab Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 26, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
A. Miller, 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:

           (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
           or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.


By: /s/ David A. Miller
    -------------------

David A. Miller
Chief Financial Officer
May 24, 2005
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 vs. No. 29,354 

5 CHRISTOPHER GARCIA,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Robert M. Schwartz, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Gorence & Oliveros, P.C. 

13 Robert J. Gorence

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 KENNEDY, Judge.

18 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

19 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

20 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

21 AFFIRMED.
2

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 __________________________________

3 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

5 _____________________________

6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

7 _____________________________

8 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
### §473c–2. Penalties for offenses relating to sampling of cotton

Any person violating any provision of section 473c–1 of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §3c–2, as added Pub. L. 86–588, July 5, 1960, 74 Stat. 329.)
### SERVED: OCTOBER 8, 2015
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTEROF AIRCAL, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-1324 (Civil Penalty Action)


### ORDER REASSIGNING 

### PROCEEDING ' ' ,. "1 l

.. :• c

On September 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwintransferred to the Food and DrugAdministration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwinto Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspendeduntil further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. 

### SO ORDERED.

Attachment-Service List Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawSERVICE LIST - BY

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Leonardo Concepcion, President Aircal, Inc., Respondent 

### 6411 West Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90045 FAX: 503-678-3374 ONE COPY



### Kevin Sullivan, Respondent'sRepresentative 

### TEL: 714-844-2520 MOBILE: 714-337-6912 EMAIL: krs500@msn.com David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

### Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 Judge J.E. Sullivan, US. Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ(: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-1324 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orbyexpedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
EXHIBIT 32.2

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended
December 31, 2006

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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 results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|/s/ James E. Brenn      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|James E. Brenn          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|February 2, 2007        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1901.104 Issuance.
1219.815 Release for non-8(a) procurement. ( b ) Contracting officers requesting the release of a requirement for a non-8(a) procurement will follow procedures prescribed at FAR 19.815 and submit requests through the DOT OSDBU Director. The OSDBU Director will submit the request to SBA's Associate Administrator for Business Development for consideration.
#### 1830.7002 Facilities capital employed for facilities under construction.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Chase General Corporation, do hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Barry M. Yantis                                                      
|Barry M. Yantis                                                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and
Chairman of the Board

Dated: May 10, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SONION NEDERLAND BV, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 76

)

ASIUS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This action, which has been pending for something less than

two weeks short of a year, has just been transferred to this

District Court from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware and has been assigned at random to this

Court’s calendar. Although the November 18 and December 21, 2011

opinions by Delaware District Judge Robert Kugler granted that

transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) as appropriate in terms of the

“first-filed” rule (this Court’s colleague Honorable John Grady

has on his calendar an earlier-filed action between the same

parties and posing the same issues (at least in part), this case

does not qualify for direct assignment to Judge Grady under our

District Court’s LR 40.3--hence the random assignment to this

Court’s calendar is entirely proper.

That said, however, the same facts appear to portend the

prospect of a motion for reassignment to Judge Grady’s calendar

under LR 40.4 on grounds of relatedness. Meanwhile, though, the

case is before this Court. It therefore orders an early status
hearing at 9:30 a.m. January 19, 2012 for the purpose of

discussing the future course of this litigation.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 10, 2012

2
Appeal No. 74-40.

#### John F. Hreschak *v.*Brown *&*Sharpe Mfg. Co.

*Thornton, Thornton & Naccarato, Inc., William B. Thornton,*for appellant. *Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Thomas J. Hogan, Robert W. Lovegreen,*for appellee.

Motion of appellee to affirm the decree of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission pursuant to Rule 16(g) is granted.
#### 1552.210-73--1552.210-74 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Unity Theatres Corp., Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Petitioner appeals from an order of Special Term reducing the tax assessments on the property located at 211 West 125th Street. The proceeding involved four tax years. For the first three years we are in substantial accord with Special Tenn’s findings, and the order in respect to those years is affirmed. As to the last year, we agree with appellant that the assessment even with the reduction allowed still exceeded the fair value of the property.

Up to 1961-62 the property had been a moving picture theatre, with stores. In that year the theatre portion had been converted to a bowling alley. The actual rental for the stores was $26,400, which, with a vacancy allowance of 5%, would amount to $25,080. Appellant’s brief virtually concedes a rental value of $30,000 for the bowling alleys. This figure represents the highest rental in the graded lease and was more than the amount actually payable in the year in question. Moreover, the obligation to reconstruct the premises for use as bowling alleys was on the tenant, and in the absence of acceptable proof of what the amortized proportion of this expense would be, it would appear that $30,000 is not an excessive rent for the year hi question, and no higher rental value was shown. From the total of $55,080 there should be deducted expenses, which we find, from a study of those actually involved, would reduce the net return to $51,000, before real estate taxes. Both parties agree that capitalization of the net income is the proper gouge of value. The land value found by the court was $250,000. This was in accord with findings for prior years, coupled with testimony that land values in the area had not decreased. Allowing a return of 6% above taxes on the land, this would require roughly $25,000 of the income to be attributed to it, leaving a net of $26,000 to be applied to the building. The capitalization rate of 9%% plus taxes, while it does not accord exactly with either expert’s testimony, approximates both. This would result in a value of $185,000, or a total for land and building of $435,000.

The assessment'should be modified accordingly.

Botein, P, J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Stener, JJ., concur.

Order, entered on June 14, 1963, unanimously modified in accordance with the opinion *Per Curiam*of this court filed herein. Settle order on notice.
#### 1952.102-2 Incorporation in full text.

All IAAR provisions and clauses shall be incorporated in solicitations and/or contracts in full text.
- 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

| Print photo |
|-------------|

Catherine Lhamon recently served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice and Equity, where she managed the President's equity policy portfolio. Until January 2021, she chaired the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to which President Obama appointed her in 2016, and served as Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Before then, Lhamon was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, to which President Obama nominated her and the Senate confirmed her in 2013. Lhamon has also litigated civil rights cases at National Center for Youth Law, Public Counsel Law Center, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Lhamon taught federal civil rights appeals at Georgetown University Law Center in the Appellate Litigation Program, and clerked for the Honorable William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Born in Virginia and raised in California, Lhamon graduated from Amherst College and Yale Law School. Lhamon, her husband and two teenagers moved from California to Maryland.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

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

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

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

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov