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

Attached is the FY17 IQ reporting template for you to use to compile your DRAFT agency reports. 

Please fill out your draft template using this Excel workbook. No other formats will be accepted. 

Please provide and verify your Agency's Information Quality webpage in Section I. 

Please note that this Excel workbook has 5 sheets (Instructions plus Sections I-IV. Each sheet 

contains a different section that must be filled out. Sections III and IV will require you to fill out a new 

form for each correction request you received. We have supplied 5 repeating forms for Section III and 

4 repeating forms for Section IV. If you should need more, please contact OMB for assistance. You 

can delete any forms you do not need. 

If your agency received no correction requests in FY17 and had no outstanding requests from FY03-

FY16, you need only to fill out Sections I and II of this form. 

In sections III and IV you will need to fill out a unique form for each correction request you received. 

Please do not post your draft reports on your webpages until OMB review is complete. 

Please send all completed draft IQ reports (Due by May 11, 2018) electronically to: 

InformationQuality@omb.eop.gov 

If you should have questions or problems, please contact Dr. Margo Schwab or Dr. James Kim at 

OMB. 

mschwab@omb.eop.gov 

Phone # 202-395-5647 

james_h_kim@omb.eop.gov 

Phone # 202-395-3085 
 2017 Year-End Information Quality Report 

Section I 

I. Cover Sheet: Requests for Correction Received FY 2017 (Oct 1, 2016 to Sept 30, 2017) 

Department Name: U.S. Department of Education 

Web page location of department 

information quality correspendence: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/iq/corrections.html 

Agency Name Number of Requests Received 

TOTAL 0 
SECTION II 

II. If you have received correction requests or appeals and did not provide a final response in FY03-FY15

 or FY16 please list those correction requests below and provide a detailed summary in secton IV of this

 template. This should be reconciled with your IQ report from the previous fiscal year. 

Number of Outstanding 

Requests from FY03-FY16 

that were completed in FY17 

or are still incomplete 

Number of Appeals 

Received in FY03-

FY16 that were 

completed in FY17 or 

are still incomplete 

Agency Name 

Complete Still Incomplete Complete 

Still 

Incomplete 

TOTAL 0 0 0
Exceptional Performer

Submitted by Thomas J. Dalton

Excelsior College

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

performers, regulator relief from the Gainful Employment regulations.  The

relief would exempt these institutions from the reporting metrics for the

gainful employment programs that they administer.

Schools would be classified as an exceptional performer if their

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

consecutive years.  By the time the current gainful employment regulations

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

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

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

be eligible for this exemption.

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

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

recommended threshold as this is already an established standard used to

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

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

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

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

funds to their students.

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

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

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

the administrative burden for these schools and the Department of

Education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

also should be noted that the use of the 3 year CDR versus the 2 year rate makes it a lot less likely that a school can manipulate their CDR.

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

CDR metric outlined above but could include institutions that have

borrowers with extremely high repayment rates or institutions that spend a

significant portion of tuition dollars on instruction.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Lumpkin, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 908]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered March 1, 2005, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention regarding the preliminary instructions given to the jury, and his contention that the trial court failed to admonish the jury not to discuss the case during an overnight recess *(see*CPL 270.40, 310.10; *People v Agramonte,*87 NY2d 765, 771 [1996]; *People v Bonaparte,*78 NY2d 26, 32 [1991]; *People v Taylor,*29 AD3d 713, 714 [2006]; *People v Robinson,*8 AD3d 502 [2004]; *People v Morton,*23 AD3d 411, 412 [2005]), and we decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Giddens,*202 AD2d 976 [1994]; *People v Moore,*161 AD2d 733, 734 [1990]; *People v Morton,*23 AD3d 411, 412 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
----

----

| Number      of unvested Sharesremaining | X | Participant’s      part-time percentage of employment | = | New      number ofShares      set to vest |
|-----------------------------------------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------------------------|

| Number      of unvested Shares asof      the change in employment status | X | Participant’s      part-time percentage of employment | = | New      number of Shares that      will vest |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|---|----------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

|  Optionee:                                                                              |  [NAME]            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|  Date      of Grant:                                                                    |  [GRANT      DATE] |  Grant      Number: | [GNT      NUMBER]  |
|  Shares      subject to option:                                                         | [SHR      NUMBER]  |
|  Exercise      price per share:                                                         | [PRICE]            |
|  Scheduled      date of vesting of first installment ("Initial Vesting    Date"):       | [VEST      DATE]   |
|  Number      of shares scheduled to vest on Initial Vesting Date:                       | [SHR      ON IVD]  |
|  Number      of shares scheduled to vest per month after the Initial Vesting      Date: | [SHR      PER MO]  |
|  Expiration      Date of the Option:                                                    | [EXP      DATE]    |

----

| I      accept |
|---------------|

----
#### 1516.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.
#### 1552.237-72 Key personnel.

As prescribed in 1537.110, insert the following contract clause when it is necessary for contract performance to identify Contractor key personnel.

# Key Personnel (APR 1984)

(a) The Contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel:

(b) During the first ninety (90) days of performance, the Contractor shall make no substitutions of key personnel unless the substitution is necessitated by illness, death, or termination of employment. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days after the occurrence of any of these events and provide the information required by paragraph (c) of this clause. After the initial 90-day period, the Contractor shall submit the information required by paragraph (c) to the Contracting Officer at least 15 days prior to making any permanent substitutions.

(c) The Contractor shall provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitutions, complete resumes for the proposed substitutes, and any additional information requested by the Contracting Officer. Proposed substitutes should have comparable qualifications to those of the persons being replaced. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor within 15 calendar days after receipt of all required information of the decision on substitutions. This clause will be modified to reflect any approved changes of key personnel.

(End of clause)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984, as amended at 81 FR 31528, May 19, 2016]
No. 8463.

#### Scarborough et al., Exrs., *v.*Gibson, Treasurer, et al.

(Decided February 2, 1904.)

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Mr. F. O. Buire; Mr. A. B. Benedict*and *Messrs.. Outealt & Foraker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Ampt, Ireton, Collins & Behoenle,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:19
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:21
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 09/07/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:26
1

DRAFT for discussion at 3rd meeting

4/23/2009

Issue 2

Proposed Regulatory Language

Team II – School-based Loan Issues

Origin: HEOA section 493(e)

Issue: PPA: Code of Conduct

Statutory cites: HEA section 487(a)(25) and (e)

Regulatory cites: New §668.14(b)(27)

DCL GEN-08-12 cite: Page 69

Status: Tentative agreement reached

Regulatory language:

§ 668.14 Program participation agreement.

(a)(1) An institution may participate in any Title IV, HEA 

program, other than the LEAP and NEISP GAP programs, only if the 

institution enters into a written program participation 

agreement with the Secretary, on a form approved by the 

Secretary. A program participation agreement conditions the 

initial and continued participation of an eligible institution 

in any Title IV, HEA program upon compliance with the provisions 

of this part, the individual program regulations, and any 
2

DRAFT for discussion at 3rd meeting

4/23/2009

additional conditions specified in the program participation 

agreement that the Secretary requires the institution to meet.

* * * * *

(b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an 

institution agrees that—

* * * * *

(27) In the case of an institution participating in a 

Title IV, HEA loan program, the institution--

(i) Will develop, publish, administer, and enforce a code 

of conduct with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed 

under the Title IV, HEA loan programs in accordance with 34 CFR 

601.22 21; and 

(ii) Must inform its officers, employees, and agents with 

responsibilities with respect to loans made, insured or 

guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs annually of the 

provisions of the code required under paragraph (b)(27) of this 

section.
3

DRAFT for discussion at 3rd meeting

4/23/2009

Issue 2

Amendatory Language

Team II – School-based Loan Issues

PART 668–-STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS

x. The authority citation for part 668 continues to read 

as follows:

AUTHORITY: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1070g, 1085, 1088, 

1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, and 1099c–1, unless otherwise noted.

x. Section 668.14 is amended by:

A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the acronym ―NEISP‖ and 

adding the acronym ―GAP‖ in its place.

B. In paragraph (b), adding new paragraphs (27), (28) and 

(29).

[NOTE to negotiators: At this point, paragraph (28) is included 

with Issue 7 and paragraph (29) is included with Issue 4.]

The additions read as follows:

§668.14 Program participation agreement.

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

(27) In the case of an institution participating in a 

Title IV, HEA loan program, the institution--
4

DRAFT for discussion at 3rd meeting

4/23/2009

(i) Will develop, publish, administer, and enforce a code 

of conduct with respect to loans made, insured or guaranteed 

under the Title IV, HEA loan programs in accordance with 34 CFR 

601.21; and 

(ii) Must inform its officers, employees, and agents with 

responsibilities with respect to loans made, insured or 

guaranteed under the Title IV, HEA loan programs annually of the 

provisions of the code required under paragraph (b)(27) of this 

section.
# U.S. Department of Education

# Negotiated Rulemaking Public Hearing

# September 10, 2015

# Washington, DC

# List of Presenters

09/25/2015
#### 1515.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1552.215-75, Past Performance Information, or a clause substantially the same as 1552.215-75, in all competitively negotiated acquisitions with an estimated value in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

[80 FR 20170, Apr. 15, 2015]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11079

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUDOLPH TATUM, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CR-81-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rudolph Tatum, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed after revocation of his

term of supervised release. He argues that his eighteen-month sentence of

imprisonment, which was above the recommended policy statement range of six

to twelve months, is unreasonable because the district court improperly relied

upon his need for rehabilitation to impose or lengthen the sentence.

We review revocation sentences to determine whether they are plainly

unreasonable. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 11-11079 Document: 00512144479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2013
No. 11-11079

132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). Because Tatum did not object to the reasonableness of his

sentence based upon the district court’s references to his alcohol abuse or

rehabilitative needs, our review of that issue is limited to plain error. See

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). In Tapia v.

United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2393 (2011), the Supreme Court held in a direct

criminal appeal that a district court “may not impose or lengthen a prison

sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise to

promote rehabilitation.” This court recently held that Tapia applies to the

revocation context. United States v. Garza, No. 11-10543, 2013 WL 398760, at

*1 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013). A district court, therefore, is precluded from

lengthening a revocation sentence based on the defendant’s rehabilitative needs.

Tatum has failed to demonstrate that the district court imposed or

lengthened Tatum’s revocation sentence because of his rehabilitative needs. 

While the district court referenced the opportunity Tatum would have to

participate in counseling services, our review of the record convinces us that the

district court did not impose or lengthen Tatum’s eighteen-month sentence on

that basis. See United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807, 811–12 (5th Cir. 2012)

(finding no plain error because the district court did not “impose or lengthen

defendant’s prison term for the purpose of making [the defendant] eligible for

any rehabilitative program”); cf. Garza, 2013 WL 398760, at *4 (finding plain

error where the court’s only justification for the sentence it imposed was the

defendant’s rehabilitative needs). Accordingly, Tatum has not shown that the

district court plainly erred under Tapia.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 11-11079 Document: 00512144479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2013
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01385]



[[Page 6672]]

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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Revised notice of open 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a virtual 
meeting on April 30, 2021. The meeting is open to the public. When a 
meeting is held virtually, members of the public may join by telephone 
or video conference to observe but not participate. An agenda and 
supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the 
meeting at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books. The announcement for this 
meeting was previously published in 86 FR 3196.

DATES: April 30, 2021, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One 
Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-
1820, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ddff8e1e8fecee2e0e0e4f9f9e8e8d2dee8eeffe8f9ecfff4cdece2a3f8feeee2f8fff9fea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="491b3c252c3a0a262424203d3d2c2c161a2c2a3b2c3d283b30092826673c3a2a263c3b3d3a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.

    Dated: January 14, 2021.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-01385 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES BRAND, BARRY FARMER, 

MARK GRAHAM, KEVIN JACKSON, 

MICHAEL JACKSON, JOSE VIGIL, and 

CHRISTOPHER WOODARD, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COMCAST CORPORATION and 

COMCAST CABLE 

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-01122 

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

To: Sari M. Alamuddin 

Rita Srivastava 

Allison N. Powers 

Alexandra S. Tuffuor 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

77 West Wacker Drive, Fifth Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Michael L. Banks 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 28, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 

counsel may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Judge Young B. Kim at the Everett J. 

Dirksen Building, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1019, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and present 

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ Ryan F. Stephan 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 248 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8927
Ryan F. Stephan 

Teresa M. Becvar 

STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 

205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Telephone: 312-233-1550 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, the attorney, hereby certify that on June 21, 2016, I electronically filed the attached 

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send such filing to all attorneys of 

record. 

 

 s/ Ryan F. Stephan 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 248 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8928
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY JOHN FARRIS, III,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GEORGE STRATTON, Acting Warden;

SCOTT M. KERNAN,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-16403

D.C. No. 1:04-cv-01758-GEBKJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Larry John Farris, III, pled guilty in state court to two counts of robbery and

admitted use of a firearm in exchange for a stipulated sentence of fourteen years. 

FILED

JUN 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

He did not appeal his conviction. After unsuccessfully pursuing state

postconviction relief, Farris filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district

court, adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, denied

his petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability and Farris

timely appealed.

The state court did not unreasonably conclude that Farris failed to establish

prejudice from counsel’s performance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2); Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Farris presented no evidence before the

state court that he would not have pled guilty but for counsel’s alleged errors. See

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (2005). Even considering the testimony

presented at the federal evidentiary hearing, Knowles v. Mirzayance, 129 S. Ct.

1411, 1419 n.2 (2009), the state court’s conclusion was not unreasonable. 

Moreover, Farris has not established that counsel performed deficiently. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Farris argues that counsel should have filed a motion

to suppress because some of the evidence against him was discovered pursuant to

an invalid search warrant. But it is apparent counsel decided not to file the motion

for strategic reasons, which are “virtually unchallengeable.” Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 690. Furthermore, counsel’s strategy was reasonable. The prosecutor would
3

likely have withdrawn a favorable plea offer upon the filing of a motion to

suppress, and that motion had little chance of success because of the good faith

exception to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F.2d 366, 367-

70 (9th Cir. 1993). 

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.