alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Inkpen, Respondent, v. Lehigh Construction Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. 'Claimant’s right to an award of compensation as the widow of the decedent employee depends on the validity of a Mexican divorce obtained by the decedent against his first wife. This is not an attack upon the validity of the divorce by the first wife claiming compensation; it is an attack by the employer, and insurance carriers, strangers to the marital relation. After the Mexican court had granted the divorce, the decedent and this claimant married in Connecticut in a ceremonial marriage before a judicial officer. A presumption of regularity attaches to this marriage, and a party attacking it has the burden of proving its invalidity. No such proof was offered, by appellants in this case. They offered merely the judgment of the Mexican court. On its face this judgment recites the jurisdiction of the court; the manner in which it obtained jurisdiction; and the relief it granted. No proof suggestive of invalidity has been offered by the appellants. Under the usual rules of comity, judgments of foreign nations are recognized unless there is some defect of jurisdiction shown to be against the public policy of the domestic State. It is neither shown that the decedent was not a resident of Mexico when he sued his wife for divorce nor that his former wife was not a resident of Mexico at that time. The place of service of process on a party is certainly not controlling on his actual place of residence. Nor has it been shown that Connecticut did not recognize the divorce in allowing the marriage between the decedent and the claimant to be solemnized. No ground has been shown to defeat claimant’s rights. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
204.201 Procedures. Follow the procedures at PGI 204.201 for the distribution of contracts and modifications. ( a ) In lieu of the requirement at FAR 4.201 (a), contracting officers shall distribute one signed copy or reproduction of the signed contract to the contractor.
[70 FR 58982, Oct. 11, 2005, as amended at 80 FR 58631, Sept. 30, 2015]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. La Verne A. Weires, Jr., Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Otsego County Court which denied, without a hearing, his application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*Defendant is now serving a sentence imposed in Cortland County Court on February 16, 1959, as a second felony offender. Defendant attacks the prior conviction used as a basis for the second offender sentence on the ground that his assigned attorney entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny, first degree, for him in the Otsego County Court. The clerk’s minutes and the stenographic record of defendant’s arraignment in the Otsego County Court clearly show that the plea of guilty was entered in open court with the defendant and his counsel present. A plea of guilty made by counsel under such circumstances is a compliance with statutory requirements. *(People*v. *Sadness,*300 N. Y. 69.) Order unanimously affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

TO:Deputy Secretary

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority to Make Final Determinations on Appeals of the Department of Education Disclosure Review Board’s Recommendations 

I.  DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, P.L. No. 96-88, 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to you or to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or otherwise delegated the authority to perform the functions and responsibilities of your position, the authority to make final determinations on appeals of the Department of Education Disclosure Review Board’s recommendations with regard to proposed data releases.  

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are not delegated:

A.the authority to sign Federal Register notices;

B. the authority to award contracts and discretionary grants;

C. the authority to appoint, and fix compensation of, members of advisory councils; and,

D. unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to Congress or the President.

III.REDELEGATION

You may redelegate any of the authority delegated to you.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Delegations Control Officer. 

      ________Arne Duncan__________________

                                                                                 Arne Duncan

__Tracey Sasser_7/30/13__________

OGC Signature and Date

Certified Date:  August 1, 2013

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  Bruce L. Monblatt

Control Number: EA/EB/168
#### AL-CO Properties, Respondent, v Roger H. Cheney et al., Appel*1029lants.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term incorrectly granted summary judgment to respondent for its real estate commission upon the sale of appellant’s home. The contract between appellant sellers and respondent realtor provided, among other things, that the realtor would submit the listed property to the multiple listing service of the real estate board within 48 hours and make efforts to find a purchaser. Although a ready, willing and able buyer was found by another unassociated real estate broker, appellants contend that respondent did not perform its part of the contract. The complaint, affidavits and other papers in support of respondent’s motion for summary judgment do not allege that all the terms and conditions on the respondent realtor’s part to be performed were, in fact, performed. Under these circumstances there exists a question of fact which precludes the granting of summary judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court—broker’s commission.) Present-Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.
#### 1503.600-70 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements and supplements FAR subpart 3.6 and sets forth EPA policy and procedures for identifying and dealing with conflicts of interest and improper influence or favoritism in connection with contracts involving current or former EPA employees. This subpart does not apply to agreements with other departments or agencies of the Federal Government, nor to contracts awarded to State or local units of Government.
§ 516.21 Litigation against government contractors. ( a ) *General.* A contract might require that the government reimburse a contractor (or subcontractor) for adverse judgments or litigation expenses. Unless a contractor or subcontractor facing a lawsuit requests representation by DOJ, the Army presumes the contractor will obtain private counsel to defend the case. If the contract so allows, however, the contractor may request and HQDA may recommend that DOJ represent the contractor if it is in the best interests of the United States.
( b ) *Actions by SJA or legal adviser.* If a contractor or subcontractor faces litigation and the underlying contract with the government requires reimbursement for adverse judgments or costs of the litigation, the SJA or legal adviser, through the contracting officer, should determine if the contractor desires representation by DOJ. If so, the contractor or authorized agent will sign a request for representation. (See figure D-3, appendix G, of this part.) The SJA or legal adviser will determine whether, in his opinion, representation by DOJ should be granted. He will prepare a memorandum to support his recommendation, especially concerning any issue regarding the government's obligation to reimburse the contractor under the contract. The SJA or legal adviser will forward his memorandum, along with the contractor's request, to Litigation Division.
( c ) *Actions by Litigation Division.* The Chief, Litigation Division, will evaluate the submission and decide if it is in the Army's best interest that the request be granted. He will prepare a memorandum supporting his decision and send the packet to DOJ. The Chief's decision constitutes the final DA position on the matter. If DOJ grants the contractor's request, the Chief, Litigation Division, will ensure that the contractor is notified through the SJA or legal adviser and the contracting officer.
( d ) *Private Counsel.* A contractor represented by DOJ may ask that private counsel assist the DOJ attorney in the litigation. The DOJ attorney will remain in control of the litigation, and the fees for private counsel will not be reimbursable except under unusual circumstances. The contractor must seek both DOJ and DA approval to employ private counsel when DOJ representation has been granted. Even if DOJ and DA grant authority to employ private counsel, the contracting officer will determine whether a contractor will be reimbursed under the contract for private counsel.
( e ) *Settlement.* The contractor, unless the contract specifies otherwise, will ultimately decide whether to compromise a suit. Reimbursement under the contract is determined by the contracting officer, with the advice of his attorney.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Boggy Bayou Road

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Designated Trails

Bayou Cocodrie NWR

3391 Poole Road

Ferriday, Louisiana 71334

Phone: 318/336 7119

email: 

N

0 2 1.25 Miles .5 5

BBU yellow trail

BBU gray trail

WLU red trail

WLU yellow trail

BBU green trail

WLU white trail

WLU green trail

CBU green trail

Handicap ATV trails

Boat Ramp Road

ARV trails

State Highways

US Highways

Private Land

Local Roads

BCNWR BOUNDARY

Closed Area

BBU Check Station

BCNWR Headquarters

Boat Ramp

CBU Check Station

WLU Check Station

Legend

Closed Area

CBU = 

Cross 

Bayou 

Unit

Prvt

BBU = 

Brooks 

Brake

 Unit

Poole Road

Closed Area

Private Land

Private Land

Private land

Closed Area

Cross Bayou Road

WLU = 

Wallace 

Lake 

Unit

Passman Road

84

566

 

 

129

565

565

15
#### 1452.280-4 Indian Economic Enterprise representation.

As prescribed in 1480.503(e)(4), insert the following provision in each written solicitation for supplies, services, A-E, or construction:

# Indian Economic Enterprise Representation (FEB 2021)

(a) The offeror represents as part of its offer that it [ ] does [ ] does not meet the definition of Indian Economic Enterprise (IEE) as defined in DIAR 1480.201 and that it intends to meet the definition of an IEE throughout the performance of the contract. The offeror must notify the contracting officer immediately in writing if there is any ownership change affecting compliance with this representation.

(b) Any false or misleading information submitted by an enterprise when submitting an offer in consideration for an award set aside under the Buy Indian Act is a violation of the law punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001. False claims submitted as part of contract performance are subject to the penalties enumerated in 31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3731 and 18 U.S.C. 287.

(End of provision)

[87 FR 20764, Apr. 8, 2022]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the
extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby
certify that this report on Form 10-K of MDI, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained herein this
report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of MDI, Inc. Dated: March 30, 2005 /s/ J. Collier SparksJ. Collier SparksChief Executive Officer/s/ Jon D. GreenwoodJon D. GreenwoodChief Financial Officer,Senior Vice-President, and Treasurer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

O.E. "Randy" Ray
256 New Gate Loop
Heathrow, FL 32746

April 3, 2000

Dear Randy,

Congratulations to us all on the closing of the Alpha Computer merger with
Avana!  We are very happy to have the deal consummated and be able to get on to
the work at hand.

This letter is to put in process the agreement that entitles you to a pay
increase, from $90,000 to $140,000, at the closing of the Alpha merger. The
remainder of your original employment agreement will remain in effect. This pay
increase will be effective April 3, 2000, which is the first work day
immediately following closing of the merger of March 31, 2000.

We're looking forward to great things ahead with Alpha on our team.

With highest regard,

/s/ Benjamin Holcomb
--------------------------------------
Benjamin Holcomb
CEO
# Title IV Loans Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 2015

# Facilitators

**Federal Negotiator**

# Non-Federal Negotiators

March 4, 2015
#### 16.304 Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts.

A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for an initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts are covered in subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.405-1 for a more complete description and discussion of application of these contracts. See 16.301-3 for limitations.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 12695, Mar. 17, 1997]
#### 19.403 [Reserved]
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED

June 26, 2018

v No. 336229

Wayne Circuit Court

RANDALL LEMONT BEAMON, LC No. 15

- 010482

- 01

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: M URPHY

, P .J., and J ANSEN and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

J ANSEN

, J

. ( concurring )

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen
§ 37.900 May I tell a participant that information in financial and programmatic reports will not be publicly disclosed? You may tell a participant that: ( a ) We may exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a trade secret or commercial and financial information that a participant provides after the award, if the information is privileged or confidential information. The DoD Component that receives the FOIA request will review the information in accordance with DoD procedures at 32 CFR 286.23(h) (and any DoD Component supplementary procedures) to determine whether it is privileged or confidential information under the FOIA exemption at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), as implemented by the DoD at 32 CFR 286.12(d).
( b ) If the participant also provides information in the course of a competition prior to award, there is a statutory exemption for five years from FOIA disclosure requirements for certain types of information submitted at that time (see § 37.420).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000013777
<NAME> BRADLEY REAL ESTATE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,946
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,495
<PP&E>                                         793,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 780,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,574
<BONDS>                                        401,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           238
<OTHER-SE>                                     347,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   780,924
<SALES>                                         31,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,041
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD A. BEACHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 7936

)

AEROTEK, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Counsel for plaintiff Richard Beacham (“Beacham”) have filed

a motion (1) for the voluntary dismissal of Complaint Count IV,

which sounds in intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

(2) for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

instanter. For the reason briefly stated here, the first of

those requests is granted while the second is denied.

No good reason appears for cluttering up the court file with

a new pleading, for the proposed FAC is nothing more than the

verbatim reassertion of the original (and still alive) first

three counts of the original Complaint. Indeed, that straightout copying actually extends to counsel’s mistaken retention, in

Paragraph 1 of the proposed FAC, of the words “and Illinois state

law for intentional infliction of emotional distress”--even

though that contention is no longer in the case.

Accordingly the motion to dismiss Count IV is granted, while

leave to file the FAC is denied. Hence the original Complaint

Case: 1:11-cv-07936 Document #: 16 Filed: 01/09/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:41
remains intact except for the deletion ordered here.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 9, 2012

2

Case: 1:11-cv-07936 Document #: 16 Filed: 01/09/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:42
#### **EXHIBIT 32.2**

#### ** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| ***/s/ Timothy J. Wiggins*** |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy  J. Wiggins          |
| Chief  Financial Officer     |
| Date:  February 28, 2006     |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hiawatha Watkins, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered February 17, 1961, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree (two counts); imposing sentence on the robbery count; and suspending sentence on the grand larceny count. The notice of appeal inadvertently states that the appeal is taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from a judgment rendered on February 17, 1960. On this court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is amended to state that the appeal was taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, from a judgment *982rendered as above stated. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., üghetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### STANDARD TRUST CO., Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by the Standard Trust Company, as executor, etc., of Alfred M. Perrin, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs; GOODRICH, P. J., being of opinion, however, that the verdict is excessive.
#### In the Matter of Solomon H. Budner, Petitioner, v Board of Regents of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which suspended petitioner’s certificate and registration to practice as a certified public accountant. Petitioner concededly pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the crime of unlawfully giving, offering and promising $3,500 to an Internal Revenue Service agent to influence the agent to commit a fraud and induce the agent to do and omit to do acts in violation of his lawful duty. He was thereafter charged by an investigator of the New York State Department of Education with having been convicted of a crime within the purview of section 6509 (subd [5], par [b]) of the Education Law and with unprofessional conduct within the purview of subdivision (9) of section 6509 of the Education Law. Following a hearing before a panel of the Committee on Professional Conduct of the State Board for Public Accountancy, it was determined that the charges against petitioner had been proven by substantial legal evidence. The Regents Review Committee recommended acceptance of the findings, determination and recommendation of the hearing panel. The Commissioner of Education found petitioner guilty of each specification of the charges and ordered that petitioner’s certificate and registration to practice as a certified public accountant be suspended for two years upon each specification of the charges of which he was found guilty, said suspensions to run concurrently, and he further stayed execution of the last two years of said suspension and placed petitioner on probation for that period of time. In the sole contention raised by petitioner in this proceeding, he argues that the measure of discipline imposed was excessive and an abuse of discretion. We will not disturb the punishment imposed in an administrative proceeding unless it is "' "so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness”.’ ” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 233; *Matter of Kones v Nyquist,*52 AD2d 1000.) We do not find the mitigating circumstances cited by petitioner sufficient to warrant our interference with the punishment imposed. The punishment, in our view, is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness and, consequently, the determination must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
# Summary

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/

# ALL SCHOOLS

&F		&A

# DE > 8  6 YR EARNINGS

#  DE >12 6 YR EARNINGS

# DE>8 10 YR EARNINGS

# DE 12 10 YR EARNINGS

# REPAY <50

# REPAY <35