alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cv-02506 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/22/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:64
Case: 1:12-cv-02506 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:65
- 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

Color photo—Small

Color photo—Large

Color photo—Print quality

Black and white photo—Small

Black and white photo—Large

Black and white photo—Print quality

----

 

 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
#### Dominick Palmieri, Appellant, v Insurance Company of North America, Respondent.

— In a proceeding to recover first-party benefits pursuant to article 18 of the Insurance Law, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 16, 1978, which (1) denied his application to vacate and set aside the award of the arbitrator and (2) granted the cross motion to confirm the award. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The claimant-appellant was aware of the facts upon which he based his argument of bias on the part of the arbitrator prior to the award and failed to object; thus, he waived the opportunity to challenge the award on that ground (see *Matter of Milliken Woolens [Weber Knit Sportswear],*11 AD2d 166, affd 9 NY2d 878). In any event, the fact that the arbitrator is a member of a law firm that represents insurance companies and that he has been the adversary of appellant’s attorney in certain matters does not support a claim of bias. Arbitrators may determine the applicable rules and facts without their award being subject to revision unless there is "complete irrationality” *(Lentine v Fundaro,*29 NY2d 382, 385). A review of the record in this case indicates that the award was rational. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking – Violence Against Women Act

1990 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

8

th Floor Conference Center

February 24-25, 2014; 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Welcome 

Housekeeping Items

Remarks from Acting Undersecretary Jamie Studley

Review and Adoption of the Session 1 Meeting Summary

Overview

Discussion of the Issues

- Definitions

- Sexual Assault Prevention Policy Statement

- Counting Crimes

- Prevention Programs

- Disciplinary Proceedings

Next Steps

- Meeting 3: March 31 – April 1, 2014

- Other

Opportunity for Public Comment
#### 1604.705 Specific retention periods.

Unless the contracting officer determines that there exists a compelling reason to include only the contract clause specified by FAR 52.215-2 “Audit & Records—Negotiation,” the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1652.204-70 in all FEHBP contracts.

[52 FR 16039, May 1, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 47574, Sept. 10, 1997]
Exhibit
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




TO:
      Swiss
      Medica, Inc.





As
      registered independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Swiss Medica, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 of our report which includes an explanatory paragraph
      regarding the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as
      a
      going concern, dated May 31, 2007and contained in the Registration Statement **No.
      333-110840** of Swiss
      Medica, Inc. Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such report
      relates to the financial statements of Swiss Medica, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2006.


/s/
                RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLPRussell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani
              LLP


New
      York,
      New York


June
      12,
      2007
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the
"registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending April 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I,
Mark Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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


July 20, 2006


/s/ Mark Shefts
--------------------------------------
    Mark Shefts
    Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7487
BRIAN KEITH HART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SNODDGRASS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-181-3) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL and WI LKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Hart, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of probable cause andaffirm the district court. All of the Appellant's claims are procedurally barred, see Harris v. Reed , 489 U.S. 255 (1989); Wainright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977), except those alleging that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and that his sentence was excessive. The claims that are not procedurally barred, though, are without merit, as explained in the district court's opinion. Hart v. Snoddgrass , No. CA-95-181-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1995). We deny the motion for bail pending appeal in light of this disposition. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Office des transports du Canada Canadian Transportation Age n cy

Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation U. S. Department of Transportation X40, suite 6402 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by US air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007 and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to that Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity. Yours sinCerelY) 

# [

J J 

# , J~'

, I I 

# U v

. JUJ",J. . rJJ ... ! atherine MacDonald Manager International Agreements, Division B

cc Robert Ready, ANA Marc Rioux, ACEA. .

Ottawa (Ontario) K1 A ON9

www . otc . gc . ca Ottawa Ontario K1 A ON9 www . cta . gc . ca 

# Canada
No. 47,104

#### Gene Jones, Appellant, v. State of Kansas, *Appellee.*

(515 P. 2d 745)

Opinion filed November 3, 1973.

*Barry K.*Gunderson, of Dodge City, was on the brief for the appellant.

*John E. Fierro,*county attorney, was on die brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal by petitioner, Gene Jones, from an order denying postconviction relief under K. S. A. 60-1507.

In October, 1968, appellant was convicted of the offense of statutory rape and sentenced. Upon direct appeal this judgment was affirmed *(State v. Jones,*204 Kan. 719, 466 P. 2d 283). Thereafter this proceeding was instituted and appeal was perfected from denial of relief.

Of the four specifications now asserted as error, three were considered by this court and decided adversely to appellant upon his direct appeal (lack of jurisdiction in the trial court to try appellant; that the allegation in the information was too indefinite as to the time of the commission of the alleged offense, and that the prosecution should not have been allowed to proceed to trial upon an amended information). The postconviction remedy provided by 60-1507 cannot be used as a second appeal to reexamine questions raised and determined adversely to a defendant upon his direct appeal *(Cipolla v. State,*207 Kan. 822, 486 P. 2d 1391).

Appellant’s remaining specification of error is that in the direct appeal from his conviction the trial court wrongfully denied his request to change his court-appointed counsel. This complaint was never, presented to the trial court in the instant proceeding and error predicated on the ruling is not now properly reviewable *(State v. Smith,*209 Kan. 664, 498 P. 2d 78). If it were, relief could not be afforded upon this ground inasmuch as the matter was within the discretion of the trial court and abuse of that discretion is not shown *(State v. Walker,*202 Kan. 475, 449 P. 2d 515). Moreover, appellant concedes in his brief that he was adequately represented by the counsel complained of.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF BANCTEC, INC.

BancTec USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

BancTec (Management), Inc., a Delaware corporation.

BancTec (Export), Inc., a Virgin Islands corporation.

BancTec (Puerto Rico), a Delaware corporation.

BancTec (Canada), Inc., a Canadian corporation.

BancTec Limited, a U.K. corporation.

BancTec (Australia) Pty Limited, an Australian corporation.

BancTec Japan, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

BancTec Holding N.V., a Netherlands corporation.

BancTec GmbH, a German corporation.

BancTec S.A. a French corporation.

BancTec B.V., a Netherlands corporation.

BancTec AB, a Swedish corporation.

BancTec Danmark A/S, a Danish corporation.

BancTec Iberica S.A., a Spanish corporation.
#### Pioneer Village Development Corporation, Appellant, v XAR Corporation, Respondent.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant, entered May 5, 1978 in Saratoga County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, and canceled the *lis pendens*previously filed in the Saratoga County Clerk’s office. Judgment affirmed, without costs (see *Pioneer Vil. Dev. Corp. v XAR Corp.,*55 AD2d 769; *Bielawski v Bazar,*47 AD2d 435). Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
BD Data Sheet F

Loan Forbearance 	Office of Postsecondary Education	

January 2018	 U.S. Department of Education

The data presented here are loan forbearance data for loans associated with borrower defense claims.  The data were compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid (FSA).  Loan data are current as of November 2017, and borrower defense claims are current as of October 2017.  Month zero is the month in which the claim was submitted.  Data in Table F.1 are for claims that have at least one loan in a forbearance status.

**Table F.1: Claim Counts and Total Loan Balances for Loans in Forbearance**

Assumptions

· Month—the number of months that have passed since the month in which the claim was submitted.

· Claim counts—some claims were not associated with schools or loans.  Therefore, sum of claim counts may be different than the count of distinct claim numbers.

· Loan balance:

· value used was from month prior to that in which the claim was submitted

· value is the sum of outstanding principle balance and outstanding interest balance

· Loan attribution—loans were associated to a claim if they matched on OPEID and on either the loan's borrower Social Security Number (SSN) or student SSN.  When two claims matched to a single loan, the loan data was allocated on the borrower SSN.

· Consolidated loans—were de-consolidated to link them to borrower defense claims. 

DRT 1852.3	PUBLIC	1
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification of****Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, Tracy L. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

| 1. |   |   | the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2009 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation.                                    |   |   |

| Date: |  November 5, 2009 |  By: | /s/ Tracy L. Morris                            |   |   |
|-------|------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|       |                   |      | Tracy L. Morris, Chief Financial Officer  |   |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04-17-00774-CV

Judy MILLSPAUGH,

Appellant

v.

BULVERDE SPRING BRANCH EMERGENCY SERVICES,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-21767

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time 

is extended to April 16, 2018.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.7.1
                                    AMENDMENT
                                     to the
                                ALBERTSON'S, INC.
                   SENIOR EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSTION PLAN

     This Amendment is made by Albertson's,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the
"Corporation").
                                    RECITALS:

     A. The Corporation  established  the  Albertson's,  Inc.  Senior  Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan effective December 5, 1983 (the "Plan");

     B. The  Corporation,  pursuant to Section  8.01 of the Plan,  retained  the
right to amend the Plan and Section 8.01  provides  that the Plan may be amended
by the Corporation so long as such  amendments are  non-monetary in their effect
and do not materially alter plan benefits;  pursuant to resolutions duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, the Grantor Trust Committee of the
Board of  Directors  was  granted  the  authority  to amend the  Plans;  and the
Committee has been granted the authority to amend the Plans by the Grantor Trust
Committee so long as such amendments do not materially alter benefits;

     C. The Committee has  determined  that it is advisable to amend the Plan in
the manner  hereinafter  set forth and that such  amendment  does not materially
alter benefits.

                                    AMENDMENT

     The Plan is amended, as of December 15, 1998, in the following respects:

         Subsection  6.04(d)  of the Plan  shall be  deleted  and the  following
         language shall be substituted in its place:

                  (d) The Participant may modify the form of the distribution of
                  all or part of the  Participant's  Deferred  Benefit  Account,
                  provided that such  modification is made on a validly executed
                  and filed  election  form before the end of the calendar  year
                  which ends at least  twelve (12)  months  prior to the date on
                  which any distribution of the  Participant's  Deferred Benefit
                  Account shall have commenced.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  instrument  has  been  duly  executed  by  the
undersigned as of December 15, 1998.

                                   ALBERTSON'S, INC.


                                   By:  /s/  Thomas R. Saldin
                                        --------------------------------------
                                             Thomas R. Saldin
                                             Executive Vice President,
                                             Administration and General Counse
#### 208.705 Procedures.

Follow the procedures at PGI 208.705 when placing orders with central nonprofit agencies.

[71 FR 39004, July 11, 2006]
Case: 1:12-cv-01521 Document #: 13 Filed: 06/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:105
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2016-5040

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM192AD

A300-57-6047, R02 --- 4/2/99

A300-57-6047, R03 --- 9/28/99

A300-57-6047, R05 --- 5/27/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
              THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL 
              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD
              ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
              ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
              STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          $        59
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        13,273
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                          13,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     28,077
<PP&E>                               87,819
<DEPRECIATION>                       50,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       74,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                14,229
<BONDS>                                 200
<COMMON>                              1,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           44,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         74,989
<SALES>                              25,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     25,468
<CGS>                                22,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        23,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,565
<INCOME-TAX>                            532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,033
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          1,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.95
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Chatham Towers, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Intervenor-Petitioner, v Michael Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 468]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered September 27, 2006, denying relief from an earlier order that had denied petitioners’ application for permits and revocable consents from respondent New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) for the implementation and *309maintenance of a security plan for One Police Plaza, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court’s order of October 15, 2004 (6 Misc 3d 814 [2004]) was also the subject of an appeal to this Court (18 AD3d 395 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 704 [2006]). That order primarily addressed challenges to the sufficiency of the environmental assessment statement (EAS) produced by respondents, pursuant to the rules of procedure for City Environmental Quality Review and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, with regard to the security plan for the Police Department’s headquarters. Supreme Court found that the EAS was inadequate and directed respondents, inter alia, to “undertake an environmental impact statement [EIS] with regards to the implementation of the One Police Plaza Security Plan and the delta barriers [installed] on Park Row,” namely, a more rigorous environmental study, and to complete the EIS within 90 days of the service of the court’s order (6 Misc 3d at 828).

The order summarily denied the remainder of petitioners’ application without expressly addressing the individual claims, e.g., that respondents were required to obtain revocable consents from DOT for the use of public space necessary to implement and maintain the security plan. Unquestionably, evidence and arguments on this issue were submitted to the court, considered and subsequently included in the record on appeal. This Court then modified to the extent of deleting the 90-day deadline and otherwise affirmed, noting that “[w]e have considered petitioners’ remaining claims and find them without merit” (18 AD3d at 396). Thus, petitioners not only had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of identical revocable consents, but it was actually litigated and decided against them; further litigation of that issue here is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel *(Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449, 455-456 [1985]), and we affirm the judgment on that basis. With regard to petitioners’ application for relief from the prior order, we note that the alleged newly discovered evidence is a matter of public record which, for purposes of CPLR 5015 (a) (2), “is generally not deemed new evidence which could not have been discovered with due diligence before trial” *(Federated Conservationists of Westchester County v County of Westchester, 4*AD3d 326, 327 [2004]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.