alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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
#### In the Matter of Chaney Jenkins, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 922]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered October 12, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

In May 2006, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a September 21, 2005 decision of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. Subsequently, a de novo parole hearing was conducted in August 2006, which again resulted in the denial of petitioner’s request for parole release. As a result, Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition which challenges only the 2005 denial decision. This appeal ensued.

Petitioner’s challenge to the Board’s September 21, 2005 decision is rendered moot by the August 2006 de novo parole hear*1011ing, which is not before us (see *Matter of Rivera v New York State Div. of Parole,*23 AD3d 863, 864 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 709 [2006]; *see also Matter of Gaito v New York State Bd. of Parole,*238 AD2d 634, 634 [1997]). Given that the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable to the circumstances at hand (see *Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Friday, January 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 6611 

(PFECAs) and Sulfonic Acids (PFESAs) in 

Natural Waters Using Accurate Mass Timeof-Flight Mass Spectrometry (TOFMS). 

Environmental Science & Technology. 49: 

11622–116302015. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ 

abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01215. 

22. McCord, J. and M. Strynar. 

Identification of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances in the Cape Fear River by High 

Resolution Mass Spectrometry and 

Nontargeted Screening. Environmental 

Science & Technology 53(9): 4717–4727. 

2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017- 

0247-6. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Dated: January 7, 2021. 

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00456 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54 

[GN Docket No. 20–32; Report No. 3165; 

FRS 17372] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s rulemaking proceeding 

by David A. LaFuria, on behalf of Smith 

Bagley, Inc., Russell D. Lukas, on behalf 

of Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers, 

Carri Bennet, on behalf of Rural 

Wireless Association, Inc. and Jill 

Canfield, on behalf of NTCA-The Rural 

Broadband Association, Matthew B. 

Gerst, on behalf of CTIA and Maurita 

Coley, on behalf of Multicultural Media, 

Telecom and internet Council 

Convenors, 5G Fund Supporters. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before February 8, 

2021. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie M. Barrish, Auctions Division, 

Office of Economics and Analytics, 

(202) 418–0660 or Valerie.Barrish@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3165, released 

January 6, 2021. The full text of the 

Petitions can be accessed online via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

submission to Congress or the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being 

adopted by the Commission. 

Subject: Establishing a 5G Fund for 

Rural America, FCC 20–150, published 

at 85 FR 75770, November 25, 2020, in 

GN Docket No. 20–32. This document is 

being published pursuant to 47 CFR 

1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 

1.429(f), (g). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 5. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00464 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sam Carroll, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appellant concedes that he failed to serve or file his notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law. Motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for other relief dismissed as academic in view of the decision herein. Nolan, P. J., Beldóck, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global Competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 

MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy Under Secretary

FROM: Michelle Cooper

Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority to Make Determinations Regarding the Recognition of 

Accrediting Agencies or Associations under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), Title IV, Part H, Subpart 2 (20 U.S.C. § 1099b)

I. REDELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me through the Secretary by delegation, EA/EP/357, dated 

April 25, 2012, I redelegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for 

you in an acting capacity or delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of 

your position, the authority to make decisions under the HEA, Title IV, Part H, Subpart 2 

(20 U.S.C. § 1099b). Pursuant to this redelegation, you are delegated the authority to act 

as the Senior Department Official, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 602.3. Unless otherwise 

cancelled or superseded, this redelegation to act as Senior Department Official will 

remain in effect.

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are 

not delegated:
2

A. the authority to sign documents for publication in the Federal Register other 

than those documents designated in the blanket delegation of authority to sign 

Federal Register documents to Principal Officers;

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

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

the President.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This redelegation is effective upon concurrence of the Secretary, pursuant to 

Departmental Directive OM: 1-102 and certification by the Departmental Delegations 

Control Officer. I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this

redelegation taken by you prior to the date of certification. This redelegation supersedes 

all previous redelegations of this authority, including but not limited to EP/EA/174, 

certified on 4/3/2017, EP/EE/45, certified on 8/10/2020 and EP/EA/181, also certified on 

8/10/2020.

__________/s________________

Michelle Cooper

Acting Assistant Secretary 

 

OGC Concurrence and Date: Debbie Friendly; 3/1/2021

Certification Date: 3/1/2021
3

Control Number: EP/EE/47

Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens
M. P. No. 75-136.

#### Charles R. Flather *v.*John H. Norberg, *Tax Administrator.*

*Edwards & Angelí, Charles G. Edwards, Anne L. Northrup,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Allen P. Rubine,*Special Asst. Attorney General, *Perry Shatkin,*Chief Legal Officer (Taxation), for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN PHILLIPS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1791

)

DePAUL UNIVERSITY, etc., et al.,)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiffs have moved to remand this CAFA action to its

place of origin, the Circuit Court of Cook County, and defendant

DePaul University (“DePaul”) has filed its memorandum in

opposition. Today this Court has ruled orally that if DePaul’s

presentation were to be modified to take account of the fact that

its Law School’s figures as to the states of citizenship of its

current student body have been based on representations in the

students’ original applications for admission, while the yearafter-year experience of DePaul’s graduating classes is that a

much higher percentage have chosen Illinois citizenship instead,

it is a near certainly that well over two-thirds of the members

of the proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are Illinois

citizens. On that premise this Court would be compelled by 28

U.S.C. §1332(d)(4) to decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §1332(d)(2).

In that respect, even under DePaul’s own skewed mixture of

(1) the actual current citizenship of its alumni from the Law
School classes of 2007 through 2011 and (2) the non-current (and

doubtless inaccurate) citizenship information as to the three inschool classes of 2012 through 2014, 1,604 putative class members

out of a putative total of 2,440 have Illinois citizenship. That

works out to 65.7%, or less than 1% below the two-thirds figure. 

That means that just 23 students of the Law School’s present

student body would have to have shifted to Illinois citizenship

to compel this Court to decline CAFA jurisdiction.

But it is unnecessary to tweak the figures in that manner. 

More importantly, even if DePaul’s skewed approach were to be

adopted, this Court’s oral ruling has explained in detail why the

interests of justice and the totality of the circumstances have

led this Court to decline under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(3) to exercise

such jurisdiction. Accordingly this Court grants plaintiffs’

motion to remand the action to the state court, and the Clerk of

this District Court is ordered to mail the certified copy of the

order of remand to the Clerk of the Circuit Court forthwith.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 24, 2012

2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Carter, Respondent, v. C & L Restaurant & Grill, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. On August. 3, 1956 decedent, a chicken butcher, dropped a crate of chickens on his right foot. Gangrene set in necessitating amputation of the right leg above the knee on October 26, 1956. Appellants accepted liability for this injury and the resulting amputation. Subsequently decedent developed gangrene of the lower left extremity necessitating an operation to amputate the left leg below the knee. On February 26, 1959 decedent succumbed from cardiac arrest during the performance of this operation. Appellants assert that there is no substantial evidence to uphold the board’s finding of causal relationship between the original injury to decedent’s right toe and the fatal cardiac arrest. It is undisputed that decedent, even prior to the original injury, suffered from advanced arteriosclerotic peripheral vascular disease in both extremities. Claimant introduced the testimony of Dr. Gold, *the surgeon*who performed both amputations, as to the existence of causal relationship. Dr. Gold found causal *677relationship based on an added strain on the left lower extremity due to the amputation of the right lower extremity which in turn resulted in an increased demand on the blood supply of the left lower extremity which it could not withstand eventually producing gangrene and necessitating the operation during which decedent died. Appellants contend that Dr. Gold’s testimony is speculative and not entitled to weight, citing *Matter of Miller*v. *National Cabinet Co.*(8 N Y 2d 277), primarily on the grounds that there is no proof of added strain on the left leg as a result of the loss of the right leg. We do not find, however, that Dr. Gold’s testimony is of the same speculative nature as that condemned in *Miller (supra).*Furthermore, while it is true that the record indicates that decedent spent considerable time in bed and was fitted with a prosthesis to spare the remaining leg, there is also testimony that decedent prior to and even after acquiring the. prosthesis used crutches most of the time and that the use of crutches creates an added strain on the remaining limb. Appellants introduced testimony denying causal relationship, which created a question of fact. While admittedly the chain of causation is involved, in the final analysis the only issues in dispute are factual and thus since we find the board’s decision to be based on substantial evidence its determination must be affirmed (see *Matter of Penn*v. *Black Biv. Val. Club,*7 A D 2d 669). Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
19.103 Appealing the contracting officer's North American Industry Classification System code and size standard determination. ( a ) The contracting officer's determination is final unless appealed as follows: ( 1 ) An appeal of a contracting officer's NAICS code designation and the applicable size standard shall be served and filed within 10 calendar days after the issuance of the initial solicitation or any amendment affecting the NAICS code or size standard. However, SBA may file a NAICS code appeal at any time before offers are due.
( 2 ) Appeals of a contracting officer's NAICS code designation or applicable size standard may be filed with SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) by— ( i ) Any person adversely affected by a NAICS code designation or applicable size standard. However, with respect to a particular sole source 8(a) contract, only the SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development may appeal a NAICS code designation; or
( ii ) The Associate or Assistant Director for the SBA program involved, through SBA's Office of General Counsel.
( 3 ) Contracting officers shall advise the public, by amendment to the solicitation, of the existence of a NAICS code appeal (see 5.102(a)(1)). Such notices shall include the procedures and the deadline for interested parties to file and serve arguments concerning the appeal.
( 4 ) SBA's OHA will dismiss summarily an untimely NAICS code appeal.
( 5 ) NAICS code appeals are filed in accordance with 13 CFR 121.1103.
( 6 ) Upon receipt of a NAICS code appeal, OHA will notify the contracting officer by a notice and order of the date OHA received the appeal, the docket number, and the Administrative Judge assigned to the case. The contracting officer's response to the appeal, if any, shall include argument and evidence (see 13 CFR part 134), and shall be received by OHA within 15 calendar days from the date of the docketing notice and order, unless otherwise specified by the Administrative Judge. Upon receipt of OHA's docketing notice and order, the contracting officer shall withhold award, unless withholding award is not in the best interests of the Government, and immediately send to OHA an electronic link to or a paper copy of both the original solicitation and all amendments relating to the NAICS code appeal. The contracting officer shall inform OHA of any amendments, actions, or developments concerning the procurement in question.
( 7 ) After close of record, OHA will issue a decision and inform the contracting officer. If OHA's decision is received by the contracting officer before the date the offers are due, the decision shall be final and the solicitation shall be amended to reflect the decision, if appropriate. OHA's decision received after the due date of the initial offers shall not apply to the pending solicitation but shall apply to future solicitations of the same products or services.
( b ) SBA's regulations concerning appeals of NAICS code designations are located at 13 CFR 121.1102 to 121.1103 and 13 CFR part 134.
[85 FR 11758, Feb. 27, 2020]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Kitt, Appellant, v Stephen Dalsheim, as Superintendent of Ossining Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 22, 1978, which denied the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. From the record it appears the final revocation hearing was scheduled within the statutorily prescribed period (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]), and that the short adjournment was due to *935petitioner’s conduct in misleading the hearing officer as to his desire for the assistance of counsel. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 September 11, 2009
    /s/ Eugene S. KahnEugene S. KahnChief Executive Officer
#### 1852.227-84 Patent Rights Clauses.

As prescribed in 1827.303(a)(1), the contracting officer shall insert the following provision in solicitations for experimental, developmental, or research work to be performed in the United States when the eventual awardee may be a small business or a nonprofit organization:

# Patent Rights Clauses (APR 2015)

This solicitation contains the patent rights clauses of FAR 52.227-11 (as modified by the NFS) and NFS 1852.227-70. If the contract resulting from this solicitation is awarded to a small business or nonprofit organization, the clause at NFS 1852.227-70 shall not apply. If the award is to other than a small business or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR 52.227-11 shall not apply.

(End of provision)

[80 FR 12951, Mar. 12, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 50212, Aug. 19, 2015]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20003 Conference Calendar

JAMES ELLIS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus M. LYLES, Warden; GATTIS, Sergeant, STEVE PASOWICZ, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CV-3104

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Ellis, Jr., Texas prisoner #661137, appeals from the grant of summary judgment for defendant Steve Pasowicz in Ellis’s civil rights action. Ellis contends that the use of force against him on April 27, 1994, violated the Eighth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no nonfrivolous appellate issues. Accordingly, we dismiss Ellis’s appeal for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court when it granted Pasowicz’s summary-judgment motion. Ellis v. Lyles , No. H-94-3104 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 1997).No. 98-20003 -2- We imposed 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) sanctions on Ellis on August 20, 1998. Ellis v. Thaler , No. 97-20526 (5th Cir. Aug. 20, 1998)(unpublished). Because Ellis filed his notice of appeal and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) before August 20, we do not apply § 1915(g) to the instant case. We remind Ellis that he may not bring a civil action or appeal as a prisoner proceeding IFP unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
1316.506 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) Insert clause 1352.216-75, *Minimum and Maximum Contract Amounts,* in all indefinite quantity contracts, including requirements contracts, if feasible.
( b ) Insert a clause similar to 1352.216-76, *Placement of Orders,* in indefinite-delivery solicitations and contracts.