alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted December 15, 2003,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration March 10,2004

#### DOUGLAS ALLEN ASHCROFT, *Petitioner, v.*PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD, *Respondent.*

00-1711; A118137

86 P3d 102

Harris S. Matarazzo argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Katherine H. Waldo, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

*468Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Ortega, Judges.

LINDER, J.

*469LINDER, J.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) denying his request for discharge or conditional release. Petitioner asserts that: (1) the record is insufficient to support PSRB’s finding that he suffers from alcohol dependence; and (2) such a diagnosis is not a mental disease or defect within the meaning of ORS 161.295(2). We conclude that the record contains substantial evidence that petitioner suffers from alcohol dependence. *See*ORS 183.482(8)(c). But we adhere to our recent holding in *Beiswenger v. PSRB,*192 Or App 38, 84 P3d 180 (2004), that alcohol dependence is not a mental disease or defect within the meaning of ORS 161.295(2). PSRB erred in so concluding.

As in *Laing v. PSRB,*192 Or App 462, 86 P3d 100 (2004), the state asserts alternatively that petitioner should be judicially estopped from arguing that alcohol dependence is not a mental disease or defect because he took the converse position in entering the plea of guilty except for insanity in the criminal proceeding that resulted in his commitment to PSRB’s jurisdiction. In *Laing,*we declined to decide whether the judicial estoppel doctrine should apply in such cases because the record there did not adequately establish that the petitioner in fact took the position in his criminal prosecution that his alcohol dependence was a mental disease or defect. *Id.*at 465-66. In this case, the record is even more sparse. No mental health or other form of medical assessment of petitioner — if any existed — was provided to the trial court. Instead, the record discloses only that the prosecutor and petitioner presented the trial court with their advance agreement that petitioner should be permitted to enter a plea of guilty except for insanity, and the trial court accepted the plea. The record does not reveal the factual basis for their agreement, for the plea itself, or for the court’s acceptance of it. Because it does not, we decline to consider the state’s judicial estoppel argument further.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
201.603-3 Appointment. ( a ) Certificates of Appointment executed under the Armed Services Procurement Regulation or the Defense Acquisition Regulation have the same effect as if they had been issued under FAR.
( b ) Agency heads may delegate the purchase authority in 213.301 to DoD civilian employees and members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 56705, Oct. 21, 1999]
Exhibit 32(d)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL ENERGY SUPPLY'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  March 1, 2004 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. Abel
Treasurer
PPL Energy Supply, LLC
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
100 Knot Stop, LLC 

P.O. Box 2032 

Adak, Alaska 99546 

(907)592-7867 

March 12, 2015 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

120o New JerseyAvenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Essential Air Service for Adak, Alaska, Docket DOT-OST-2000-8556 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer, 

On behalf of the owners of ioo Knot Stop, LLC, Adak's only grocery store, we are supporting 

Alaska Airlines' proposal to continue providing service to Adak as documented in the 

aforementioned docket. 

Our business is directly dependent on Alaska Airlines' jet service to Adak. Without the service 

provided by Alaska we would be unable to manage our inventory at acceptable levels. We have 

no other option of transporting critical inventory for our customers, as well as our general 

operating needs, as we have no scheduled barge service. We also have no ability to participate in 

the Bypass Mail program and are grateful not only for the regular lift capacity Alaska provides 

with its jet aircraft, but also the ability to reliably transport our perishable goods which come as 

air freight. 

We appreciate the commitment and service Alaska has and will continue to provide by selecting 

their proposal to continue providing essential air service for Adak. Not only do our customers 

rely on their service for their own shipments, but they also rely on Alaska's service so that we 

can also provide them with goods and services. Thank you for your consideration of our 

comments. 

Sincerely, 

Layton J. Lockett 

Managing Member
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant Home Bound Healthcare, Inc., move 

jointly for entry of the consent judgments attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. The consent 

judgments are being entered pursuant to a settlement agreement, which has been approved and 

signed by the parties.

Dated: September 13, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

ZACHARY T. FARDON

United States Attorney

By: s/ David R. Lidow 

DAVID R. LIDOW

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-1390

david.lidow@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the 

STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. VADIM 

SHMUSHKOVICH and BENJAMIN RINE, 

and VADIM SHMUSHKOVICH and 

BENJAMIN RINE, Individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOME BOUND HEALTH CARE, INC., an 

Illinois corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12 C 2924

Judge Durkin
2

Dated: By: _____________________________

ROMY MACASAET, on behalf of himself, 

individually, and on behalf of HOME 

BOUND HEALTHCARE, INC.

Dated: By: _____________________________

Shelly B. Kulwin

KULWIN, MASCIOPINTO & 

KULWIN, L.L.P.

161 North Clark Street, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Counsel for Romy Macasaet

Dated: By: _____________________________

Barry A. Spevack

Monico & Spevack

20 South Clark Street, Suite 700

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Counsel for Home Bound
1642.7001 Management agreement. When it is in the best interest of FEHBP enrollees to continue a contract for an interim period after the carrier discontinues its operations and has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (or other descriptive term), but before a successor in interest has been recognized by OPM, the carrier may submit for OPM approval a Management Agreement that enables it to continue a contract through an agreement with a third party to administer the day-to-day performance of the contract. Examples of situations in which a Management Agreement may be accepted by OPM are: ( a ) When a transfer of assets does not meet the criteria for a novation;
( b ) While a request for a novation is pending;
( c ) While awaiting a decision on a request for a novation;
( d ) As an interim measure, when the timing of a transfer of assets or the timing of a carrier's withdrawal make administration of the contract inconvenient;
( e ) When it is not in the interests of the Government to either recognize a successor in interest or to immediately terminate the existing FEHBP contract.
(September 26, 1960)

#### Salvatore Albicocco, Respondent, v. Vincent Nicoletto, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. The following question is certified: Was the order of the Special Term properly made? Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                  Exhibit 23


              Consent of Independent Accountants


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in 
the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration 
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-59405) of PP&L Resources, Inc. 
and of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-
20661 and No. 333-27773) of PP&L, Inc., in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-33565) of PP&L Resources, 
Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-
50031, No. 333-02003, No. 333-38003 and No. 333-38003-01) of 
PP&L Resources, Inc. of our report dated February 2, 1998 
appearing on Page 41 of this Form 10-K.





PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 3, 1998
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin McIntosh, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



By:

/s/    KEVIN
MCINTOSHKevin McIntoshSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer


Date: September 27, 2006
#### 16.207-1 Description.

A firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contract requires (a) the contractor to provide a specified level of effort, over a stated period of time, on work that can be stated only in general terms and (b) the Government to pay the contractor a fixed dollar amount.
#### In the Matter of Rita Golden, Respondent, v. Richard Fastenau, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 122 of the Domestic Relations Law, to establish the defendant’s paternity of a child bom out of wedlock and to compel defendant to support said child, the defendant appeals: (1) from the final filiation order of the Children’s Court, Nassau County, dated April 6, 1960 (entered April 18, 1960), which adjudges him to be the father; and (2) from *982the support order of said court, dated the same day, which prescribes the support and expenses to be paid by him. Filiation order affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the support order dismissed. The appeal from this order must be deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned in view of defendant’s failure in his brief to advance any contention that it is erroneous. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2

Eastern Division

Sourcebooks, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07738

Honorable Amy J. St. Eve

Anita Clenney

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, January 26, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by

defendant's counsel, the deadline for defendant to submit a written offer to plaintiff's

counsel and the Court is extended to 1/27/12. Mailed notice(vkd, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07738 Document #: 39 Filed: 01/26/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:212
1828.370 Fixed-price contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.228-70, Aircraft Ground and Flight Risk, in all negotiated fixed-price contracts for the development, production, modification, maintenance, or overhaul of aircraft, or otherwise involving the furnishing of aircraft to the contractor, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, unless the aircraft are covered by a separate bailment. See the clause preface for directions for modifying the clause to accommodate various circumstances.
( b ) The Government need not assume the risk of aircraft damage, loss, or destruction as provided by the clause at 1852.228-70 if the best estimate of premium costs that would be included in the contract price for insurance coverage for such damage, loss, or destruction at any plant or facility is less than $500. If it is determined not to assume this risk, the clause at 1852.228-70 shall not be made a part of the contract, and the cost of necessary insurance to be obtained by the contractor to cover this risk shall be considered in establishing the contract price. In such cases, however, if performance of the contract is expected to involve the flight of Government-furnished aircraft, the substance of the clause at 1852.228-71, Aircraft Flight Risks, suitably adapted for use in a fixed-price contract, shall be used.
( c ) When the clause at 1852.228-70 is used, the term “Contractor's premises” shall be expressly defined in the contract Schedule and shall be limited to places where aircraft may be located during the performance of the contract. Contractor's premises may include, but are not limited to, those owned or leased by the contractor or those for which the contractor has a permit, license, or other right of use either exclusively or jointly with others, including Government airfields.
#### Encarnacion Bermudez, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Order entered June 10, 1964, granting defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to accept an answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of a fall on a public sidewalk. Although the answer to the complaint was due on April 28, 1964, the Corporation Counsel did not serve the answer until May 8, 1964—ten days late. Plaintiff’s counsel returned the proffered answer with a notice of rejection. Upon the motion to compel acceptance of the answer — which in effect was an application to open a default — the Corporation Counsel urged that due to the great volume of pleadings which were being processed in his office, there was an inadvertent failure to seek an extension of time to answer. Such an extension of time could have been, and unquestionably would have - been granted by the court, even if refused by plaintiff, if application had been made before the expiration of the time to answer. (CPLR 2004.) The extraordinary aspect of this ease and appeal is that the time of our courts should have been expended in a matter that properly should have been disposed of by the exercise of simple courtesy between attar*866neys. It- must have;- been apparent to plaintiff's- attorneys, in view óf tbe nature of the case, that the City -of New York was- not deliberately defaulting in the suit. Since there could have been no reason to doubt the assertion of the Corporation Counsel’s office, that the failure to serve the answer in time was inadvertent and not prompted by bad faith, plaintiff’s attorneys should not have compelled the Corporation Counsel to move to open the default, and certainly should not have prosecuted an appeal from the order relieving defendants from the default. The unnecessary burden placed on the courts and counsel by the motion and appeal would have warranted the imposition of maximum costs against appellant. However, since defendant was in default, the application to open the default should not have been treated in the cavalier fashion demonstrated by the moving papers. Failure to make a more appropriate showing of a sufficient excuse and a meritorious defense impels us to deny costs on this appeal. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
Case: 1:11-cv-07996 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12
Negotiated Rulemaking Agenda

1. Changes to Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan

‐‐Process for Receipt of Cancellation

2. Changes to Income‐Based (IBR) Repayment Plan

‐‐New Borrower Notification for Annual IBR Evaluation

‐‐Annual IBR Income Verification

‐‐Borrower Repayment After Leaving IBR

‐‐Process for Receipt of Forgiveness

3. FFEL  Repayment Disclosures: Borrowers Who Are Having Difficulty Making Payments and

Borrowers Who Are 60‐Days Delinquent

4. Forbearance Provisions for Borrowers Receiving Department of Defense Student Loan

Repayment Benefits  

5. Borrowers Who Are Delinquent when Authorized Forbearance is Granted

6. Forbearance for Post 270‐Day Defaulted Loan Borrowers Prior to Lender Claim Payment  or

Transfer to ED Default Collections

7. Minimum Loan Period for Transfer Students in Non‐Term and Certain Non‐Standard Term

Programs

8. “Reasonable and Affordable” Payment Standard for Rehabilitation of Defaulted Direct Loans and

FFEL Program Loans  

9. Rehabilitation of Defaulted Direct Loan and FFERL Program Loans Treatment of Borrowers

Subject to Administrative Wage Garnishment

10. Participation Rate Index Appeal for Single Cohort Default Rate Loss of Eligibility to Participate in

the Direct Loan Program

11. Repeal of Unnecessary FFEL Program Regulations

12. Modification of Direct Loan Program Regulations

13. Total and Permanent Disability Discharge – Single Application Process

14. Total and Permanent Disability Discharge – Borrower Notification of Denial  
15. Total and Permanent Disability Discharge – Post‐Discharge Monitoring of Employment Earnings  

16. Title IV Closed School Loan Discharge  

17. Satisfactory Repayment Arrangements on Defaulted Title IV Loans for Borrowers who also

Rehabilitate the Loan  

18. School Enrollment Status Reporting Requirements

19. Federal Perkins Loan Graduate Fellowship Deferment Eligibility  

20. Social Security Number Requirement for Assignment of Federal Perkins Loans to Department of

Education

21. Federal Perkins Loan Cancellation Rate Progression Across Cancellation Categories

22. Federal Perkins Loan Economic Hardship deferment Debt‐to‐Income Ratio Provision

23. Federal Perkins Loan Break in Cancellation Service Due to Condition Covered Under the Family

and Medical Leave Act  (20 U.S.C. 2601 et.seq.)     

24. Standard for On‐Time Rehabilitation Payments in the Federal Perkins Loan Program

25. FFEL Program Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG) Hearings for Defaulted Borrrowers
#### 1409.407-1 General.

The Director, PAM, is authorized to make the determination in FAR 9.407-1(d).
Exhibit 32



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-QSB of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|/s/    LARRY EDWARDS    |  |  |  | /s/    CARL V. SCHMIDT 
|Larry Edwards           |  |  |  | Carl V. Schmidt        
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2005       |  |  |  | November 14, 2005
209.105-2 Determinations and documentation. ( a ) The contracting officer shall submit a copy of a determination of nonresponsibility to the appropriate debarring and suspending official listed in 209.403.
[71 FR 62559, Oct. 26, 2006]
#### In the Matter of Edward P. Kobylski, Respondent, v. Robert D. Agone, as Superintendent of the Union-Endicott Central School District, et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs on the opinion of Mr. Justice Brink at Special Term (37 Mise 2d 255). Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
2032.402 General. ( a ) The contracting officer has the responsibility and authority for making findings and determinations and for approval of contract terms concerning advance payments.
( b ) Before authorizing any advance payment agreements, except for subscriptions to publications, the contracting officer shall coordinate with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Division of Accounting and Finance, to ensure completeness of contractor submitted documentation.