alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 726 DATE February 10, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Burns vs. Social Security Administration

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Burns must either submit an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis with an accurate and complete

response to each question, or pay the $350 filing fee, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If Burns

submits an amended application, he must identify the sources of funds which he uses to pay his monthly

expenses. Burns’ failure to provide further information, or pay the filing fee, will result in dismissal of this case. 

The Court denies Burns’ motion (Doc [3]) for appointment of counsel.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on the motions of Plaintiff Casey Burns, Jr. (“Burns”) to proceed in

forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees, and for appointment of counsel. A litigant may proceed in forma

pauperis if the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Additionally,

a district court, in its discretion, may request that an attorney represent a party if the party is unable to afford or

obtain counsel and the party is unable to represent himself competently. Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir.

2004). 

The Court is unable to determine Burns’ ability to pay the costs of commencing this action or his ability

to afford counsel because his financial affidavit is incomplete. Specifically, Burns omits information, including

the amount of his most recent monthly wages, the dates of his last employment, and the address of his last

employer. Further, Burns states that he has no income, benefits, or assets, so the Court is unable to determine

how Burns pays his monthly expenses. Accordingly, Burns must either submit an amended application with an

accurate and complete response to each question, or pay the $350 filing fee, within thirty (30) days of the date

of this Order. If Burns submits an amended application, he must identify the sources of funds which he uses to

12C726 Burns vs. Social Security Administration Page 1 of 2
ORDER

pay his monthly expenses. Burns’ failure to provide further information, or pay the filing fee, will result in

dismissal of this case.

Additionally, Burns’ motion for appointment of counsel is incomplete and contradictory. Burns fails to

identify any attorney he contacted for representation or state why he was unable to find an attorney. Burns’

motion is also unclear regarding whether he is currently, or previously has been, represented by an appointed

attorney. Accordingly, the Court denies Burns’ motion for appointment of counsel.

Date: February 10, 2012 

CHARLES P. KOCORAS

U.S. District Judge

12C726 Burns vs. Social Security Administration Page 2 of 2
#### 1602.170-17 Postal Service.

*Postal Service* means the United States Postal Service.

[88 FR 20408, Apr. 6, 2023]
#### 1252.237-73 Key Personnel.

As prescribed in 1237.110-70(b), insert the following clause:

# Key Personnel (NOV 2022)

(a) The personnel as specified below are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract and may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be changed during the course of the contract by adding or deleting personnel, as appropriate.

(b) Before removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified individuals, the Contractor shall notify the contracting officer, in writing, before the change becomes effective. The Contractor shall submit information to support the proposed action to enable the contracting officer to evaluate the potential impact of the change on the contract. The Contractor shall not remove or replace personnel under this contract until the Contracting Officer approves the change in writing. The key personnel under this contract are:

[*Contracting Officer insert specified key personnel*]

(End of clause)
#### Ronald Vallone, an Infant, by Anthony Vallone, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Richard Todaro et al., Respondents.

— Judgment unanimously reversed insofar as the complaint was dismissed “upon the merits” and judgment of dismissal otherwise affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: We do not approve the conduct of plaintiff’s attorney, but, so far as the record shows, the Trial Judge gave no direction to dismiss the complaint upon the merits and it was, therefore, improper to enter a judgment dismissing it upon the merits, under section 482 of the Civil Practice Act. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint as to both defendants, upon plaintiffs refusing to proceed after opening statement by counsel for defendant Kroll, in an automobile negligence action,) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and MeClusky, JJ.
#### 1328.106 Administration.
#### (A) Thomas C. Lo Presti, Respondent, v. City of Buffalo, Appellant. (B) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Angelo P. Mole, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard F. Mole, Deceased, Appellant, and Queen Insurance Co. of America, Respondent. (C) Stephanie G. Peters, as Administratrix of the Estate of Felicia L. Peters, Deceased, Respondent, v. Thomas D. Powell et al., Appellants.

[In each action] Order of dismissal for failure to prosecute entered pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
#### 1616.7002 Clause—contracts based on cost analysis (experience rated).

The clause at section 1652.216-71 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts based on cost analysis (experience rated).
#### In the Matter of George H. Schultz et al., Respondents, v. Julian Liberman et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenburgh, Appellants.

On the call of the calendar, appeal dismissed; there being no appearance for appellants and appellants having failed to comply with the order of this court, dated September 19, 1960, requiring them to perfect their appeal for the November 1960 Term. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:19
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:21
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cv-01168 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:30
# U.S. Department of Education

# Negotiated Rulemaking

# 1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

# Washington, D.C.

# Borrower Defenses

# January 12-14, 2016, 9:00am – 5:00 pm

# AGENDA

**Welcome**

**Introductions**

**Overview of the negotiated rulemaking process**

**Review and adopt protocols**

**Petitions for membership**

**Overview of the issues**

**Formally finalize agenda**

**Discussion of issues**

**Next steps**

· Meeting 2:  February 17-19, 2016

· Meeting Summary

· Other
Muldoon, Albert (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

All, 

Muldoon, Albert (OST) 

Friday, February 08, 2013 4:44 PM 

mayor.office@cityofcarlsbadnm.com; 'jwaters@developcarlsbad.org' 

Boutique Air, Daniel Helland (daniel@boutiqueair.com); Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf 

(gkahlstorf@pacificwings.com); Bob Karns (Bob@Sovereignairinc.com); Devany, Dennis 

(OST) (Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov) 

EAS at Carlsbad, NM - Request for Additional Comments - Due February 20, 2013 

Thank you for responding promptly to our request for comments regarding the carrier selection decision at 

Carlsbad. In light of your comments, we would like to provide you with the following feedback and ask for 

your additional input. As we have reviewed the bids, we have eliminated Sovereign Air's proposals from 

consideration as they do not currently have the requisite authority to operate the proposed service from either 

the Federal Aviation Administration or the Department. We will also not consider either Option 1 or Option 2 

from Boutique Air as we find them not responsive to the RFP. They would both provide air service 

significantly in excess of what was requested and would require subsidy amounts that the Department cannot 

justify (particularly in light of potential sequestration which may result in communities losing service all 

together). Therefore, we are now corning back to you and asking that you narrow.your consideration to New 

Mexico Airlines' proposal and Option 3 (DFW only service) from Boutique Air. Please provide us with your 

thoughts regarding these two service options no later than February 20th. 

Regards, 

Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

I,.: .. ) 

1 

....... 

'····', ... '
**DRAFT**

**04/06/2015**

# Issue Paper 5

# Session 2:   March 31 – April 2, 2015

# Issue:Application of Department of Defense Lump Sum Payments for Public Service Loan Forgiveness

**Statutory cites:**

**Regulatory cites:**§685.219

**Summary of Change:**This change would extend the provision for the application of lump sum payments for borrowers seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) when lump-sum payments are made on their behalf by the Department of Defense (DoD).

**Changes:**See regulatory text below.

**§685.219**

**[ * * * ]**

(c)*Borrower eligibility.*(1)

**[ * * * ]**

(iii)  Makes 120 separate monthly payments after October 1, 2007, on eligible Direct loans for which forgiveness is sought. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for a borrower in an AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position or receiving lump sum payments through student loan repayment programs administered by the Department of Defense for active duty servicemembers, as defined in Section 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1) and (d)(5),the borrower must make the monthly payments within 15 days of the scheduled due date for the full scheduled installment amount; and

 [ * * * ]

(2) If a borrower makes a lump sum payment on an eligible loan for which the borrower is seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness by using all or part of a Segal Education Award received after a year of AmeriCorps service, or by using all or part of a Peace Corps transition payment if the lump sum payment is made no later than six months after leaving the Peace Corps, or through student loan repayment programs administered by the Department of Defense for active duty servicemembers, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1) and (d)(5), the Secretary will consider the borrower to have made qualifying payments equal to the lesser of—

(i) The number of payments resulting after dividing the amount of the lump sum payment by the monthly payment amount the borrower would have made under paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section; or

(ii) Twelve payments.

1
Draft For Discussion Purposes 9.9.13

**AGENDA**

**Gainful Employment**

**Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Meetings**

**September 9-11, 2013 & October 21-23, 2013**

1. Introductions

2. Review and approval of protocols

3. Committee membership 

4. Review and approval of agenda 

5. Overview of draft regulations and comparison with 2011 Final Rule 

6. General comments and introduction of additional or alternative proposals 

7. Draft regulations

a. Accountability metrics

b. Consequences

c. Data corrections, challenges, and appeals

d. Reporting requirements

e. Disclosure requirements

8. New items

a. Additional accountability metrics and non-completer accountability 

b. Approval of new programs

c. Other

9. Recognition and rewards for exceptional performance

10. Conforming regulatory changes
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 11, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 11, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24A1247. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAVANNAH v. SHAWNA STOKES GADSON.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
14.502 Conditions for use. ( a ) Unless other factors require the use of sealed bidding, two-step sealed bidding may be used in preference to negotiation when all of the following conditions are present: ( 1 ) Available specifications or purchase descriptions are not definite or complete or may be too restrictive without technical evaluation, and any necessary discussion, of the technical aspects of the requirement to ensure mutual understanding between each source and the Government.
( 2 ) Definite criteria exist for evaluating technical proposals.
( 3 ) More than one technically qualified source is expected to be available.
( 4 ) Sufficient time will be available for use of the two-step method.
( 5 ) A firm-fixed-price contract or a fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment will be used.
( b ) None of the following precludes the use of two-step sealed bidding: ( 1 ) Multi-year contracting.
( 2 ) Government property to be made available to the successful bidder.
( 3 ) A total small business set-aside (see 19.502-2).
( 4 ) The use of a set-aside or price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns (see subpart 19.13).
( 5 ) The use of a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns (*see* subpart 19.14).
( 6 ) The use of a set-aside for economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business Program (*see* subpart 19.15).
( 7 ) A first or subsequent production quantity is being acquired under a performance specification.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1739, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 60 FR 48260, Sept. 18, 1995; 63 FR 35721, June 30, 1998; 63 FR 70267, Dec. 18, 1998; 69 FR 25276, May 5, 2004; 72 FR 27384, May 15, 2007; 76 FR 18308, Apr. 1, 2011; 79 FR 43582, July 25, 2014; 79 FR 61750, Oct. 14, 2014]
Case: 1:12-cv-00572 Document #: 155-2 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:4228
Case: 1:12-cv-00572 Document #: 155-2 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:4229
Case: 1:12-cv-00572 Document #: 155-2 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:4230
Case: 1:12-cv-00572 Document #: 155-2 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4231
*

 Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

1990 K St., NW, 8th Floor Conference Center 

Washington, D.C. 

Team III – Accreditation 

April 21 & 22, 2009, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm 

April 23, 2009, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm 

Agenda*

Welcome 

Review, Revise, and Approve Meeting One Summary 

Review Draft Regulatory Text:

1. Definitions of Distance Education and Correspondence Education 

2. Accreditation Team Members 

3. Student Achievement Standard 

4. Operating Procedures – Transfer of Credit 

5. Operating Procedures – Teach-out Plan Approval 

6. Definition of Recognition 

7. & 8. Demonstration of Compliance Within 12 Months and Recognition When 

Not Fully Compliant / Recognition Procedures – Subparts C & D 

9. Direct Assessment Program Definition 

10. Distance Education and Correspondence Education 

11. & 12. Monitoring of Institutions and Programs Throughout Period/ Operating 

Procedures – Growth Monitoring 

13. Substantive Change 

14. Record Keeping and Confidentiality 

15. Due Process and Appeals 

16. Operating Procedures – Summary of Agency Actions 

Next Steps 

 
*

 Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting. 

Draft Regulatory Text 

Agenda for Meeting Three: May 18-20, 2009 

Meeting Summary 

Other
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4553-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]


North Dakota; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4553-DR), dated July 9, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 18, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of North Dakota is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of July 9, 2020.

    Kidder and Wells Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-29279 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Aaron Seligson et al., Appellants, v Albert Russo et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 86]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 3, 2006, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew and reargue and adhered to that part of the order, same court and Justice, entered February 21, 2006, directing that the fee of the receiver’s tax counsel be borne equally by the parties, *409unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the February 21, 2006 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

In molding its decree to the necessities of the case *(see State of New York v Barone, 74*NY2d 332, 336 [1989]; *Litho Fund Equities v Alley Spring Apts. Corp.,*94 AD2d 13, 17 [1983], *appeal dismissed*60 NY2d 859 [1983]), the motion court correctly perceived that, although the tax advice sought by the receiver related to the obligations of defendants as purchasers of the building he sold, the controversy over the transfer tax was generated by plaintiffs’ strong opposition to defendants’ position in the context of a protracted and contentious partnership dissolution. Since the receiver is an officer of the court, acts solely on its behalf and is otherwise a stranger to the parties’ dispute, whether plaintiffs consented to the fee split is immaterial *(see Matter of Kane [Freedman—Tenenbaum],*75 NY2d 511, 515 [1990]; *Lubitz v Mehlman,*95 AD2d 690, 691 [1983]). The imposition *of*sanctions against plaintiffs is unwarranted. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1813
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:1814
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:1815
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:1816
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:1817
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:1818
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:1819
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:1820
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:1821
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:1822
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-3 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:1823
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018 (“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 7, 2018 | By: | /s/ Michael S. Sarner |
|                         |   | Michael S. Sarner |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |
**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 Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard A. Santa, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)   The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

May 2, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/  Richard A. Santa                              |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard  A. Santa                                  |   |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation                  |   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----