alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leon Nash, Respondent, v Herold Duroseau et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[835 NYS2d 611]—

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Herold Duroseau, Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 25, 2006, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated July 22, 2005, granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment against them upon their failure to answer and directing an inquest on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order dated January 25, 2006 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the order dated July 22, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc., and substituting therefor provisions granting that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the order dated July 22, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc. and thereupon denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion; as so modified, the order dated January 25, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff concedes on appeal that Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc., was not in default. Therefore, leave to enter a default judgment against that defendant should not have been granted.

*720With respect to the remaining appellants, in order to establish grounds to vacate their default, they were required to establish a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense *(see Anamdi v Anugo,*229 AD2d 408, 409 [1996]). In support of those branches of their motion which were to vacate their default in answering, they asserted the defense of lack of consideration. As third parties who were not parties to the mortgages which are the subject of this mortgage foreclosure action, they lack standing to raise the defense of lack of consideration on the ground that that defense is personal to the original mortgagor *(see 527-9 Lenox Ave. Realty Corp. v Ninth St. Assoc.,*200 AD2d 531 [1994]; *County of Tioga v Solid Waste Indus.,*178 AD2d 873, 874 [1991]). Accordingly, they failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. In view of the foregoing, we need not address the question of whether the excuse for their default was reasonable. Schmidt, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
209.571-6 Identification of organizational conflicts of interest. When evaluating organizational conflicts of interest for major defense acquisition programs or pre-major defense acquisition programs, contracting officers shall consider— ( a ) The ownership of business units performing systems engineering and technical assistance, professional services, or management support services to a major defense acquisition program or a pre-major defense acquisition program by a contractor who simultaneously owns a business unit competing (or potentially competing) to perform as— ( 1 ) The prime contractor for the same major defense acquisition program; or
( 2 ) The supplier of a major subsystem or component for the same major defense acquisition program.
( b ) The proposed award of a major subsystem by a prime contractor to business units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate entity, particularly the award of a subcontract for software integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture; and
( c ) The performance by, or assistance of, contractors in technical evaluation.
[75 FR 81913, Dec. 29, 2010]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1313 Prepped byLaTeia Shed



### Document

Number: 

# 8DII-B-5 5 Docket Number: 

# A-88-0 2

Printed 6/12/20089:03:31 AM

Sheet 81 of 99P. 2 

### TT- & - S S 

## A-88-0 2

Informatio n o n healt ho r ris k assessmen t wa s remove d from th e docket . Thi s informatio n wa s compile d befor e th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s (1990 ) bu t wa s no t use d i nth e developmen t o f th e chromiu

m NESHAP .



### tl \6b \ 8 \ i\\\U..—-r- T 5 . 

### \5\ 5 li '&JL5
206.302-4 International agreement. ( c ) *Limitations.* Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3204(e)(4)(E), the justifications and approvals described in FAR 6.303 and 6.304 are not required if the head of the contracting activity prepares a document that describes the terms of an agreement or treaty or the written directions, such as a Letter of Offer and Acceptance, that have the effect of requiring the use of other than competitive procedures for the acquisition.
[63 FR 67803, Dec. 9, 1998, as amended at 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### 14.202 General rules for solicitation of bids.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
  /s/ Alan RosskammAlan RosskammPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian P. CarneyBrian P. CarneyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edgar J. Murdaugh, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for reargument of his motion for leave to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel, granted. On *517reargument, order of this court, dated March 28, 1960, vacated, and motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the February Term, commencing January 30, 1961; the appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel denied. It appears from the motion papers that appellant either has in his possession a copy of the original papers to be used in the consideration of this appeal or has full knowledge of the contents of such papers. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 quarterly report of Chase General Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Barry M. Yantis                  
|Barry M. Yantis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|February 12, 2009
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

REWARDS NETWORK ESTABLISHMENT ) 

SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 12-cv-2544 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

PANNA, INC., a New York corporation, ) 

ZANZIBAR LLC, a New York limited ) 

liability company, and EMILIO BARLETTA, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

Rewards Network Establishment Services, Inc. voluntarily dismisses this action without 

prejudice. 

Dated: April 26, 2013 

By /s/ Robin L. Wolkoff 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Robin L. Wolkoff (ARDC #6204937) 

Brian J. Wilson (ARDC #6294099) 

Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll, LLP 

200 West Madison Street, Suite 3000 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 224-1200 

(312) 224-1201 (fax) 

 
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Robin Wolkoff, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 26, 2013, I caused a 

copy of the foregoing Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Motion to be served upon counsel 

of record via filing said document with the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/ Robin L. Wolkoff
#### 1606.001 Applicability.

FAR part 6 has no practical application to FEHBP contracts in view of the statutory exception provided by 5 U.S.C. 8902.

[52 FR 16039, May 1, 1987]
- '09242022 COMPLAINT-SDSU' of '24-00782-F San Francisco'
- '09242022 FINAL_SIGNED-R-NOT-DATA-REQ-LETTER_-_SDSU' of '24-00782-F San Francisco'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT BLAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEVRY INC. and ROSS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; DOES I-XX,

inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02637

Hon. Virginia Kendall

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants, DeVry Inc. and its subsidiary, Ross University School of Medicine

School of Veterinary Medicine Ltd. (incorrectly sued as “Ross University School of Medicine”),

respectfully move this Court to dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned matter pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). In support of this

motion, Defendants submit the attached memorandum.

Dated: Chicago, Illinois

June 1, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:24
2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. Ryan Stoll

R. Ryan Stoll

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 407-0700

Facsimile: (312) 407-8533

Ryan.Stoll@skadden.com

Attorney for Defendants

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:25
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above Motion to Dismiss was served upon the

following counsel on June 1, 2012, via the Court's CM/ECF system:

Jason Jeffrey Bach

jbach@bachlawfirm.com

Dated: June 1, 2012

/s/ R. Ryan Stoll

R. Ryan Stoll

Attorney for Defendants

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:26
#### § 226.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments (including their National Guard and Reserve components), the Unified and Specified Commands, the Defense Agencies, and Department of Defense Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as “Department of Defense Components”).
No. 8244.

#### Streit, Admx., *v.*Outcalt, Admr., etc., et al.

(Decided February 2, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Burch <& Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Philip Roettinger; Messrs. Harper & Allen*and *Mr. M. G. Slutes,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
Record of Contacts

Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0935 Directorate Identifier: 2011 - NM - 256 - AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?**  ORGANIZATION PERSON CON TACTED DATE RESPONSE Boeing Grant Rodland 10/20/2011 Concur. ATA Jo e White 11/03/2011 Other. List below .

Other/Additional Information: E - mail sent to ATA describing this AD action.
----

EXHIBIT 23.1

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-115219, 333-87444, 333-94749, 333-90669, 333-83989, and 333-83157) pertaining to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-37072) pertaining to resales of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid Yield Option Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, of Genentech, Inc. of our reports dated February 18,****2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Genentech, Inc., Genentech, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Genentech, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

Palo Alto, California
Proposed Permit and Related Documents
Appeal No. 74-316.

#### Wilburn E. Turner *et al. v.*Domestic Investment and Loan Corporation.

*Cohen & Chaika, Elliot S. Cohen,*for defendant-appellant.

Motion of defendant-appellant to supplement the record by filing the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Kiely on January 14, 1970 in the Superior Court is granted. Defendant-appellant’s motion for an extension of time as prayed is granted.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
      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; andd)
    
    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.
 December 7, 2005
    
    /s/ E. Bonnie Schaefer

    E. Bonnie SchaeferCo-Chief Executive Officer
 22
#### 1432.602 Responsibilities.

344 DM contains policy, standards, and guidelines for collection of debts within DOI. Each bureau and office is responsible for developing an internal debt collection system and prescribing internal procedures for collection of debts, including debts covered under FAR Subpart 32.6.
#### 1446.671 Inspection, receiving and acceptance certification.

As prescribed in DIAR 1446.670, the following documentation shall be completed via manual or electronic means for each delivery of supplies or services in accordance with Bureau procedures:

Inspection, Receiving and Acceptance Certification

The listed items or services have been: ________ inspected, ________ received, and ________ accepted and they conform to the contract except as noted below or on attached documents.

____________ Signature and typed name of authorized Government representative.

Date ________
**Issue Paper 6**

**Session 1:  November 13 - 15, 2017**

**Issue:**	False Certification

**Statutory cites:**§437(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)

**Regulatory cites:**34 CFR 685.215

**Summary of issue:**

The HEA provides that if a student’s eligibility to borrow “was falsely certified by the eligible institution or was falsely certified as a result of a crime of identity theft . . . then the Secretary shall discharge the borrower’s liability on the loan (including interest and collection fees).” Section 437(c) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1087(c)(1). The corresponding Direct Loan Program regulation states that a borrower’s loans are discharged when “a school falsely certifies the eligibility of the borrower (or the student on whose behalf a parent borrowed) to receive the loan.” 34 CFR 685.215(a)(1).   

A student’s eligibility to borrow has been falsely certified by the school if the school: 

· Certified the student’s eligibility for the loan on the basis of the borrower’s ability to benefit from the institution’s training and the student did not meet the eligibility requirements; 

· Signed the borrower's name on the loan application or promissory note without the borrower's authorization; 

· Certified the eligibility of a student who, because of a physical or mental condition, age, criminal record, or other reason accepted by the Secretary, would not meet the requirements for employment (in the student's State of residence when the loan was originated) in the occupation for which the training program supported by the loan was intended;

· Certified the borrower's eligibility for a Direct Loan as a result of the crime of identity theft committed against the borrower; or 

· Without the borrower’s authorization, endorsed the borrower’s loan check or signed the borrower’s authorization for electronic transfer, unless the proceeds of the loan were delivered to the student or applied to charges owed by the student to the school.

The Secretary also has the discretion to discharge a loan for false certification “without an application from the borrower if the Secretary determines, based on information in the Secretary's possession, that the borrower qualifies for a discharge” 34 CFR 685.215(c)(7). 

Question for consideration by the committee:

· Should the false certification regulation be changed to include other circumstances under which a borrower’s student loan would be considered to have been falsely certified?

1
#### 211.602 General.

DoD implementation of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System is in DoDD 4400.1, Defense Production Act Programs.

[64 FR 51075, Sept. 21, 1999]
Order entered November 30 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 01224
- CV
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORP ORATION, Appellant
V.
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES , INC., Appellee On App eal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 05352



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s November 23, 2016 unopposed motion for an extension of
time to file briefs. We GRANT appell ee ’s motion.
We ORDER appel lee to file its brief on or before December 16, 2016.
We ORDER appellant to file its reply brief on or before January 5, 2017.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71364-71365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0993; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-28]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tucumcari, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

[[Page 71365]]

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal 
Register on December 20, 2013. In that action, the FAA proposed to 
establish Class E airspace at the Tucumcari VORTAC, Tucumcari, NM. The 
FAA has determined that withdrawal of the NPRM is warranted as a result 
of objections raised during the comment period.

DATES: As of December 2, 2014, the proposed rule published December 20, 
2013, at 78 FR 77023, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service 
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 2013, a NPRM was published 
in the Federal Register (78 FR 77023) to amend Title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E Airspace extending 
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Tucumcari VHF Omni-
Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC) Tucumcari, 
NM, to contain aircraft while in Instrument Flight Rules conditions 
under control of Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center by 
vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. As a 
result of objections that were raised during the comment period, the 
NPRM is being withdrawn. A new NPRM will be forthcoming.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking,, as published in the Federal Register of 
December 20, 2013 (78 FR 77023) (FR Doc. 2013-30339), is hereby 
withdrawn.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 20, 2014.
Walter Tweedy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-28230 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
```