alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended April 1,
2007

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2007            

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
1815.207-70 Release of proposal information. ( a ) NASA personnel participating in any way in the evaluation may not reveal any information concerning the evaluation to anyone not also participating, and then only to the extent that the information is required in connection with the evaluation. When non-NASA personnel participate, they shall be instructed to observe these restrictions.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal information outside the Government. If outside evaluators are involved, this authorization may be granted only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the determination of unavailability of Government personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL employees.
( 2 ) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one level above the NASA program official responsible for the overall conduct of the evaluation. If outside evaluators are involved, the determination of unavailability of Government personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these instances. ( i ) Proposals submitted in response to broad agency announcements such as Announcements of Opportunity and NASA Research Announcements;
( ii ) Unsolicited proposals; and
( iii ) SBIR and STTR proposals.
( 3 ) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 44408, Aug. 19, 1998]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 20411 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Justin Levar Taylor,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22

- CR

- 589

- 1

**______________________________** Before **Jolly, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Justin Levar Taylor appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

. He
argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022) , an d exceeds the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause . As Taylor concedes, b ecause he

**__________________ ___** 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 8, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20411 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024did not raise his issue s in the district court, review is for plain error only

. See United States v. Howard , 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government argues, Taylor’s unpreserved , Bruen

- based argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Jones , 88 F.4th 571, 573

- 74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied , 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. March 18, 2024) (No. 23

- 6769)

. In Jones , 88 F.4th at 573

- 74 , we rejected a similar plain

- error challenge

to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment , reasonin g that any error was not clear or obvious due to the lack of binding precedent and the divergent decisions reached by other circuit courts

. Therefore, t he Government “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to t he outcome of the case , ” and summary judgment is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. Further, as Taylor acknowledges , his challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 145

- 56 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Perryman , 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly , summary affirm ance is also warranted on this issue. For the foregoing reasons , the motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED,** and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is **DENIED.** Case: 23-20411 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2024
- 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

loans issuesgeneral provisionsACG/National SMART Grants
The U.S. Department of Education established four negotiating committees to address: (1) Title IV loan issues;  (2) issues related to the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs; (3) General Provisions; and (4) Accreditation.  Information regarding these commitees may be found at the pages linked below.   We will post additional information on this site as it becomes available.
                - **Loans Team**
                - **ACG/SMART Team**
                - **General Provisions Team**
                - **Accreditation Team**

Public Hearings for Negotiated Rulemaking for Programs Authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act: The Department held a series of four regional hearings beginning September 19, 2006 to solicit issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees.

OPE Policy Initiatives | OPE Home

----

 

 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
U. S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

Violence Against Women Act

January 13, 2014
 Goal of the Negotiated Rulemaking

 Clery Act versus Title IX

 What is Title IX?

 Title IX and Sexual Violence
 The goal of this rulemaking is to develop regulations 

implementing the new requirements of the Clery Act 

that were added by the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA).

 The Title IX regulations will not be changed through 

this process.

 VAWA amends only the Clery Act, which is a separate 

statute. The requirements of Title IX, including those 

set forth in the April 4, 2011 Dear Colleague letter on 

sexual violence, remain unchanged, and schools must 

comply with them as before.
 Schools’ obligations under the Clery Act are 

centered around collecting and reporting 

information with respect to campus crime 

statistics and campus security policies.

 Schools’ obligations under Title IX are centered 

around ensuring that students are not 

discriminated against on the basis of sex in the 

school’s education programs and activities.

◦ Sexual harassment, including sexual violence is 

a form of sex discrimination.
 Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in 

educational programs and activities receiving 

federal financial assistance.

 Title IX applies to all public and private 

educational institutions receiving federal financial 

assistance.
 Once a school knows or reasonably should know of 

possible student-on-student sexual violence, it 

must:

◦ take immediate and appropriate action to 

investigate or otherwise determine what 

occurred.

 If an investigation reveals that sexual violence that 

created a hostile environment occurred, a school 

must take prompt and effective steps reasonably 

calculated to end the sexual violence, eliminate any 

hostile environment, and prevent its recurrence.
 The process a school uses for resolving complaints 

of sexual violence must provide for a prompt and 

equitable resolution.

 The specific steps may vary, but in all cases a 

school’s Title IX investigation must be adequate, 

reliable, and impartial.

 A school’s Title IX investigation is different from a 

law-enforcement investigation.
 Must use the preponderance-of-the-evidence 

standard of proof.

 Parties must have an equal opportunity to present 

relevant witnesses and other evidence.

 If a school permits one party to have a lawyer, it must 

do so equally for both parties.

 If a school provides an appeal process, it must do so 

for both parties.

 Both parties must be notified, in writing, about the 

outcome of the complaint and any appeal.
 If sexual violence that creates a hostile 

environment did occur, the school must take 

reasonable, timely, and age-appropriate 

corrective action tailored to the specific situation.

◦ End the sexual violence;

◦ Eliminate the hostile environment; and

◦ Prevent recurrence

 In addition to taking action against the 

perpetrator, effective corrective action may 

require remedies for the complainant and 

broader student population.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11306]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 22, 2020.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00618 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
### §598. Separability

If any provision of the chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 86–687, §8, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 735.)
#### 1615.370 Applicability.

FAR subpart 15.3 has no practical application to the FEHBP because prospective contractors (carriers) are considered for inclusion in the FEHBP in accordance with criteria provided in 5 U.S.C. chapter 89 and 5 CFR part 890 rather than on the basis of competition *between* prospective carriers.

[52 FR 16040, May 1, 1987. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 31380, June 1, 2005]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1953

#### Editorial Note:

IAAR forms referenced in this subpart do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. The list of forms following 1953.370 is set forth for the convenience of the user. Forms may be obtained by writing: Office of Contracts, The Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, DC 20547.

#### 1953.370 The Broadcasting Board of Governors forms.

This section contains illustrations of The Broadcasting Board of Governors forms references in this IAAR.
#### LENTSCHNER v. LENTSCHNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

1. Judgment — Trial by Court — Necessity op Decision.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1228, providing that judgment on the decision of a court upon the trial of the whole issue of fact without a jury may be entered on filing the decision, a decision is essential to support a judgment dismissing a complaint after trial by the court.

Appeal from" special term, New York county.

Suit by Mollie Lentschner, an infant, by Charles Schwartzberg, her guardian ad litem, against Max Lentschner. From a judgment dismissing her complaint after trial at special term, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Alexander Rosenthal, for appellant.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This action was brought to dissolve a marriage contract on the ground of fraud. The defendant made default in pleading, and did not appear at the trial or on the argument of the appeal. The trial court, after hearing the proof offered by the plaintiff, rendered judgment dismissing her complaint upon the merits, from which she has appealed.

The learned trial justice sitting at special term made no decision, and there is, therefore, mo basis for the judgment. Where the whole issue is one of fact, and is tried by the court without a jury, a decision must be made before a judgment can be rendered. Section 1228, Code Civ. Proc. This is absolutely necessary; otherwise there are no facts to sustain the legal conclusion drawn. Deeley v. Heintz, 169 N. Y. 135, 62 N. E. 158. We are therefore unable to determine whether or not the court erred in rendering'the judgment which he did, inasmuch as we are precluded from examining the case on the merits; and for that treason we think the judgment appealed from should be vacated, and the matter remitted to the special term to the end that a decision may be made. All concur.
15.407-3 Forward pricing rate agreements. ( a ) When certified cost or pricing data are required, offerors are required to describe any forward pricing rate agreements (FPRAs) in each specific pricing proposal to which the rates apply and to identify the latest cost or pricing data already submitted in accordance with the FPRA. All data submitted in connection with the FPRA, updated as necessary, form a part of the total data that the offeror certifies to be accurate, complete, and current at the time of agreement on price for an initial contract or for a contract modification. (See the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data at 15.406-2.)
( b ) Contracting officers will use FPRA rates as bases for pricing all contracts, modifications, and other contractual actions to be performed during the period covered by the agreement. Conditions that may affect the agreement's validity shall be reported promptly to the ACO. If the ACO determines that a changed condition invalidates the agreement, the ACO shall notify all interested parties of the extent of its effect and status of efforts to establish a revised FPRA.
( c ) Contracting officers shall not require certification at the time of agreement for data supplied in support of FPRA's or other advance agreements. When a forward pricing rate agreement or other advance agreement is used to price a contract action that requires a certificate, the certificate supporting that contract action shall cover the data supplied to support the FPRA or other advance agreement, and all other data supporting the action.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 53147, Aug. 30, 2010]
15.101-1 Tradeoff process. ( a ) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.
( b ) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: ( 1 ) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and
( 2 ) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.
( c ) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.
19.305 Reviews of SDB status. This section applies to reviews of a small business concern's SDB status as a prime contractor or subcontractor. ( a ) SBA may initiate the review of SDB status on any firm that has represented itself to be an SDB on a prime contract or subcontract to a Federal prime contract whenever it receives credible information calling into question the SDB status of the firm.
( b ) Requests for an SBA review of SDB status may be forwarded to the Small Business Administration, Associate Administrator for Business Development (AA/BD), 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
( c ) An SBA review of a subcontractor's SDB status differs from a formal protest. Protests of a concern's size as a prime contractor are processed under 19.302. Protests of a concern's size as a subcontractor are processed under 19.703(b).
[79 FR 61750, Oct. 14, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 45843, July 14, 2016; 88 FR 53752, Aug. 8, 2023; 89 FR 30254, Apr. 22, 2024]
#### 2009.570 NRC organizational conflicts of interest.
BD Data Sheet D

Loan Status at Time of Claim 	Office of Postsecondary Education	

January 2018	 U.S. Department of Education

The data presented here illustrate the distribution of loan statuses at the time a claim was submitted.  The data were compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid (FSA).  Loan data are current as of November 2017, and underlying borrower defense claims are current as of October 2017.  Data are provided by number of claims and loan value in dollars (See Tables D.1 and D.2).

**Table D.1: Claim Counts by Loan Status**

****

**Table D.2: Total Loan Balance by Loan Status**

Assumptions

· Year—this is the year in which the borrower defense claim was submitted.

· Claim counts—some claims were associated to more than one loan.  If these loans had different statuses, then that claim was counted once for each distinct status.  Therefore, sum of claim counts may be larger than the count of distinct claim numbers.

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

· Loan value:

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

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

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

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

DRT 1852.2	PUBLIC	1
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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Wiggins 
|Timothy J. Wiggins     
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: February 26, 2008

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.