alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 700 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 02 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
**DRAFT Proposed Modifications to Existing Regulation**

**04/28/2015**

**Issue Paper 5: Application of Department of Defense Lump Sum Payments**

**for Public Service Loan Forgiveness**

**Session 3:**April 28 – 30, 2015

**Statutory cites:**§455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

**Regulatory cites:**§685.219

**Summary of Change:**This change would revise §685.219(c)(2) to apply lump sum payments made on a borrower’s behalf through the student loan repayment programs  administered by the Department of Defense in the same manner as lump sum payments made by borrowers using Segal Education Awards after AmeriCorps service or Peace Corps transition payments after Peace Corps service.

**Changes:**See regulatory text below.

**§685.219  Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.**

**[ * * * ]**

(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 who is in an AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position or who qualifies for partial repayment of his or her loans under the student loan repayment programs under 10 U.S.C. 2171, 2173, 2174, or any other student loan repayment programs administered by the Department of Defense , 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 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 if a lump sum payment is made on behalf of the borrower through the student loan repayment programs under 10 U.S.C. 2171, 2173, 2174, or any other student loan repayment programs administered by the Department of Defense), 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.

(3) The Secretary considers lump sum payments made on behalf of the borrower through the student loan repayment programs under 10 U.S.C. 2171, 2173, 2174, or any other student loan repayment programs administered by the Department of Defense, to be qualifying payments in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section for each year that a lump sum payment is made.

1
C. A. No. 74-238.

#### State *v.*Frank J. Verdone.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *William G. Brody,*Special Asst. Attorney General, *962for plaintiff. *William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Paul E. Kelley,*Asst. Public Defender, for defendant.

*961Motion of defendant to reargue denied.
Nov 13 Dec 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 May 14 Jun 14 Jul 14 Aug 14 Sep 14 Oct 14 Total

Number of borrowers whose 

IDR recertification was due

 80,800 88,669 79,046 88,827 99,080 113,189 104,169 108,592 107,239 121,872 118,813 116,952 1,227,248 Percentage of 

Total

Number of borrowers who did 

not recertify on time

 46,023 49,548 44,161 52,078 58,778 64,714 59,970 62,638 62,292 67,218 64,185 64,425 696,030 56.71% Percentage of Late 

Certifiers

Number of borrowers who, 

after misisng the 

recertification date, went into 

a hardship related 

forbearance or deferment

 18,944 19,581 17,741 18,392 23,313 22,156 19,891 18,786 17,311 16,971 12,828 11,045 216,959 17.68% 31.17%

Number of borrowers who, 

after missing the 

recertification date, 

successfully recertified within 

1 month after the deadline:

 6,093 8,428 6,236 7,268 9,014 9,869 8,844 9,580 9,341 9,339 9,094 4,797 97,903 7.98% 14.07%

...within 2 months 4,754 5,825 4,888 5,860 6,125 5,741 5,685 6,160 5,477 6,664 4,189 557 61,925 5.05% 8.90%

...within 3 months 2,737 3,249 3,139 2,946 3,224 3,440 3,432 3,339 3,289 2,491 414 - 31,700 2.86% 4.55%

...within 4 months 1,647 2,021 1,650 1,738 2,097 2,234 2,142 2,262 1,411 304 - - 17,506 1.77% 2.52%

...within 5 months 1,307 1,316 1,009 1,306 1,452 1,497 1,493 1,069 238 - - - 10,687 1.23% 1.54%

...within 6 months 863 814 771 967 987 1,245 772 213 - - - - 6,632 0.87% 0.95%

Source of data: Poll of the six largest federal servicers conducted November 2014. 

Data cover twelve month period from 11/1/2013 through 10/1/14.

As stated in the source note, the data was collected through a snapshot taken in November 2014 by the six largest federal servicers. The data table looks at outcomes for borrowers who missed their income re-certification for up to six months. This was done in an attempt to 

distinguish those borrowers who would have benefited from on-time re-certification. It is possible that borrowers re-certified more than six months after the initial deadline. It is also possible that borrowers re-certified their income after exiting and deferment or forbearance. It is 

estimated that 15 percent of the borrowers who missed their re-certification deadline and did not re-certify within six months were delinquent at the time of the snapshot. The main purpose of the data pull was to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the late annual 

income re-certification issues to help inform potential improvement measures such as the income driven communication pilot and multi-year income authorization and release.

Sample Data on IDR Recertification Rates for ED-Held Loans
r -w f)_ 

-

.1 

I 

t 

 
.. .. "' "' ;:; => .. 

0 

...
#### 1352.228-75 Risk and indemnities.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1328.310-70(e) and 48 CFR 1328.310-70(h), insert the following in all applicable contracts for leased aircraft:

# Risk and Indemnities (APR 2010)

The contractor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its officers and employees from and against all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, suits and judgments (including all costs and expenses incident thereto) which may be suffered by, accrue against, be charged to or recoverable from the Government, its officers and employees by reason of injury to or death of any person other than officers, agents, or employees of the Government or by reason of damage to property of others of whatsoever kind (other than the property of the Government, its officers, agents or employees) arising out of the operation of the aircraft. In the event the contractor holds or obtains insurance in support of this covenant, evidence of insurance shall be delivered to the Contracting Officer.

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5250-5251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Countering Weapons of Mass 
Destruction (``CWMD'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

[[Page 5251]]

    Specifically, AimLock dba Dev-Lock Systems, Inc., Littleton, CO; 
Cahaba Micro, LLC, Pelham, AL; Consolidated Cordage Corporation, Boca 
Raton, FL; Encryptor, Inc., Plano, TX; Florida Institute for Human & 
Machine Cognition, Pensacola, FL; Intellisense Systems, Inc., Torrance, 
CA; INTERFUZE Corporation, Huntsville, AL; Pacific Advanced Technology, 
Inc., Los Olivos, CA; SciTec, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Shield AI, Inc., San 
Diego, CA; Technology In Images, Inc. (Ti2Inc), Pittsburgh, PA; 
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    Also, BAE Systems, Greenland, NY; Bill Baugh Associates, LLC, 
Millersville, MD; Bohemia Interactive Simulations, Inc. (BISim), 
Orlando, FL; Chenega Reliable Services, LLC, San Antonio, TX; Citadel 
Defense Company, National City, CA; CogniTech Corporation, Salt Lake 
City, UT; Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Ewing, NJ; Eirene Technologies, 
Inc., La Mesa, CA; GenScript USA, Inc., Knight Aerospace Medical 
Systems, LLC, San Antonio, TX; Military Battery Systems, Inc., Denver, 
CO; Morphix Technologies, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Nucsafe, Inc., Oak 
Ridge, TN; QinetiQ North America, Waltham, MA; VITNI Corporation, Hilo, 
HI; Women Veterans Contracting, Inc. (WVC), San Diego, CA have 
withdrawn from this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CWMD intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 31, 2018, CWMD filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10750).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 28, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 20, 2020 (85 FR 74386).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01049 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Equinor Energy LP v. Lindale Pipeline, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00712

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 44547

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

On July 8, 2022, appellant filed a motion to clarify the briefing schedule because the reporter’s record was incomplete. Appellant stated that it had requested all exhibits offered or admitted at trial, and that, after four extensions reque sted by the court reporter, the reporter’s record

that was filed did not include well over 100 exhibits that were offered or admitted at trial

. Accordingly, this Court issued an order on July 12, 2022, directing the court reporter to file the missing volu mes containing the more than 100 exhibits offered or admitted at trial. We ordered this supplemental reporter’s record to be filed by July 26, 2022.

On July 26, 2022, the court reporter filed a request for an extension until August 8, 2022 to file the sup plemental reporter’s record volumes, stating that she was “waiting on an agreement from Plaintiffs and Defendants as to a list of exhibits that they would like to include as a supplement to the Reporter’s Record.” Rule 34.6(d) permits the appellate court to order the court reporter to file supplemental volumes of the reporter’s record containing omitted items. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(d). Appellant has not advised this Court that it requested only items that the parties agreed upon. Instead, appellant r eq uested all exhibits offered or omitted at trial.

Accordingly, the Court grants the extension request but orders the court reporter to comply with the July 12, 2022 order and file volumes containing all exhibits offered or admitted

at trial by August 8, 2 022

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

______ /s/ Peter Kelly

________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ August 4, 2022

___
#### 1852.203-70 Display of Inspector General Hotline Posters.

As prescribed in 1803.7001, insert the following clause:

# Display of Inspector General Hotline Posters (JUN 2001)

(a) The Contractor shall display prominently in common work areas within business segments performing work under this contract, Inspector General Hotline Posters available under paragraph (b) of this clause.

(b) Inspector General Hotline Posters may be obtained from NASA Office of Inspector General, Code W, Washington, DC, 20546-0001, (202) 358-1220.

[66 FR 29727, June 1, 2001]
Opinion filed October 16, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-19-00067-CV

___________

BEVERLY AYER, Appellant

V.

ROBERT STOREY WILSON, D.O., Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV35440

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Beverly Ayer, hasfiled in this court a motion to dismiss this appeal. 

In the motion, Appellant states that the parties to this appeal “have reached an

agreement to compromise and settle” the issues involved in this appeal. Appellant

asks this court to dismiss the appeal and to tax costs on appeal against the party 

incurring same. In accordance with Appellant’s request, we dismiss this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).
2

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 16, 2020

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.232-76 [Reserved]
#### Edward E. Singleton, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered September 15, 1977, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $375,000 and directing a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to accept the sum of $50,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to direct a new trial on damages unless plaintiff shall, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order entered hereon, serve and file in the office of the clerk of Trial Term, Bronx County, a written stipulation to reduce the verdict to the sum of $250,000, and to the entry of a judgment in accordance therewith. The order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We deem the verdict as rendered by the jury excessive; but it should not have been "reduced" below $250,000. Concur-Silverman, J. P., Fein, Markewieh, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.
#### 209.170-3 Waiver of restriction.

The restriction in 209.170-2 can be waived by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), without power of delegation, in accordance with the Confucius Institute Waiver Program guidance. See PGI 209.170-4.

[88 FR 67609, Sept. 29, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
33-42214, 33-98160, 333-80857 and 333-80843 on form S-8 and No. 333-10665 on
Form S-3 of AXCESS, Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of AXCESS, Inc.  included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 2001
Docket Number FAA-2014-0196
#### 201.201 Maintenance of the FAR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KIRSHA BROWN-YOUNGER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1979

)

LULU.COM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court's July 25, 2012 memorandum order ("Order") dismissed this action by pro se

plaintiff Kirsha Brown-Younger ("Brown-Younger"). This supplement addresses two matters,

one substantive and the other procedural, that were omitted from the Order through oversight:

1. As for substance, the more expansive July 3, 2012 memorandum

opinion and order on which the Order relied had also ordered Brown-Younger "to

file an appropriate retraction and withdrawal" of the false personal charge that she

had launched with the ARDC against Amazon's counsel and to deliver a copy of

that retraction and withdrawal "to this Court's chambers solely for informational

purposes (not for filing)." Brown-Younger has not done that, nor has she even

attempted to voice some arguable justification for having made the ARDC charge

to begin with. That total noncompliance with a direct court order is another
manifestation of Brown-Younger's disrespect for the law that ultimately led to the

dismissal of her lawsuit.1

2. As for the procedural matter referred to earlier, a review of the docket

reflects that Dkt. 75, a motion by defendant Barnes & Noble, is still shown as an

open item. In light of the action's dismissal, that motion is denied on mootness

grounds.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 27, 2012

 Brown-Younger is fortunate in having dodged another bullet. On July 26 Amazon filed 1

a brief response to the Order stating that it would not pursue its earlier Rule 11 warning letter to

Brown-Younger by seeking added sanctions against her in this action.

- 2 -
Exhibit 32.2

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended
December 28, 2008

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
December 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn, Chief Financial 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/ James E. Brenn     
|James E. Brenn         
|Chief Financial Officer
|February 4, 2009       

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.
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





I, Bowen S. Diehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:


1. The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2022 (“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: February 1, 2022By:/s/ Bowen S. DiehlBowen S. DiehlPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adam J. DeMicco, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 808]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J), rendered February 10, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the second degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.60 [2]) and one count each of sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50 [4]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements that he made to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded.

*1263We reject that contention, inasmuch as “ ‘[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded’ ” *(People v Kunz,*31 AD3d 1191, 1191 [2006], quoting *People v Falkenstein,*288 AD2d 922, 923 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 704 [2002]; *see People v Peppard,*27 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 793 [2006]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.