alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Shirley Evans

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01656

Honorable Joan B. Gottschall

NCO Financial Systems, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 30, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Pursuant to Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice [8], this action is dismissed with prejudice. All

pending dates are terminated as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(rj, )

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

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

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

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

refer to it for additional information.

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

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01656 Document #: 9 Filed: 04/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:27
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George L. Lewis and Otis Williams, Appellants.

Permission granted to prosecute appeal on certified copy of judgment roll, five typewritten appellants’ briefs.— Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless appellants’ briefs filed and served on or before December 8, 1960. Respondent directed to file and serve brief on or before December 23,1960.
# TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

Chap.
Sec.
1.
General Provisions [Repealed or Omitted]
1
2.
Elective Franchise [Transferred]
31
3.
Civil Rights [Transferred or Repealed]
41
4.
Freedmen [Omitted]
61
5.
Alien Ownership of Land [Transferred or Omitted]
71
6.
Immigration [Transferred, Omitted, or Repealed]
100
7.
Exclusion of Chinese [Omitted or Repealed]
261
8.
The Cooly Trade [Repealed]
331
9.
Miscellaneous Provisions [Repealed or Transferred]
351
10.
Alien Registration [Repealed]
451
11.
Nationality [Repealed or Transferred]
501
12.
Immigration and Nationality
1101
13.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
1551
14.
Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens
1601
15.
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
1701
### A review of surface-water sediment fractions and their interactions with persistent manmade organic compounds

By: P.J. WitkowskiJ. A. SmithT. V. FusilloC. T. Chiou

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir993

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                             SAVIN ELECTRONICS LTD.

To:     The Secretary of State
        State of New Jersey

        Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14A:9-2(4) and Section 14A:9-4(3),
Corporations,  General, of the New Jersey Statutes, the undersigned  corporation
executed  the  following   Certificate  of  Amendment  to  its   Certificate  of
Incorporation:

          1. The name of the corporation is Savin Electronics Ltd.

          2. The following  amendment to the  Certificate of  Incorporation  was
approved by the directors and thereafter duly adopted by the shareholders of the
corporation on the 13th day of March, 1996.

               RESOLVED,  that Articles FIRST,  SECOND,  FOURTH and NINTH of the
        Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read as follows:

               FIRST:  The name of the corporation is Savin Electronics Inc.

               SECOND: The name and  address  of the   registered  agent in this
               state is The  Corporation  Trust  Company,  820 Bear Tavern Road,
               West Trenton, New Jersey 08628.

               FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation
               shall have  authority to issue is Fifteen  Million  (15,000,000).
               The Par value of each of such  shares is $.0001.  All such shares
               are of one class and are shares of common stock.

               NINTH:  The  shareholders  shall not have any  cumulative  voting
               rights and any pre-emptive rights.

          4. The  number  of shares  entitled  to vote  upon the  amendment  was
          455,000.

          5.  That in lieu of a  meeting  and  vote of the  shareholders  and in
          accordance with the provisions of Section  14A:5-6,  the amendment was
          adopted by the shareholders  without a meeting pursuant to the written
          consents of the shareholders  and the number of shares  represented by
          such consents is 450,000 shares.

          6.  The  effective  date  of  this  Amendment  to the  Certificate  of
          Incorporation  shall  be  March  13,  1996  or as soon  thereafter  as
          possible.

        Dated this 13th day of March, 1996.

                                              SAVIN ELECTRONICS LTD.

                                              By:   /s/ Ron Fussman
                                                  -----------------
                                              Ron Fussman, President
#### 1322.807 Exemptions.

The designee authorized to exempt a contract from all or part of Executive Order 11246 for national security purposes is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### In the Matter of Jeremy M. Jacobs, Appellant, v Board of Governors of Crag Burn Golf Club, Inc., Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 763]—

*1202Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered July 20, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul respondent’s determination to create a new class of membership in the Crag Burn Golf Club, Inc. (Club), a not-for-profit corporation *(see generally Suburban Scholastic Council v Section 2 of N.Y. State Pub. High School Athletic Assn., Inc.,*23 AD3d 728, 730 [2005]). According to the Club’s constitution, there are several different classes of membership, including a class of Resident members that is not to exceed 250. The constitution further provides that respondent may designate new classes subject to the provisions of the constitution and bylaws. Petitioner contends that respondent violated the Club’s constitution and bylaws by creating a new “Conditional” class of members because respondent in effect increased the number of Resident members to more than 250. We reject that contention. Although Conditional members enjoy the same access to the golf facilities as Resident members, they do not have voting rights or the right to hold office. The Conditional members therefore are not considered Resident members, and respondent’s designation of the new class of members did not impermissibly increase the number of Resident members to more than 250. The court also properly determined that respondent substantially complied with any notice requirement before adopting the resolution. Present— Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
**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
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1645
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:1646
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:1647
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:1648
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:1649
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:1650
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:1651
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:1652
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:1653
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:1654
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:1655
Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 141 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:1656
#### Stanley Schwarzbart et al., Respondents, v. Henley Development Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a consolidated action by the purchasers of seven newly constructed one-family homes, to recover damages for breach of warranty, the corporate defendant seller, by leave of the Appellate Term, appeals from so much of an order of the Appellate Term, dated and entered April 25, 1960, as affirmed, on the condition stated below, a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, Sixth District, entered May 14, 1959, in favor of plaintiffs, in the aggregate sum of $14,855, on a jury’s verdict after trial. The affirmance by the Appellate Term was on the condition that plaintiffs shall stipulate to reduce the several amounts of the judgment in their favor to $1,550 on each home, or to an aggregate sum of $10,850. Plaintiffs have complied with the condition by so stipulating. Order of the Appellate Term, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. j
1428.306-70 Insurance for aircraft services contracts. ( a ) *Policy.* The CO shall insert minimum insurance requirements in aircraft services contracts in order to protect the Government and its contractors.
( b ) *Applicability.* The clauses prescribed in section 1428.311-2 are applicable to all fixed-price contracts involving use of aircraft with either a contractor-furnished or a Government-furnished pilot except for one-time charters when Government exposure is minimal and time limitations are present.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      14,505
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              167,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                106,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           293,265
<PP&E>                                     641,495
<DEPRECIATION>                              92,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,150,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      115,019
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    11,432
<OTHER-SE>                               1,015,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,150,978
<SALES>                                    386,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           386,741
<CGS>                                      226,904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              226,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           153,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         22,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .002



</TABLE>
Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/13/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:246
Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/13/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:247
Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/13/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:248
Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/13/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:249
No. 7807.

#### The Ohio & Pennsylvania Coal Co. *v.*House, Admr.

(Decided November 17, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Messrs. Billingsley & darle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. P. M. Smith; Mr. L. C. Moore*and *Messrs. Potts & Moore,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### Clinton Central School District, Respondent, v Clinton Teachers’ Association, Appellant.

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and appellant’s cross motion granted in accordance with the following memorandum: By order dated May 26, 1978 this appeal was stricken from the calendar with leave to appellant Clinton Teachers’ Association to restore upon the filing of a proper record on appeal (see *Clinton Cent. School Dist. v Clinton Teachers’ Assn.,*63 AD2d 854). Upon its motion, we granted reargument by order dated September 15, 1978. Upon reargument, the prior decision and order of this court are vacated, the order appealed is reversed, with costs to appellant, respondent school district’s motion to vacate the arbitration award is denied, and appellant’s cross motion to confirm the award is granted (see *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers’ Assn.,*41 NY2d 578). (Reargument of appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
To:	 Distance Learning and Innovation Subcommittee

cc:	Scott Filter

From:  	Jillian Klein and Leah Matthews (with input from Russ Poulin)

Date:	February 11, 2019

RE:	Proposed Definitions for Regular and Substantive Interaction

*Distance education*means education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1)through (4) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, either synchronously or asynchronously. ~~The technologies may include—~~

1. The technologies that may be used to deliver distance education include – 

(i) The internet;

(ii) One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;

(iii) Audio conferencing; or

(iv) Video cassettes, DVDs, and CD– ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD– ROMs are used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition.

1. Regular interaction is defined as  – 

(i) being initiated by the instructor, as defined in 600.2, 	Comment by Leah K. Matthews: Russ Poulin asks the committee to consider alternative language; widespread use of competency-based education with different interactive models utilizes instructors outside of the more traditional role that was anticipated at the inception of “regular and substantive”

(ii) occurring through predictable and regular intervals, and

(iii) covering the period of time prior to completion of all required assignments and demonstration of competency.

1. Substantive interaction is defined as – 

0. delivering an academic process, consistent with satisfactory academic progress requirements, as set forth in 34 CFR § 668.34, that engages students in teaching and learning, and

0. providing systematic and continual assessment of student learning outcomes.

**600.2***Instructor:*An instructor can include one or more persons employed by the institution, making up an instructional team, so long as this team includes at least one faculty member, as defined by the criteria established by the institution’s accrediting agency, who, independently or as a member of an instructional team, must provide regular and substantive interactions to students.**
#### Jeannette E. Rattray, Respondent, v. Sally J. Huntting, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Motion by respondent for the following alternative relief with respect to the decision and order of this court, made July 5, 1960, reversing an interlocutory judgment and granting a new trial: (a) to vacate said decision and order on the ground that this court lost jurisdiction by reason of the death on June 24, 1960 of the defendant-appellant Sally Jennings Huntting; or (b) to grant reargument; or (c) to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Motion referred to the court which rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. Motion to vacate the order and decision of this court made July 5, 1960; for reargument; and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. This appeal was submitted to the court on May 26, 1960. It appears that the defendant-appellant died on June 24, 1960, 29 days *after*such submission and 11 days before the decision was handed down. Motion denied *in toto.*Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION(1)  Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Brad Houtkin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the Company) of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:   1.The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  In witness whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 12th of  July,  2011.  /S/ BRAD HOUTKIN
Brad Houtkin
Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer  (1)This certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Arbor EnTech Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Arbor EnTech Corporation and will be retained by Arbor EnTech Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1803.7000 Policy.

NASA requires contractors to display NASA hotline posters prepared by the NASA Office of Inspector General on those contracts specified in 1803.7001, so that employees of the contractor having knowledge of waste, fraud, or abuse, can readily identify a means to contact NASA's IG.

[66 FR 29727, June 1, 2001]