alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Head Start bulletin [electronicresource]: enhancing Head Start communication.**
 
60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69
70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79
80
 
SuDoc Number:HE 23.1103:
Item Number:0499-G-07 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000623630
 
September 3, 2019
#### Buckley Petroleum Products, Inc., and All Other Creditors Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Abe Goldman et al., Appellants, and Joseph Schwartz, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion denied, without costs, with leave to renew upon appropriate papers. Memorandum: The moving papers were totally inadequate and insufficient and the motion should have been denied with leave to renew upon appropriate papers. (Appeal by defendants, Abe Goldman and Markson Bros, Inc., from order of Onondaga Special Term granting a motion of plaintiffs for examination of certain defendants and for discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GARY HANLEY on behalf of himself and others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-1612

Judge Castillo

JURY DEMANDED

PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S DIALERS

The parties to this action hereby stipulate that for purposes of this action only, any calls 

made using defendant’s dialers to plaintiff or the putative class, should a class be certified in 

this action, were made using an “automatic telephone dialing system” as that term is used in 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., and implementing regulations 

and Federal Communications Commission orders. 

It is the desire of the parties to take this issue out of contention, and is the intent of the 

parties that this stipulation be binding upon them only in this action. Defendant is therefore 

barred from arguing that it did not use an “automatic telephone dialing system” in this action. 

In turn, plaintiff agrees that this stipulation moots all discovery requests relating to whether 

defendant’s dialers constitute an “automatic telephone dialing system.” However, the parties 

agree that plaintiff reserves the right to request such documents if they are discoverable as to 

other issues in the case; defendant reserves the right to object to any such requests. 

So stipulated,

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

Counsel for Plaintiff 

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

/s/Gary S. Caplan

Gary S. Caplan

Counsel for Defendant

ReedSmith

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 35 Filed: 08/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:97
Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

10 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606-7507 

(312) 207-1000

(312) 207-6400

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 35 Filed: 08/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:98
#### 2131.205 Selected costs.
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:199
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:200
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:201
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:202
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:203
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:204
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:205
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:206
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:207
Case: 1:11-cv-07779 Document #: 41 Filed: 10/16/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:208
Exhibit 32.1

              Certification of President and Chairman of the Board

  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code


     I, Gary L. Martin, President and Chairman of the Board of Capital Southwest
Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

     1. the Form 10-Q,  filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on
August 7, 2008  ("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: August 7, 2008                              By:  /s/ Gary L. Martin
      --------------                                   -------------------------
                                                       Gary L. Martin, President
                                                       and Chairman of the Board
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7275** 

WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ERIC D. WILSON, Warden , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00332

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILT ON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Terrence Cross , a federal prisoner, appeals the d istrict court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cross v. Wilson , No. 2:11

- cv - 00332

- RBS

- DEM (E.D. Va. July 1 , 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6994

LANOL JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RODRICK H. SOWERS; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND, a/k/a J. Joseph Curran,

Jr.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-

2748-RWT)

Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: August 26, 2004

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lanol Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lanol Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 577

   To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to 
  include a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed 
                                 rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2017

Mr. Lankford (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to 
  include a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed 
                                 rule.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO REGULATIONS.GOV.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) the Internet address of a summary of not more than 
        100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
        that shall be posted on the Internet website under section 
        206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
        (commonly known as regulations.gov).''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TRUSTEES of the CHICAGO REGIONAL ) 

COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, ) 

CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ) 

CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, and CHICAGO ) 

REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS ) 

APPRENTICE & TRAINEE PROGRAM FUND ) 

) Case No. 11 cv 9236 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

) Judge Gottschall 

v. ) 

 ) 

TORRES DRYWALL SERVICES, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 13, 2012, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiffs hereby voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ David Whitfield 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

David Whitfield 

Whitfield, McGann & Ketterman 

111 E. Wacker Dr, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

T. 312.251.9700 F. 312.251.9701 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09236 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:74
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 2698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--UHD Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 10, 2020, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), UHD Alliance, Inc. (``UHD 
Alliance'') 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. 
Specifically, Fengmi (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE's 
REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.
    In addition, Charter Communications, St. Louis, MO; Technicolor SA, 
Cedex, FRANCE; and Westinghouse Electronics, Eastvale, CA have 
withdrawn as parties to 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 UHD Alliance intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance 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 July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
22, 2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 15, 2020(85 FR 65425).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-00454 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip Chapman, Also Known as P. Chapkewitz, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 4, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted possession of burglars’ tools (as a felony), and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment affirmed. The defendant’s principal contention is that it was error for the trial court to accept his plea of guilty to the crime of attempted possession of burglars’ tools (as a felony), since the court had been put on notice that the defendant was under the influence of barbiturate drugs, and not in control of his faculties at the time of his commission of the crime. We find this contention to be untenable. While, during the course of colloquy at the trial, a reference to drugs was made, there is no proof in the record which would indicate that the defendant committed the crime by reason of the use of drugs or by reason of the effects of such use. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, ICleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
204.270-2 Procedures. ( b ) The procedures at PGI 204.270-2 provide details on how to record the results of data verification in EDA. When these procedures are followed, contract documents and data in EDA are an accurate representation of the contract and therefore may be used for audit purposes.
( c ) The procedures at PGI 204.270-2(c) provide details on the creation and processing of contract deficiency reports, which are used to correct problems with contracts distributed in EDA.
[80 FR 58631, Sept. 30, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 72738, Oct. 21, 2016]
#### 1852.242-71 Travel outside of the United States.

As prescribed in 1842.7002, insert the following clause:

# Travel Outside of the United States (DEC 1988)

(a) The Contracting Officer must authorize in advance and in writing travel to locations outside of the United States by Contractor employees that is to be charged as a cost to this contract. This approval may be granted when the travel is necessary to the efforts required under the contract and it is otherwise in the best interest of NASA.

(b) The Contractor shall submit requests to the Contracting Officer at least 30 days in advance of the start of the travel.

(c) The Contractor shall submit a travel report at the conclusion of the travel. The Contracting Officer's approval of the travel will specify the required contents and distribution of the travel report.

(End of clause)

[54 FR 28340, July 5, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 27090, June 29, 1990; 56 FR 12460, Mar. 26, 1991]
203.170 Business practices. To ensure the separation of functions for oversight, source selection, contract negotiation, and contract award, departments and agencies shall adhere to the following best practice policies: ( a ) Senior leaders shall not perform multiple roles in source selection for a major weapon system or major service acquisition.
( b ) Vacant acquisition positions shall be filled on an “acting” basis from below until a permanent appointment is made. To provide promising professionals an opportunity to gain experience by temporarily filling higher positions, these oversight duties shall not be accrued at the top.
( c ) Acquisition process reviews of the military departments shall be conducted to assess and improve acquisition and management processes, roles, and structures. The scope of the reviews should include— ( 1 ) Distribution of acquisition roles and responsibilities among personnel;
( 2 ) Processes for reporting concerns about unusual or inappropriate actions; and
( 3 ) Application of DoD Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, and the disciplines in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook.
( d ) Source selection processes shall be— ( 1 ) Reviewed and approved by cognizant organizations responsible for oversight;
( 2 ) Documented by the head of the contracting activity or at the agency level; and
( 3 ) Periodically reviewed by outside officials independent of that office or agency.
( e ) Legal review of documentation of major acquisition system source selection shall be conducted prior to contract award, including the supporting documentation of the source selection evaluation board, source selection advisory council, and source selection authority.
( f ) Procurement management reviews shall determine whether clearance threshold authorities are clear and that independent review is provided for acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.
[72 FR 20757, Apr. 26, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 2408, Jan. 15, 2009; 79 FR 73488, Dec. 11, 2014]
#### § 989.36 Waivers.

In order to deal with unusual circumstances and to allow growth in the EIAP process, SAF/IEI may grant waivers to those procedures contained in this part not required by NEPA or the CEQ Regulations. Such waivers shall not be used to limit compliance with NEPA or the CEQ Regulations but only to substitute other, more suitable procedures relative to the context of the particular action. Such waivers may also be granted on occasion to allow experimentation in procedures in order to allow growth in the EIAP. This authority may not be delegated.

[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16869, Mar. 28, 2001; 72 FR 37107, July 9, 2007; 79 FR 35287, June 20, 2014]
2042.570-2 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.242-70, Resolving NRC Contractor Differing Professional Views, in the body of cost reimbursement solicitations and contracts for professional services, as appropriate. This clause may not be altered by the contracting officer.
( b ) The contracting officer shall include the clause at 2052.242-71, Procedures for Resolving NRC Contractor Differing Professional Views, as an attachment to cost reimbursement solicitations and contracts for professional services, as appropriate. This clause may not be altered by the contracting officer.
### §104. Repealed. Dec. 17, 1943, ch. 344, §1, 57 Stat. 600

Section, acts June 6, 1900, ch. 791, §1, 31 Stat. 611; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §3, 37 Stat. 737; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §14, June 10, 1933; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. V, eff. June 14, 1940, 5 F.R. 2423, 54 Stat. 1238, provided that Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization should have charge, under supervision of Attorney General, of administration of Chinese exclusion laws.
19.502-2 Total small business set-asides. ( a ) Before setting aside an acquisition under this paragraph, refer to 19.203(b). Each acquisition of supplies or services that has an anticipated dollar value above the micro-purchase threshold, but not over the simplified acquisition threshold, shall be set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery. If the contracting officer receives only one acceptable offer from a responsible small business concern in response to a set-aside, the contracting officer should make an award to that firm. If the contracting officer receives no acceptable offers from responsible small business concerns, the set-aside shall be withdrawn and the requirement, if still valid, shall be resolicited on an unrestricted basis. The small business set-aside does not preclude the award of a contract as described in 19.203.
( b ) Before setting aside an acquisition under this paragraph, refer to 19.203(c). The contracting officer shall set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition threshold for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that— ( 1 ) Offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns; and
( 2 ) Award will be made at fair market prices. Total small business set-asides shall not be made unless such a reasonable expectation exists (see 19.502-3 for partial set-asides). Although past acquisition history and market research of an item or similar items are always important, these are not the only factors to be considered in determining whether a reasonable expectation exists. In making research and development small business set-asides, there must also be a reasonable expectation of obtaining from small businesses the best scientific and technological sources consistent with the demands of the proposed acquisition for the best mix of cost, performances, and schedules.
[60 FR 34757, July 3, 1995] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting section 19.502-2, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
To: All Negotiators

From: Robert Anderson

Re: Authorization Proposal Regarding Complaint Process Language and “State Discretion”

This language below proposes a modest change to language related to complaints. What is being 

recommended will provide greater clarity and accuracy for students and was developed based on 

feedback from state regulators.

The Department included language to address its concerns about complaints. Additional 

consultation from states has generally supported the changes but raised some concerns about the 

concept of “state discretion.” More precise language that allows states to act in ways that are 

consistent with their own regulations and policies (which could include state discretion), is needed. 

This does not seem to be an objectionable change.

600.9

...

(d) If an institution is authorized to offer distance education in another State under a State authorization reciprocity agreement, as 

defined in § 600.2:

1. Such agreement must:

...

(vii) permit member States to, at their State’s discretion, consistent with their own statutes and regulations, accept, 

investigate, and resolve complaints about an institution of higher education that have not yet been submitted to and 

resolved by the institution of higher education.