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

                - Cost Principles - 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E  (MS PowerPoint, 584KB) 
                - Letter to Chief State School Officers on Time and Effort Flexibilities - September 2012  
                - Frequently Asked Questions to Assist U.S. Department of Education Grantees To Appropriately Use Federal Funds for Conferences and Meetings 

----

 

 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
Fax To:        Kim Fuerst
               Sam Butler

From:          Jim Moore

Date:          April 30, 1999


Dear Kim and Sam:

It is my understanding that the board has agreed to a definitive plan to move
the company forward, including the pursuit of a smaller private placement as
soon as possible.  Therefore, as a further accommodation to the company and
the board, I hereby extend the due date of the bridge loan to Monday, May 17,
1999, unless I rescind this extension by written notice to you prior to this
date.

Sincerely,


/s/ JIM MOORE

Jim Moore
|   | 1. | 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 Issuer. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                                  |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated May 10, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Jay Gottlieb                      |   |
|               |   | Jay Gottlieb                          |   |
|               |   | Chief and Principal Executive Officer |   |
|               |   |                                  |   |
#### 1516.401-270 Definition.

*Acceptable quality level* (AQL) as used in this subpart means the minimum percent of deliverables which are compliant with a given performance standard that would permit a contractor to become eligible for an award term incentive. The performance necessary for eligibility for the award term incentive must be in excess of that necessary for the Government acceptance of contract deliverables. The AQLs associated with the award term incentive shall exceed the AQLs associated with the acceptance of contract deliverables. For example, under contract X, acceptable performance is 75 percent of reports submitted to the Government within five days. However, to be eligible for an award term incentive, 85 percent of reports must be submitted to the Government within five days.

[85 FR 17506, Mar. 30, 2020]
#### PEOPLE v. MOORE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against George Moore.

No opinion. Motion granted.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2806

___________________________ Roderick G. Talley lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. City of Little Rock, a municipality; Kenton Buckner, individually, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________ Submitted: January 23, 2023 Filed: January 26, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Roderick Talley appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Little Rock police officers

1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.violated his constitutional rights in searching his apartment pursuant to an invalid noknock search warrant and the City is liable for this unconstitutional conduct. Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that, even without false statements in the warrant affidavit regarding what the officers personally observed during an informant’s controlled drug buy, the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause that drugs would be found in Talley’s residence based on what the informant told the officers and other information the officers received that Talley was involved in drug activity on the premises. Nor did the officers rely on a no-knock warrant that “was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Kiesling v. Holladay, 859 F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Because we conclude there was no underlying constitutional violation, the City cannot be liable. See Furlow v. Belmar, 52 F.4th 393, 406 (8th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
### §2006. Waiver of mediation rights by borrowers

The Secretary may not make, insure, or guarantee any farmer program loan to a farm borrower on the condition that the borrower waive any right under the mediation program of any State.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §358, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title V, §512, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1664; amended Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §282(f)(3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3235.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–354 struck out "agricultural loan" before "mediation program".
#### Robert J. Steele et al., Respondents, v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., Appellant.

The papers on the application for summary judgment demonstrate the existence of triable issues, requiring proof of such things as the intent of the parties to the contract and the attendant circumstances. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motions for summary judgment denied, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
No. 7995.

#### Earley *v.*Earley et al.

(Decided December 15, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

*Mr. W. M. Roach*and *Messrs. Jones & Anderson*and *Mr. A. W. J ones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Murray & Koonce; Mr. Jared Huxley*and *Mr. D. D. Aitken,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Frederick Hoffman et al., Appellants, v. Henry U. Harris, Jr. et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Brookville, Respondents.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the Board of Zoning-Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Brookville, rendered March 18, 1963, which: (a) sustained the Building- Inspector’s ruling that the separate residential occupancy of the gatehouse and the guesthouse on petitioners’ property was not a valid nonconforming use; and (b) denied petitioners’ application for a variance so as to permit such continued occupancy, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 8, 1963, dismissing the petition and denying the application. Order modified on the law and the facts to the extent of annulling the Zoning Board’s determination insofar as it denied petitioners a variance with respect to the gatehouse; and matter remitted to the Zoning Board for the purpose of granting petitioners’ application for a variance to permit the gatehouse to be used as a residence. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings made as indicated herein. There was no nonconforming use for either the gatehouse or the converted guesthouse; and, insofar as the guesthouse was concerned, there was a self-imposed difficulty or hardship. Moreover, the residential use of such guesthouse came *into*being subsequent to *the*adoption of the local Zoning Ordinance. However, under the circumstances here, and in view of the good-faith use of the gatehouse as a residence for many years antedating the Zoning Ordinance, and following the rationale of the recent similar cases *(Matter of Clune*v. *Walker,*10 Misc 2d 858, affd. 7 A D 2d 651, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 7 A D 2d 852; *Matter of Gruen*v. *Simpson,*153 N. Y. S. 2d 287, affd. 3 A D 2d 841), a variance to permit residential use should have been granted as to the gatehouse. Petitioners established a proper case for such a limited variance. TJghetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles James Manning, Jr., v. Harry Silberglitt, as Warden of the City Prison, Borough of Manhattan.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before February 2, 1961, with notice of argument for February 14,1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.01

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER 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 on From 10-Q of Chase General
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Barry M. Yantis, as Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his 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
       Corporation.




/s/ Barry M. Yantis
--------------------------
Name:  Barry M. Yantis
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
Date:  5-7-03

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134212 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134212 

 COA: 274820 

Oakland CC: 2003-191015-FC 

RHONDA SUE HARDIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
#### William Buonanno, Jr., an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, William Buonanno, Sr., et al., Respondents, v. Roland Cyr et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 22,1963 after a pretrial conference, which granted a preference in trial and set the ease down for trial at the head of the calendar for the opening of the September 1963 Term. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated without prejudice to a further application for a preference. In the absence of a stenographic transcript of the hearing or other appropriate proof showing the facts on which the Justice at the pretrial *793hearing based the exercise of his discretion in granting the preference, the propriety of- the order cannot be adequately reviewed *(Abramson*v. *Kenwood Labs.,*17 A JD 2d 626; *Edelson*v. *BieMer,*18 A D 2d 1096). Here the record is not adequate to justify an affirm a pee. Reldook, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### 1632.617 Contract clause.

The clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.232-17 will be modified in all FEHBP contracts to exclude the words “net of any applicable tax credit under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 1481).”

[59 FR 14765, Mar. 30, 1994]
#### 203.104 Procurement integrity.
Appeal No. 74-306.

#### Bristol School Department *v.*Commission for Human Rights.

*Anthony R. Berretto,*for plaintiff. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Allen P. Rubine,*Special Asst: Attorney General, for defendant.

Petition of defendant for writ of certiorari is denied. Motion of defendant to treat notice of appeal as petition for writ of certiorari is granted.
#### Trygve G. Pedersen, Appellant, v. Board of Education of the Central School District No. 2, et al., Respondents.

Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to. the. court that rendered: the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek,, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs* Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan,, JJ., concur.
#### 1404.804 Closeout of contract files.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1656 DATE 3/22/2012

CASE

TITLE

Evans vs. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Status Hearing set for 04/24/12 at 9:30 AM.

Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendant of the status hearing forthwith. Parties are directed to

discuss settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge and a proposed discovery plan.

See Judge Gottschall’s civil case management information about pretrial case management procedures. 

This information is located on the website: http//www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

rj/nnm

12C1656 Evans vs. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01656 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/22/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:21
#### In the Matter of Justo Nieves, Petitioner, v Glenn Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 510]-

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with a violation of the rule prohibiting the sale, possession or exchange of a controlled substance. After a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding after the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and testimony of an inmate established that the inmate purchased heroin from petitioner. In a written statement, the inmate further stated that petitioner *1105received the heroin from a visitor and the record established that a woman, who had been sent money by three other inmates, visited petitioner the day before the heroin was purchased. In our view, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Thompson v Goord,*32 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2006]; *Matter of Bailey v Walsh,*31 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2006]). To the extent that any of the evidence relied upon is hearsay, we find it to be sufficiently relevant and probative to support the determination *(see Matter of Deleon v Goord,*291 AD2d 607, 608 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 610 [2002]).

Petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer failed to independently assess a confidential informant’s reliability is misplaced; the Hearing Officer did not rely upon information provided by the informant in making the determination *(see Matter of Perez v Coombe,*224 AD2d 1035,1036 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 804 [1996]; *Matter of Perez v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 875, 876 [1988]). Further, the record establishes that a sufficient inquiry was made regarding the refusal of witnesses to testify *(see Matter of Hill v Selsky,*19 AD3d 64, 66-67 [2005]), and the Hearing Officer properly refused to call witnesses whose testimony would be redundant or irrelevant *(see Matter of Davis v Goord,*34 AD3d 1027, 1028 [2006]). Finally, nothing in the record supports petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from such alleged bias *(see Matter of Huggins v Goord,*28 AD3d 891, 892 [2006]).

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
### §1328. Importation of alien for immoral purpose

The importation into the United States of any alien for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, is forbidden. Whoever shall, directly or indirectly, import, or attempt to import into the United States any alien for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or shall hold or attempt to hold any alien for any such purpose in pursuance of such illegal importation, or shall keep, maintain, control, support, employ, or harbor in any house or other place, for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, any alien, in pursuance of such illegal importation, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. The trial and punishment of offenses under this section may be in any district to or into which such alien is brought in pursuance of importation by the person or persons accused, or in any district in which a violation of any of the provisions of this section occurs. In all prosecutions under this section, the testimony of a husband or wife shall be admissible and competent evidence against each other.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, §278, 66 Stat. 230; Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §543(b)(5), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5059.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–649 substituted "shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both" for "shall, in every such case, be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 and by imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990, see section 543(c) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1221 of this title.
1480.803 Representation process. ( a ) Only IEEs may participate in acquisitions set aside in accordance with the Buy Indian Act and this part. These procedures support responsible IEEs and prevent circumvention or abuse of the Buy Indian Act.
( b ) Eligibility is based on information furnished by the enterprise to a CO in the IEE representation at DIAR 1452.280-4 in response to a specific solicitation under the Buy Indian Act.
( c ) The CO may ask the appropriate Regional Solicitor to review the enterprise's representation.
( d ) The CO may also request the Office of the Inspector General (on Form DI-1902 as part of a normal pre-award audit) to assist in determining the eligibility of the low responsive and responsible offerors on Buy Indian Act awards.
( e ) The IEE representation does not relieve the CO of the obligation for determining contractor responsibility, as required by FAR subpart 9.1.
#### 200 East Tenants Corp. et al., Appellants, v Hilda J. Sherry et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 2, 1978, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Nusbaum, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
#### 2052.227-70 Drawings, designs, specifications, and other data.

As prescribed at 2027.305-70, the contracting officer shall insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts in which drawings, designs, specifications, and other data will be developed and the NRC must retain full rights to them (except for the contractor's right to retain a copy for its own use). When any of the clauses prescribed at FAR 27.409 are included in the solicitation and contract, this clause will not be used.

# Drawings, Designs, Specifications, and Other Data (JAN 1993)

All drawings, sketches, designs, design data, specifications, notebooks, technical and scientific data, and all photographs, negatives, reports, findings, recommendations, other data and memoranda of every description relating thereto, as well as all copies of the foregoing relating to the work or any part thereto, are subject to inspection by the Commission at all reasonable times. Inspection of the proper facilities must be afforded the Commission by the contractor and its subcontractors. These data are the property of the Government and may be used by the Government for any purpose whatsoever without any claim on the part of the contractor and its subcontractors and vendors for additional compensation and must, subject to the right of the contractor to retain a copy of the material for its own use, be delivered to the Government, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor as the contracting officer may direct during the progress of the work or upon completion or termination of this contract. The contractor's right of retention and use is subject to the security, patent, and use of information provisions, if any, of this contract.

(End of clause)