alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 15.308 Source selection decision.

The source selection authority's (SSA) decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.
The U.S. Department of  Education’s Office for Civil  Rights (OCR) has reached an agreement with the Palo Alto Unified  School District in Palo Alto, California after finding that the district’s  handling of complaints violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of  1972.  Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education  programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. 

During OCR’s June 2013  proactive investigation of the district’s handling of Title IX complaints, OCR  received a complaint in March 2014 alleging that the district failed to respond  promptly and equitably to reports that students were subjected to sexual  harassment.  OCR’s investigation included reviewing the policies and  procedures utilized by the district, reviewing investigative and discipline  files provided by the district, conducting on-site visits, and interviewing  district staff.  Under the terms of the  resolution agreement, the district has agreed to take actions, including the  following:- Conduct       an investigation to address the deficiencies that OCR identified with       respect to the district’s response to reports and complaints of violations       of Title IX.
- Review       the behavioral incident reports of alleged violations of Title IX at the       district’s high schools for school years 2012-13 through 2015-16 to       determine whether the district responded promptly and equitably to each       incident.
- Revise       the district’s Title IX policies and procedures to ensure that they       provide for prompt and equitable response to reports and complaints of       Title IX violations.
- Develop       and implement a confidential online system where students and       parents/guardians can make anonymous reports of Title IX.
- Develop       a district-wide confidential tracking system that collects data concerning       reports and complaints concerning Title IX violations, including the steps       taken to address and resolve them.
- Provide       an annual report from the Title IX coordinator to the superintendent and       Board of Education summarizing the reports and Title IX complaints that       are filed with district.
- Provide       mandatory annual training for employees regarding the district’s revised       policies and procedures, including their obligation to respond to Title IX       reports and complaints promptly and effectively. 

Read the Resolution Letter PDF (356.10K) | Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (89.88K)
332 A.2d 128.

#### Aram K. Berberian *vs.*Richard J. Israel.

FEBRUARY 20, 1975.

Present: Roberts, C. J, Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the denial by a justice of the Superior Court of a petition for a writ of mandamus in which the petitioner prays that the writ command the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island to assign a private criminal complaint to the calendar for trial in the Superior Court in and for Washington County.

*294
      *Berberian & Tanenbaum, Aram K. Berberian,*pro se, for plaintiff.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *George H. Egan,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for defendant.

It now appears from the record that said private criminal complaint, No. 72-53, at the direction of the Attorney General, has been assigned to the criminal calendar of the Superior Court, Washington County. Therefore, the issues raised by this appeal have become moot.

The appeal is denied and dismissed.
Salt Lake City School District (UT): In August 2016, OCR  resolved this complaint alleging that the district discriminated on the bases  of national origin and disability. Specifically, the complainant alleged that  the district discriminated against EL students at a middle school by  implementing policies and procedures that do not consider language in the  special education evaluation and placement processes, thereby resulting in an  overrepresentation of the students in special education. During the  investigation, staff acknowledged the use of the phrase “special education  trumps EL services” by some district staff, and that some EL students with  disabilities were not provided EL and special education services. OCR also had  concerns that special education-related matters were not consistently  interpreted or translated for EL parents, that the district’s EL policies and  procedures include a process for early exiting of students from EL services  despite their not being proficient in the four English skill areas, and that  several EL students should have been but were not monitored following their  exit from the EL program. To resolve the complaint, the district entered into a  resolution agreement committing the district to update its policies and  procedures regarding the evaluation and placement of EL students to ensure that  EL students are not overrepresented in special education and are not placed in  special education solely based on English language ability; evaluate whether EL  students already receiving special education have been appropriately placed in  special education and, if not, return them to the regular education setting;  ensure that EL students with disabilities who did not receive appropriate  instruction from qualified teachers are assessed for and receive compensatory  services; ensure meaningful communication with parents, especially with limited  English proficient (LEP) parents related to special education matters; and  review its EL plan to ensure that students are not exited from the EL program  prematurely.

Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (133.63K)
#### In the Matter of James Noble, Petitioner, v. John R. Starkey, Individually, and All Other Justices of the Supreme Court, Kings County, Respondents.

Application by petitioner to prohibit respondents from retrying petitioner under an indictment charging him with the crime of murder in the first degree; and to direct that he be released from custody. Petition dismissed, without costs. Beldock, P; J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10(k)(6)


                                SIXTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                         ICF KAISER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                              SECTION 401(k) PLAN


  WHEREAS, the ICF Kaiser International, Inc. Section 401(k) Plan (hereinafter
referred to as the "Plan") was established effective as of March 1, 1989; and

  WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently restated as of January 1, 1996, (not 1998
as stated in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) by ICF Kaiser International, Inc.
(currently known as Kaiser Group International, Inc. and hereinafter referred to
as the "Company"); and

  WHEREAS, the restated Plan was amended subsequently on five occasions; and

  WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to cease investment of future
contributions in Company Stock;

  NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of April 13, 2000, Section 6.2 of the Plan is
hereby amended to provide as follows:

        6.2 Investment in Company Stock. Notwithstanding any other provision of
            ---------------------------
  the Plan to the contrary, effective as of April 13, 2000, no Participant shall
  be permitted to direct the investment of contributions made to the Plan after
  said date or assets in his Account invested in investment funds, other than
  the ICF Kaiser Stock Fund, on and after said date into the ICF Kaiser Stock
  Fund. Any Participant who has assets in his Account invested in the ICF Kaiser
  Stock Fund on said date may direct the investment of such assets into other
  investment funds pursuant to procedures established in conjunction with the
  administration of the Plan.


     Executed this 13th day of April, 2000.
                   ----


                                    KAISER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                    (formerly known as ICF Kaiser International,
                                    Inc.)


                                    By: /s/ James J. Maiwurm
                                       ------------------------------
                                    Title:  Chief Executive Officer
#### Pappo Bros., Appellant, v. W. Wydler & Son Construction Corp. et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondent W. Wydler *&*Son Construction Corp. to dismiss appeal for lack of prosecution, granted by default, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
(110 App. Div. 390.)

#### PETTIT v. McCLELLAN, Mayor, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 30, 1905.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Franklin Pettit against George B. McClellan, as mayor, and others. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on demurrer, and . from an order denying a permanent injunction and vacating a temporary injunction restraining defendants, as the board of estimate and apportionment, from acting on petitions for franchises, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, EAUGHLIN, and CLARKE, JJ.

L- Lafiin Kellogg, for appellant.

Theodore Connoly, for respondents.

LAUGHLIN, J.

This is also a taxpayer’s action; and it is brought to enjoin action upon the petitions of the Atlantic Telephone Company - for consent to the use of certain streets for the construction of an overhead or underground telephone line, and by the New York & Port Chester Railroad Company, the Nassau Electric Company, the Southern Boulevard Railroad Company, and the Union Railway Company of New York City for consent to the use and occupation of certain public streets of the city for the construction of street surface railways. The questions presented are the same as those presented in Wilcox v. McClellan, as Mayor, etc., et al. (argued and decided herewith) 97 N. Y. Supp. 311, except that neither the rapid transit act nor the amendments thereto have any bearing on the application upon which action is sought to be enjoined herein, and, of course, the provisions of section 18, art. 3, of the Constitution, with respect to the consent of the local authorities to the construction and operation of street railways, have no direct, application to the petition of the telephone company. Neither, however, claims any distinction in principle or that the act can be upheld in part, and both unite in asking a decision on the broad ground as to the jurisdiction of the Legislature to 'vest those powers in the board of' estimate and apportionment, to the exclusion of the board of aldermen. Even if the amendments to the rapid transit act (chapter 631, p. 1550, Laws 1905) should be void on account of the provision concerning the vote on the application, by which a minority might grant the consent, yet since the provision on that subject contained in the amendments to the city charter (chapters 629, 630, pp. 1533, 1548, Laws 1905) would in all cases require at least a majority vote, still power would exist in the board of estimate and apportionment to grant these applications. The decision in the Wilcox Case, adverse to the plaintiff, is decisive of the questions presented by this appeal.

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents, and the order, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents. All concur.
----

----

|   | (1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PhotoMedex, Inc.; |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                 |   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.          |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Dated: April 2, 2012 |   |                      |   |
|   |                 |   | By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath |   |
|   |                 |   | Dennis M. McGrath         |   |
|   |                 |   | Chief Financial Officer   |   |

----

----
#### Roberto Power BENTHIEM, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Civ. No. 269-70.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

July 22, 1970.

Roberto • Power Benthiem, pro se.

Jose A. Quiles, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., for respondent.

ORDER

CANCIO, Chief Judge.

This petitioner was sentenced to a prison term on September 11, 1967. At the time of his sentencing, the 1966 amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a) (2) were in effect. These amendments require the sentencing judge to advise the defendant of his right to appeal in a ease which has gone to trial on a plea of not guilty. However, the transcript of the proceedings at petitioner’s sentencing reveals the fact that he was not then so advised. It is because of this that petitioner is requesting us to vacate his sentence.

 There is much evidence in the record that the petitioner did in fact know of his right to appeal when he was sentenced. Thus, the question is whether Rule 32(a) (2) requires the sentence to be vacated even though the petitioner in fact knew of his right to appeal. In order to answer this, we must inquire into the purpose of the Rule.

Before 1966, the corresponding provision was in Rule 37, relating to appeals. It provided that a defendant should be advised of his right to appeal if he was not represented by counsel at the time of his sentencing. When this provision was moved to Rule 32 (Sentence and Judgment), the requirement was broadened to include all defendants, whether or not represented by counsel. The reason for this is, according to the 1966 Committee Note to Rule 32, that “situations arise in which a defendant represented by counsel at the trial is not adequately advised by such counsel of his right to appeal.” Thus, we see that the *1334purpose of the Rule is to assure that a defendant is aware of his right to appeal.

> Moreover, Moore comments as follows: Many defendants did not become aware of the right to appeal until after expiration of the ten-day period. To ameliorate *this hardship*a 1966 amendment to Rule 32 requires the court at the time of sentence to advise all defendants convicted after trial of their right to appeal. * * * (Moore’s *Federal Practice,*Vol. 8A, p. 32-63, emphasis added.)

We conclude that the purpose of the amended Rule 32 is to assure that the defendant knows of his right to appeal, and that this purpose is met if the defendant did in fact know, at the time of his sentencing, that he had this right.

In view of the foregoing, the motion is denied.

It is so ordered.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Overman, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered October 26, 1977, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty to attempted arson in the third degree and imposing an indeterminate sentence of from two to seven years, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Prior to defendant’s entry of his plea of guilty, the trial court informed him that he would not sentence defendant to jail but would place him in a residential facility. Thereafter, the court learned in the presentence report filed by the Probation Department that the facility in question consisted primarily of drug abusers and was not an appropriate one for the defendant. On the day of sentence, the court informed the defendant and his counsel that he intended to fix a jail sentence. Defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw the plea, which motion *837the court denied under the mistaken belief that no promise had been made. As the District Attorney appropriately concedes, the failure to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty under these circumstances was error. (See *People v Selikoff*35 NY2d 227, 238-239.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lane and Bloom, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph H. Singer, Respondent, v. New York State Workmen’s Compensation Board et al., Appellants, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

This is an appeal from a determination of *738the hoard that the claimant’s earning capacity, following his retirement from State service, was limited by a causally related disability and an award of maximum reduced earning rate. This case was previously before this court and was remitted (11 A D 2d 886, 887) as the record contained no proof as to what the claimant’s earnings would have been were it not for the disability. Thereafter at a hearing before the board, evidence was introduced to show the opportunities which claimant had to work with other physicians following his retirement, one of which was for the working hours from 9 to 4 at a starting salary of $100 per week. This and other offers contained in the record were rejected by the claimant because of his disability. The carrier offered no proof. The record, as now developed, warrants the rate as fixed by the board. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TEJANI RODRIGUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

ALBERTO PEREZ

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 544

[ August 1 1 , 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Peter Holden , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 9539 FMCE

.

Scott J. Brook of Scott J. Brook, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant.

Alan D. Sackrin of Sackrin & Tolchinsky, P.A., Hallandale Beach, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tal lahassee , 377 So. 2d

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### 22.1014 Delay over 60 days in bid opening or commencement of work.

If a wage determination was obtained through the e98 process, and bid opening, or commencement of work under a negotiated contract has been delayed, for whatever reason, more than 60 days from the date indicated on the previously submitted e98, the contracting officer shall submit a new e98. Any revision of a wage determination received by the contracting agency as a result of that communication shall supersede the earlier response as the wage determination applicable to the particular acquisition subject to the time frames in 22.1012-1(b) and (c).

[71 FR 36935, June 28, 2006]
#### 1845.610-4 Contractor inventory in foreign countries.

NASA procedures for disposal are in NPR 4300.1, NASA Personal Property Disposal Procedures and Guidelines.

[62 FR 36722, July 9, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 58932, Oct. 3, 2000; 69 FR 44610, July 27, 2004]
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Ingardia Construction Co., Inc., and Dyker Building Co., Inc.

Motion to dispense with printing granted to the extent of dispensing with the printing in the record on appeal of the 5,320 pages of minutes of the hearings before the panel of arbitrators on condition that a typewritten transcript of said minutes are filed with this court on or before the Wednesday preceding the first day of the term for which the appeal is noticed for argument. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER Purpose The Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors will monitor the composition
of the Board and, when appropriate, seek, screen and recommend for nomination qualified candidates
for election to the Board of Directors at the Corporations Annual Meeting of Stockholders. In
addition, the Nominating and Governance Committee will seek qualified candidates to fill vacancies
on the Board of Directors subject to appointment by the Board of Directors. The Nominating and
Governance Committee will also evaluate the Boards structure and practices and, when appropriate,
recommend new policies to the full Board. Finally, the Nominating and Governance Committee will
periodically review succession planning with respect to the Chief Executive Officer and other key
executive officers. Membership The Nominating and Governance Committee shall be elected by the Board of Directors and may be
removed by the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consist of a
minimum of two members of the Board of Directors, each of whom shall be an independent director.
Members of the committee shall be considered independent if they have no relationship that may
interfere with the exercise of their independence from management and the Company. Role and Responsibilities The responsibilities of the Nominating and Governance Committee include:  1.
    Reviewing Board structure, composition, and practices, and making
recommendations on these matters to the Board.2.
    Reviewing, soliciting and making recommendations to the Board of Directors and
stockholders of the Corporation with respect to candidates for election to the Board of
Directors.3.
    Reviewing Board Committee composition and practices and making recommendations
on these matters to the Board.4.
    Reviewing succession planning for the Chief Executive Officer and other key
executive officers.5.
    Performing such other tasks as may be authorized by the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee shall have the sole authority to retain special
legal, accounting or other consultants, including search firms, to advise the Nominating and
Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee may request any officer or employee
of the Company or the Companys outside counsel to attend a meeting of the Nominating and
Governance Committee or to meet with any members of, or consultants to, the Nominating and
Governance Committee. Meetings The Nominating and Governance Committee will meet as often as the members shall determine to
be necessary or appropriate but at least one time during each year. Reports of meetings of the
Nominating and Governance Committee shall be made to the Board of Directors at its next regularly
scheduled meeting following the Nominating and Governance Committee meeting, accompanied by any
recommendations to the Board of Directors approved by the Nominating and Governance Committee. Dated and approved by the Board of Directors on this 22nd day of February 2005.