alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subject: FWD: List of subjects for prior approval of GE Programs 

From: Margaret Reiter <margaret.reiter @ . > 

Date: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM 

Subject: List of subjects for prior approval of GE Programs 

To: Chip Cameron < @ > 

Cc: Libby DeBlasio < @ >, "dellajustice @ " <dellajustice @ > 

Chip, below are some suggestions re initial approval option for gainful employment we discussed on 

Monday. All the data must demonstrate that the program will prepare students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation: 

-projected ratio of debt to earnings shows earnings sufficient to repay debt 

- projected earnings greater than 150% of poverty level 

-has programmatic approval generally needed to sit for state licensure exam or private certification exams 

-training at that level is required to obtain employment in the SOC codes identified 

Data supporting these items to be obtained in reliable and valid survey conducted in same manner DE proposed 

for salary surveys for earnings alternative data or other reliable and verifiable documentation to be discussed. 

1
#### 1615.470-1 Investment income clause.

The clause set forth in 1652.215-71 will be inserted in all FEHB contracts based on cost analysis.
On January 27, 2014, OCR and the Tigard-Tualatin School District (District) reached an Agreement to ensure that English language learner (ELL) students are not discriminated against on the basis of national origin by being denied equal educational opportunities in the District’s programs and services. The Agreement, entered into prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, resolved OCR’s compliance review.  The District agreed to provide services to all ELL students consistent with its English language development (ELD) plan; provide sufficient qualified and trained ELL teachers for the ELD program; provide sufficient instructional resources for the ELD program; provide supplementary services to ELL students who are academically struggling and were improperly exited from or denied services in the ELD program; monitor the academic progress of students whose parents choose to “opt out” of the ELD program; ensure effective communications with LEP parents to ensure that LEP parents are notified, in a language understood by the parents, of school activities and other information and matters that are called to the attention of other parents; and evaluate the ELD program and identify and make modifications to improve the program’s effectiveness.

***Read the Resolution LetterPDF**(443K)**|******Read the Resolution AgreementPDF** (251K)*****

  

Top
- il-northwesternu-1-complaintandnotlet
- 24-00952-F Responsive Documents
IIA 

Calendar No. 16 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 34 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ‘‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband 

and Other Telecommunications Services’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2017 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. 

CRUZ, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LEE, 

Mr. PAUL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. 

THUNE, Mr. WICKER, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. MCCONNELL) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed 

on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Federal Communications Commission relating to 

‘‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 

Other Telecommunications Services’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

SJ 34 PCS 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to ‘‘Protecting 

5 the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Tele6 communications Services’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (Decem7 ber 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 16 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 34 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapcommunications Services’’. Customers of Broadband and Other Tele- mission relating to ‘‘Protecting the Privacy of submitted by the Federal Communications Com- ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

802(c), and placed on the calendar 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD TURNER, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-03568

Judge: Hon. Thomas M. Durkin

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1), Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all claims brought in this action. 

Defendant has filed neither an answer to the complaint nor a motion for summary judgment with 

respect to the same. Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted,

AF HOLDINGS, LLC

DATED: March 14, 2013

By: /s/ Paul Duffy_____________

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496)

Prenda Law Inc. 

161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-880-9160

Fax: 312-893-5677

E-mail:paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-03568 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:123
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 14, 2013, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, in compliance with Local Rule 5.2(a). 

/s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy

Case: 1:12-cv-03568 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:124
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51


                               SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

This agreement is made between TransTexas Gas Corporation and Simon Ward.

1.   The employment agreement between Simon Ward and TransTexas Gas Corporation
     has expired, and Simon Ward is now an at-will employee of TransTexas Gas
     Corporation.

2.   In the event of a termination for cause, salary shall cease on the
     effective date of termination. Salary and benefits earned to the date of
     termination will be paid in full. "Cause" shall mean:

     a.   Willful neglect or mismanagement by Simon Ward of his reasonable
          duties, responsibilities, and obligations which results in significant
          material damage to the property or interest of TransTexas Gas
          Corporation; or

     b.   Material breach of this agreement of the policies set forth in the
          Employee Handbook by Simon Ward, or

     c.   Inability of Simon Ward to perform his duties, responsibilities and
          obligations by reason of illness, accident or other incapacity for a
          continuous period of six months.

3.   Termination is without cause unless TransTexas Gas Corporation details the
     cause for termination in writing, meeting the definition of paragraph 2, at
     the time of termination. TransTexas Gas Corporation may terminate Simon
     Ward's employment without cause by giving Simon Ward written notice of
     termination. However, in the event that TransTexas Gas Corporation
     terminates Simon Ward other than for cause, TransTexas Gas Corporation
     shall pay Simon Ward his salary for twelve months past the termination of
     employment.

4.   This agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of
     the other party.

5.   Any disputes concerning or arising out of interpretation or application of
     this agreement shall be determined by final and binding arbitration under
     and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American
     Arbitration's Association provided that the dispute is submitted to
     arbitration by written demand therefor delivered to and received by the
     other party within sixty days after occurrence of the event giving rise to
     the dispute.

6.   If there is a conflict between TransTexas Gas Corporation personnel
     policies and this agreement, this agreement shall prevail.


Date:                                  Date:
     ------------------------------         ------------------------------

TransTexas Gas Corporation
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Simon Ward

By:
   --------------------------------
Gerald Barkley, Personnel Manager
#### Paul Ginsburg, Appellant, v. Hearst Publishing Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Orders entered March 10, 1959 and April 20, 1959 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente and Bergan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Gondolfo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered March 24, 1961 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of possession of policy slips, a misdemeanor (Penal Law, § 975), and sentencing him to serve six months in the New York City Penitentiary and to pay a fine of $500, with the further provision that he serve an additional day for each dollar unpaid. Defendant in his brief has limited the appeal to the question whether the sentence was excessive. Judgment modified on the facts so as to reduce the sentence to 10 days in the City Prison and a fine of $250, plus an additional day of imprisonment for each dollar unpaid. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, under all the circumstances the sentence was excessive. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Spencer, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered August 2, 1977, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case is remanded for a new trial. Defendant Spencer was charged with sale of a narcotic to one Willie Williams in a candy store, the transfer being observed by an undercover officer standing outside. Williams later sold the narcotics to the officer. Both defendants were indicted and thereafter the People moved to consolidate both indictments on the ground that they were "intrinsically similar in law and in fact.” The motion was granted over Spencer’s objection. CPL 200.40 provides for consolidation of separate indict*868ments and joint trial, but only when two or more defendants are charged with the same offense or offenses. If other offenses not common to all defendants are charged, then such offenses must be tried separately. (See *People v Minor,*49 AD2d 828.) Although a misjoinder of defendant may be waived if not objected to, Spencer clearly did not waive, but rather specifically objected to such misjoinder. Such misjoinder did prejudice Spencer. The case proceeded to trial and shortly before the end of the People’s case, the court *sua sponte*indicated to counsel that "it may have been improper in the first instance to join Mr. Williams and Mr. Spencer in a single trial” and that he would give consideration to an application for severance and mistrial, if made. Counsel for Williams and Spencer both made such application, and after a hearing the court severed and granted a mistrial as to Williams, but the court denied the motion as to Spencer, and the. trial proceeded over his counsel’s objection. By then, 90% of the People’s case had been presented. The People argue that appellant suffered no prejudice as a result of either the consolidation or the continuation of his trial after the severance, and, consequently, his conviction must be affirmed. We disagree. Inasmuch as a great deal of evidence concerned the relationship of Spencer and Williams and the crimes they were accused of, it is conceivable that the jury’s evaluation of the innocence or guilt of the appellant would be influenced by the weight of evidence against his codefendant, to his prejudice. For instance the details of the sale by Williams to the undercover officer would not be before the jury if it were not for such misjoinder; those details must have colored the jury’s evaluation. Only belatedly, when 90% of the prosecution’s case had been presented, was the codefendant severed from the case. The trial court’s belated decision to sever the cases could not rescue defense counsel’s trial strategy that had been long established consistent with the trial court’s previous rulings. These conflicting rulings, coming when they did, prejudiced defendant. (See *People v Baum,*64 AD2d 655.) We have also reviewed the other arguments advanced by appellant on this appeal and find them to be without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
Third Department,

June, 1964

(June 1, 1964)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stanley Chero, Appellant.

Appeal from two orders in two *coram nobis*proceedings which denied without a hearing appellant’s applications to vacate his conviction of second degree murder and his sentence of 30 years to life. Appellant is currently in Attica State Prison as a parole violator. We believe that appellant’s contentions that he was not represented by counsel at his arraignment, that court held on Lincoln’s Birthday was without jurisdiction, and that section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not complied with are without merit as a basis for a writ of error *coram nobis*in this case. (See *People*v. Dolac, 3 A D 2d 351, affd. 3 N Y 2d 945; *People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196.) The papers before us do not meet or explain defendant’s contentions as to delay in arraignment and the recitals in the orders appealed from of records and papers in the prior proceedings in the action afford no proper basis for the decisions. Upon remittal all such relevant proof may be adduced. Orders appealed from reversed, on the law and facts, and eases remitted. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
224.103 Procedures. ( b ) ( 2 ) DoD rules and regulations are contained in DoDI 5400.11, DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Programs; DoD 5400.11-R, Department of Defense Privacy Program; and DoDM 5400.11, DoD Privacy and Civil Liberties Programs: Breach Preparedness and Response Plan.
[88 FR 37794, June 9, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                          24,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,489,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   221,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,218,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,816,000
<PP&E>                                       4,397,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,001,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,228,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,745,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,583,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,107,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,981,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,228,000
<SALES>                                      9,069,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,069,000
<CGS>                                        5,587,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,495,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,452,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,480,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,480,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 6557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01566]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Thursday, January 22, 2021 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 6557]]


                Notice of January 15, 2021

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Southern Border of the United States

                On February 15, 2019, by Proclamation 9844, I declared 
                a national emergency concerning the southern border of 
                the United States to deal with the border security and 
                humanitarian crisis that threatens core national 
                security interests.

                The ongoing border security and humanitarian crisis at 
                the southern border of the United States continues to 
                threaten our national security, including by 
                exacerbating the effect of the pandemic caused by 
                COVID-19. The executive branch has taken steps to 
                address the crisis, but further action is needed to 
                address the humanitarian crisis and to control unlawful 
                migration and the flow of narcotics and criminals 
                across the southern border of the United States.

                For these reasons, the national emergency declared on 
                February 15, 2019, and the measures adopted on that 
                date to respond to that emergency, must continue in 
                effect beyond February 15, 2021. Therefore, in 
                accordance with section 202(d) of the National 
                Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 
                for 1 year the national emergency declared in 
                Proclamation 9844 concerning the southern border of the 
                United States.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    January 15, 2021.

[FR Doc. 2021-01566
Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3295-F1-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JONAS JACKSON, JR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3883

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed October 5, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee

County; Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES DOW VANDIVERE, 

Respondent - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02017-D) 

Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Dow Vandivere, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Dow Vandivere appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Vandivere, No. 5:15-

hc-02017-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50824 Summary Calendar

__________________ DOYLE EMANUEL RAVENELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JACK M. GARNER, Warden, in his official and individual capacities; MICHAEL W. MOORE, Reg. Director, in his official and individual capacities;, WAYNE SCOTT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-94-CV-164

- - - - - - - - - - May 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Doyle Emanuel Ravenell appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this civil rights case. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ravenell v. Garner , No. W-94-CA-164No. 95-50824 -2- (W.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 1995). The court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants because the summary-judgment evidence revealed no genuine issue of material fact as to the deliberate indifference of the defendants. See Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). The district court didnot abuse its discretion in failing to allow Ravenell to crossexamine a witness during the Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for the defendants without affording Ravenell additional time to conduct discovery. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 901 (1990) and cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1069 (1991). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ravenell's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Edward H. Bohlin, Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc. , 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Ravenell's Motion to Strike the Appellee's brief is DENIED. AFFIRMED.