alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Team I – Teacher Preparation Issues

February 27, 2012, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

February 28, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

February 29, 2012, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

Agenda1

Facilitator’s Welcome

Agenda Overview

Meeting Summary from Prior Session

Housekeeping and Other Issues

Review of Issues and Proposed Regulatory Language

1. Issue 7: Service and repayment obligations for the TEACH Grant Program: Teaching 

service performed for an Educational Service Agency

2. Issue 8: Teaching in a high-need field to fulfill the TEACH Grant Agreement to Serve

3. Issue 9: Eligibility for a new TEACH Grant after receiving a discharge of the TEACH Grant 

agreement to serve based on total and permanent disability

4. Issue 10: Discharge of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve based on the total and 

permanent disability of a TEACH Grant recipient

5. Issue 1: Recommendations regarding current institution of higher education, teacher 

preparation program, and State reporting requirements on teacher education program 

quality

6. Issue 2: Recommendations for supplemental State reporting on teacher education 

program quality that would either replace or augment current reporting requirements

7. Issue 3: Criteria used by States to assess the performance of teacher preparation 

programs

 

1

Twenty-minute morning and afternoon breaks on each day will begin at approximately 10:30 a.m. and 3:15 p.m. 

The lunch recess on each day will begin at approximately 12 noon. Time will be made available for public 

comment during the meeting.
2

8. Issue 4: Standards for State identification of low-performing or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs

9. Issue 5: Termination of eligibility of teacher preparation programs to enroll students 

receiving Title IV student assistance in cases where the State has withdrawn its approval or 

terminated its financial support based on the program’s poor performance

10. Issue 6: Definition of “high quality teacher preparation program”

Next Steps

 Revised regulatory text

 Agenda for Session 3, April 3 -5, 2012

 Other
#### William M. Fiorito, Respondent, v. Frank Yaskulski, Jr., Doing Business under the Name of Fancher Hotel, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made. Memorandum: Defendant and plaintiff’s predecessor in title entered into an agreement in writing by the terms of which defendant agreed to lease certain real estate for a period of two years and thereupon to purchase the property for $27,000. There is no validity to the contention of defendant that the agreement is not enforcible because it was executed by an agent of the vendor, who was not authorized in writing. Defendant in this action is the person sought “to be charged” and the fact that the agreement may not have been enforcible against the vendor is immaterial (Real Property Law, § 259; N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1944, No. 65 [D]). The Official Referee correctly found that there was an anticipatory repudiation of the contract by defendant before the time set for the acceptance of the deed. (Cf. 5 Corbin, Contracts, § 1141.) There was error, however, in the implementation of the relief to which plaintiff was entitled. It was found that defendant was liable for rent through the month of November, 1959, and at the same time the court decreed specific performance of the agreement to purchase as of September 30, 1958. It is obvious that plaintiff is not entitled to collect rent for these 13 months and at the same time be compelled to pay interest on the purchase price for a *868like period. In view of the anticipatory repudiation of the contract we find that performance was demanded and deed was tendered on October 17, 1959. The findings should be amended to provide that defendant is liable for rent from June 1, 1959, to October 17, 1959, in the amount of $913.33. Moreover, plaintiff sought specific performance of the written agreement. This provided, among other things, that plaintiff was to furnish a warranty deed and defendant was to pay $10,000 cash (less the deposit of $1,000) and to give to the vendor a purchase-money mortgage for $17,000 payable in semiannual amounts of $600. The Official Referee was without authority to rewrite the contract for the parties and direct that the full amount of the price be paid on delivery of deed. The conclusions of law should be amended to provide (a) that defendant shall accept a warranty deed and pay to plaintiff the sum of $9,000 with interest at 6% from October 17, 1959, and (b) that defendant shall also execute and deliver to plaintiff a bond and mortgage, as described in the agreement, in the sum of $17,000 with interest at 5% from October 17, 1959. (Cf. Bergeman & Roth, New York Real Property Forms, pp. 1134-1136.) (Appeal from judgment of Orleans Supreme Court directing specific performance of a contract to purchase certain real property.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONNELLY JOSEPH LEBLANC,

Petitioner

v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LANCASTER

COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 185 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February , 2019, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the King’s Bench/Extraordinary Writ is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.3
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 September 6, 2006
    /s/ Ira D. KaplanIra D. Kaplan
Chief Financial Officer
204.2102 Prohibition. ( a ) *Prohibited equipment, systems, or services.* In addition to the prohibition at FAR 4.2102(a), unless the covered defense telecommunications equipment or services are subject to a waiver described in 204.2104, the contracting officer shall not procure or obtain, or extend or renew a contract (*e.g.,* exercise an option) to procure or obtain, any equipment, system, or service to carry out covered missions that uses covered defense telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Juan Figueroa.

Motion to vacate order of this court granted insofar as to vacate the order of this court, entered on December 10, 1959, and to reinstate the appeal taken by the defendant from the judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Bronx County, rendered on June 16, 1959. The time of the appellant to serve and file the record on appeal and the appellant’s points is enlarged up to and including March 28, 1961 with notice of argument for the May 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 07a0261p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

ROSA PARKS, An Individual,

Plaintiff,

GREGORY J. REED & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; THE

COCHRAN FIRM; STEPHANIE L. HAMMONDS;

MANSON, JONES & ASSOCIATES,

 Attorneys-Appellants,

v.

DENNIS W. ARCHER, former guardian ad litem for

Rosa Parks,

Appellee,

LAFACE RECORDS; ARISTA RECORDS, INC.; BMG

MUSIC, doing business as BMG Entertainment;

Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

N

No. 05-2297

Filed: July 11, 2007 

Before: GUY, COLE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

ORDER _________________

The litigation underlying this attorney fee dispute was resolved by settlement. At the root

of this fee dispute is a contingency fee agreement entered into between Reed and Rosa Parks.

Following the execution of this agreement Reed entered into fee sharing agreements with several

other attorneys, three of whom are Reed’s co-appellants in this appeal.

After the initial lawsuit settled, the court found the fee sharing agreements to be ambiguous

and decided it could not allocate the fees “subject to” the agreements, as the settlement agreement

required. The court subsequently adopted the fee distribution schedule proposed by the guardian

ad litem, Dennis Archer.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the fee sharing agreements are not ambiguous

and pursuant to the settlement agreement should be enforced.

1
No. 05-2297 Parks v. LaFace Records, et al. Page 2

The record in this case was sent to us under seal and accordingly we release under seal our

full opinion which sets forth the reasons for our decision. Although released under seal, this opinion

may be made public by the parties subject to any agreement existing among the parties, and may be

released to any other court in which litigation related to this appeal is pending now, or may in the

future be pending.

We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 /s/ Leonard Green

___________________________________ Clerk
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2698 DATE 6/11/2012

CASE

TITLE

Nathaniel Matthews vs. Daisey Lopez, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [# 3] and dismisses his complaint for the

reasons stated below. Unless plaintiff files, by 7/5/12, a proposed amended complaint that states a viable

federal claim against a properly suable defendant, the Court will enter final judgment against him. The Clerk

is directed to mail plaintiff an amended complaint form for employment discrimination cases.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Nathaniel Matthews has filed a pro se lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

alleging employment discrimination based on his race and religion. His former employer was Westside

Holistic Family Center. It appears that Mr. Matthews may have initially intended to sue Westside, but he

struck Westside from the list of named defendants, and the body of his complaint and the attachments make it

clear that he only intends to sue several individuals associated with Westside - Daisey Lopez, Joanne

Anderson, and Linda Vick.

Mr. Matthews has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without paying the usual filing

fee. For this reason, the Court considers whether the complaint is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Court denies Mr. Matthews' IFP motion

because he has not stated a claim against any of the named individual defendants. The only proper defendant

in a Title VII case is the plaintiff's employer (in this case the former employer), which was Westside, not the

individuals whom plaintiff proposes to sue. See Carver v. LaSalle County, 243 F.3d 379, 81 (7th Cir. 2001)

(citing Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Because Mr. Matthews has not sued a properly suable defendant, his complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Thus, in addition to denying Mr. Matthews' IFP motion, the Court dismisses his

complaint. 

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

mk

12C2698 Nathaniel Matthews vs. Daisey Lopez, et al. Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32(f)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Form 10-Q of Florida Power Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott
      III, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
1436.270-2 Part I—The Schedule. The CO shall prepare the Schedule as follows: ( a ) *Section A, Solicitation/contract form.* Use SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Construction, Alteration or Repair), as prescribed in FAR 36.701(a).
( b ) *Section B, Bid schedule.* Bid schedule.
( c ) *Section C, Specifications/Drawings.* Include specifications and drawings (*See* FAR Part 11) or reference other location in the uniform contract format (*e.g.* Section J, attachment ______).
( d ) *Section D, Packaging and Marking.* Not applicable.
( e ) *Section E, Inspection and acceptance.* Include inspection, acceptance, quality assurance, and reliability requirements (*See* FAR Part 46).
( f ) *Section F, Deliveries or performance.* Include Suspension of Work, Liquidated Damages, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work, Variation in Quantity clauses (*See* FAR Part 12).
( g ) *Section G, Contract administration data.* Include Contracting Officer's Representative/Technical Representative identification, and any required administration information (*e.g.,* accounting and appropriation data).
( h ) *Section H, Special contract requirements.* Include any special contract requirements which are not included in other sections of the uniform contract format.
#### Juana Malave, Appellant, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Respondent.

Judgment entered June 14, 1962 in the sum of $3,986 in a personal injury action, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of increasing said sum to $7,686, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. In our judgment, -considering the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by plaintiff, the award of the trial court was inadequate. Under the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 584 of the Civil Practice A-et, we, should, on the appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury, unless we affirm, grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted. *(Bruno*v. *Kosnae,*13 A D 2d 650.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, S-tevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
124 STAT. 1114 PUBLIC LAW 111–156—APR. 7, 2010 

Public Law 111–156 

111th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Recognizing and honoring the Blinded Veterans Association on its 65th anniversary 

of representing blinded veterans and their families. 

Whereas, at 8:45 a.m. on March 28, 1945, 100 blinded members 

of the Armed Forces who served in World War II formed the 

Blinded Veterans Association at Avon ‘‘Old Farms’’ Army Convalescent Hospital in Connecticut; 

Whereas the founders of the Blinded Veterans Association were 

a cross-section of heroes and pioneers who not only shaped the 

rich history, philosophy, and knowledge of education and 

rehabilitation of the blind, but also provided insight into current 

and future challenges facing the blind and engaged in continual 

advocacy efforts to ensure that services for all blinded persons 

would be unique and specialized; 

Whereas, on March 28, 2010, the Blinded Veterans Association 

will mark its 65th anniversary of dedication to blinded members 

of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families; 

Whereas in 1946, General Omar Bradley, of the Veterans Administration, appointed the Blinded Veterans Association as the first 

official representative for blinded veterans for the filing of claims 

and appeals to the Veterans Administration, making the Blinded 

Veterans Association only the eighth veterans service organization to receive such authorization; 

Whereas the Blinded Veterans Association was originally incorporated in New York State as a nonprofit association, and then 

moved to Washington, DC, in 1947; 

Whereas in 1958, the 58th Congress approved the Congressional 

Charter for the Blinded Veterans Association; 

Whereas from its early beginnings, the Blinded Veterans Association encouraged the blinded veterans it served ‘‘to take their 

rightful place in the community with their fellow men and work 

with them toward the creation of a peaceful world’’, and it has 

continued to advocate for the war-blinded to regain independence, 

confidence, and self-esteem through rehabilitation and training; 

and 

Whereas many people of the United States recognize March 28 

of each year as Blinded Veterans Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress— 

(1) expresses appreciation for the efforts of the Blinded 

Veterans Association in improving the rehabilitation services, 

Apr. 7, 2010 

[H.J. Res. 80] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–156—APR. 7, 2010 124 STAT. 1115 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 80: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Mar. 22, 23, considered and passed House. 

Mar. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

education, and benefits for blinded veterans of the United 

States; 

(2) supports the goals and ideals of Blinded Veterans Day; 

and 

(3) calls upon the people of the United States to observe 

Blinded Veterans Day with appropriate programs and activities. 

Approved April 7, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
----

|  | 1. | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,2016 (“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:  February 9, 2016 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                    |   |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl                        |   |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00279-CV

__________________

GRAND HARBOR PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, Appellant

V.

EDWARD GRIFFITH, BARBARA GRIFFITH, TODD BUTAUD, AND 

RACHELLE BUTAUD, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-02-01622-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court issued an opinion in this appeal, Grand Harbor Property 

Owners’ Association, Appellant, and Edward Griffith, Barbara Griffith, Todd 

Butaud, and Rachelle Butaud, Appellees, filed a Joint Motion to Set Aside Judgment 

Without Regard to Merits and Remand to Trial Court. We grant the motion, set aside 

the May 26, 2022 Final Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc without regard to the merits, and 

remand the case to the trial court for release of the supersedeas bond and for rendition 
2

of a take-nothing judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 10, 2024

Opinion Delivered January 11, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.