alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 11 CR 800-2

)

SALIOU MBAYE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

More than three months have elapsed since this Court issued its brief memorandum order 

identifying the need to conduct an evidentiary hearing (1) as to whether the application of 

attorney Francis Baumgart ("Baumgart") for the payment of fees covering the time frame when 

he had been appointed through the Federal Defender Program to represent defendant Saliou 

Mbaye ("Mbaye") should be approved as submitted or reduced and, if the latter, (2) as to the 

appropriate amount of any such reduction. As all of those who have been involved in Mbaye's 

case are aware, Baumgart's eligibility for a Criminal Justice Act ("CJA") award ended when he 

was stricken from the Federal Defender Program's list of qualified counsel, after which 

Baumgart negotiated with Mbaye and succeeded in being retained as Mbaye's compensated 

counsel for the remainder of the case at the District Court level.1 

This Court had contemplated that after the issuance of its memorandum order Baumgart 

would pick up on the matter to make arrangements with the United States Attorney's Office and 

1

 This Court understands that Baumgart has been appointed by our Court of Appeals to 

represent Mbaye in his still-pending direct appeal. In that respect this Court has meticulously 

avoided any communication with the Court of Appeals as to Baumgart's difficulties with the 

Federal Defender Program or as to the still-pending question of his reimbursement from CJA 

funds.

 
Mbaye (for whose testimony special arrangements would of course have to be made) as well as 

with any other contemplated witnesses (including Baumgart himself, of course) and then get in 

touch with this Court. Because the case is not considered as "pending" for purposes of any of the 

printouts that this Court orders periodically to keep control of its calendar, it has not maintained 

a "tickler" reminder as it does with whatever few pending cases (if any) do not have a 

specifically set status hearing date. This memorandum order is instead issued to urge Baumgart 

to initiate the setting up of arrangements for the contemplated evidentiary hearing.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 27, 2015

- 2 -
| **Date**   | **Speaker (From)**                                                                 | **Organization**                                                                          | **Subject**                                        |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|            |
| 2016/05/19 | Tanya Clay House                    Ary Amerikaner                    Jessie Brown | Before U.S. Commission on Civil Rights                                                    | School    Finance PDF (216K)                       |
|            |
| 2014/07/25 | Seth Galanter                    James Cadogan                    Allison Randall  | Before U.S. Commission on Civil Rights                                                    | Sex    Harassment PDF (293K)                       |
|            |
| 2014/06/26 | Catherine Lhamon                                                                   | Before U.S. Senate                    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | Sexual    ViolencePDF (262K)                       |
|            |
| 2012/06/08 | Russlynn Ali                                                                       | Before U.S. Senate                    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | Bullying PDF (152K)                                |
|            |
| 2011/05/13 | Russlynn Ali                                                                       | Before U.S. Commission on Civil Rights                                                    | Interstudent    Violence & Bullying PDF (159K) |
|            |
| 2011/02/11 | Ricardo Soto                                                                       | Before U.S. Commission on Civil Rights                                                    | School    Discipline PDF (394K)                    |

###
#### PARK & TILFORD v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Findings op Fact—Review.

A finding of fact by the trial court in an accident case will not be disturbed, though but one witness testified as he found, while several testified the other way; he basing his belief in the credibility of the witnesses on their demeanor.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.

Action by Park & Tilford against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

McCurdy & Yard, for appellant.

Henry A. Robinson, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

That “the decision of the trial justice was contrary to the evidence, and the weight of the evidence,” is'principally the point upon which the plaintiff rests its appeal from the determination in favor of the defendant in an accident case, in which the veracity of the witnesses for their respective sides was passed upon by the learned trial justice, who, as he aptly says, reached the conclusion that the evidence preponderated in favor of the defendant, not in regard to the quantity of the testimony, nor the number of witnesses, but in reference to the quality of the evidence; adding that no one who heard the testimony of the only witness called for the defendant, and observed his demeanor on the stand, could doubt the man’s veracity, while, on the other hand, the testimony of most of the witnesses for the plaintiff was given in a halting and unsatisfactory manner, and did not appeal to the intelligence of .the court. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Henry A. Acosta et al. v. Theodore H. Lang et al.

Motion for leave to file a brief as *amicus curies*granted insofar as to permit movants to file such brief on or before the Wednesday preceding the first day of the term for which the appeal is noticed for argument. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<PAGE>

                    [SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LETTERHEAD]



                                 April 14, 2000



Board of Directors
Protective Life Insurance Company
2801 Highway 201 South
Birmingham, Alabama 35223



Directors:



    We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of
pre-effective amendment number 1 to the registration statement on Form N-4 (File
No. 333-94097) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective
Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons
whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.



                                          Sincerely,
                                          SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                                          By:     /s/ DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN
                                          --------------------------------------


                                                     David S. Goldstein
```

EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF PROVIDENT
--------------------------------------

The following table sets forth Provident's active subsidiaries as of the date of this report.

                                                                  State of
                                                                Jurisdiction
                                                               Under the Laws
                                                                  of which
                                                                 Organized
                                                               ---------------
The Provident Bank                                                  Ohio
 Provident Commercial Group, Inc.                                   Ohio
  Provident Auto Leasing Company - Titling Trust                  Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-1                        Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-2                        Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 1999-1                                Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-1                                Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-2                                Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2001-1                                Delaware
 Red Capital Markets, Inc.                                          Ohio
  Provident Insurance Agency, Inc.                                  Ohio
 Red Capital Advisors, LLC                                          Ohio
 Red Fund I Series A, LLC                                         Delaware
 RFI Series A Class 1, LLC                                          Ohio
 Red Mortgage Capital, Inc.                                         Ohio
 Information Leasing Corporation                                    Ohio
  Provident Lease Receivables Company LLC                         Delaware
 Procurement Alternatives Corporation                               Ohio
 Capstone Realty Advisors LLC                                       Ohio
 PB Realty, Inc.                                                    Ohio
  BB-BCH, LLC                                                       Ohio
 Provident Community Development Company, LLC                       Ohio
 PCFS Mortgage Resources, LLC                                       Ohio
 Provident Recap I, LLC                                           Delaware
 AHT Service Corporation                                         California
 Milestone Security Partners, LLC                                   Ohio
 PFGI Capital Corporation                                         Maryland
Provident Investment Advisors, Inc.                                 Ohio
Provident Capital Trust I                                         Delaware
Provident Capital Trust II                                        Delaware
Provident Capital Trust III                                       Delaware
Provident Capital Trust IV                                        Delaware
Red Fund I Series B, LLC                                          Delaware
RFI Series B Class 1, LLC                                           Ohio
```
Christian County Public Schools  (District) entered into a voluntary Resolution Agreement to resolve a Title VI  compliance review that OCR initiated that focused on whether the District  subjected African American students to discrimination on the basis of race by  disciplining them more frequently and more harshly than similarly situated white  students.  The agreement, entered into prior to the conclusion of OCR’s  investigation, resolved OCR’s compliance review.  The District agreed to:  ensure to the maximum extent possible that  misbehavior is addressed in a manner that does not require removal from school;  collaborate with experts on research-based strategies designed to prevent  discrimination in the implementation of school discipline; provide students who  engage in disruptive behaviors with support services designed to decrease  behavioral difficulties; review and revise the disciplinary policies, and  implement disciplinary practices that will effectively promote the fair and  equitable administration of discipline; provide training for staff and  administrators on the disciplinary policies, and implement programs for  students and parents and guardians that will explain the district’s  disciplinary policies and behavioral expectations; effectively address school  climate issues; and improve the disciplinary data collection system in order to  evaluate discipline policies and practices.  **Read the Press Release** | *Read    the Resolution Letter*MS WORD (325K)    | *Read    the Resolution Agreement*MS WORD (191K)

Top
{File: 00745687.DOCX}

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee 

for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS 

Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-HE7 Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2007-HE7 

 PLAINTIFF 

CASE NUMBER: 3:12-cv-50160

VS. DISTRICT JUDGE: Philip G. Reinhard

Gina C. Edge, Jerome R. Edge, II, Amcore

Mortgage, Inc., United States of America, Internal 

Revenue Service,

 DEFENDANT(S).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE: P. Michael Mahoney

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REVISE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE

Now Comes the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, by Burke Costanza & 

Carberry, LLP, one of its attorneys, and in support of its Motion to Revise the Judgment of 

Foreclosure, states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed its Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage on May 4, 2012.

2. Defendants, Gina C. Edge, Jerome R. Edge, II, Amcore Mortgage, Inc., United States 

of America, Internal Revenue Service, on September 24, 2012 were Defaulted and a 

Judgment of Foreclosure was entered.

3. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff’s attorney received a letter from the United States 

Attorney’s Office requesting additional language be included in the Judgment of 

Foreclosure.

4. As a result, Plaintiff wishes to Revise the Judgment of Foreclosure to add the 

requested language recommended by the United States of America, Internal Revenue 

Service. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Court to Revise the Judgment of Foreclosure in this 

matter so that Plaintiff may proceed in its efforts to foreclose the mortgage that is the subject of 

this case. 

Respectfully submitted,

BURKE COSTANZA & CARBERRY LLP

By:/s/ James N. Pappas

James N. Pappas, #6291873

225 W. Washington St., Ste. 2200

Chicago, IL 60606

Phone: (219) 769-1313

Case: 3:12-cv-50160 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:94
Exhibit 99

Certificate of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers

The following statement is being made to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

Re:
Andrew Corporation

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:



Dated
as of this 19th day of December 2002.

|/s/FLOYD L. ENGLISHFloyd L. English
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/CHARLES R. NICHOLASCharles R. Nicholas
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

---

QuickLinks
**Overview**

An important element of prevention and local solutions is the implementation of effective procedures for addressing civil rights complaints and grievances. Federal law requires that such procedures be established under Title IX, Section 504, the ADA and the Age Discrimination Act. Developing, publicizing and effectively implementing the procedures gives students and parents an avenue to address concerns at the local level. OCR encourages the use of internal grievance procedures and where such procedures meet OCR's investigative standards, OCR will generally defer to the results reached, where the process provided for fair consideration of the grievance.

**Federal Grievance Procedure Requirements**

-  Title IX
-  Section 504
-  Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
-  Age Discrimination Act
#### Gilda Glassman, Respondent, v. Barnett Glassman, Defendant. Jack London Productions, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on July 24, 1963, denying the motion of the third parties made pursuant to section 924 of the Civil Practice Act to release their bank accounts from attachment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent of releasing the said bank accounts from attachment. Section 924 of *802the Civil Practice Act mandates that 'the bank accounts here in issue be released unless the plaintiff: show facts sufficient to warrant a hearing to try title to such accounts. Even assuming the defendant to be the sole stockholder and in exclusive control of the corporations, those facts, without more, do not justify our piercing the corporate veil and treating the corporations as the alter ego of the defendant *(City Bcmk Farmers Trust Co.*v. *Macfadden,*13 A D 2d 395, 402, affd. 12 N Y 2d 1035). While we may ignore the corporate structure where it is used for a fraudulent purpose or to achieve a fraudulent result *(Bwrtle*v. *Some Owners Cooperative,*309 N. Y. 103, 106; *City Bank Farmers Trust Co.*v. *Macfadden, supra),*no facts are shown to support the conclusion that such a dishonest purpose or use has been made of these corporations. Concur — - Botein, P, J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-11627, No. 33-17359, No. 33-20706, No. 33-29636, No. 333-03001, No. 33-48663,
and No. 333-61708 all on Forms S-8, and No. 333-10311 on Form S-3 of Alpha
Technologies Group, Inc. of our report dated January 7, 2003 (February 6, 2003
as to note 7) (which contains an explanatory paragraph regarding changes in
accounting principle in 2003) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. for the year ended October 27, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Boston, MA
February 6, 2003
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 11

- 00 264

- CR

______________________________

KENDRICK L. MURRY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06

- 0298X

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Mo rriss2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kendrick L. Murry 1 appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal.

The motion is signed by Murry and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we

grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 22, 2012

Date Decided: May 23, 2012

Do Not Publish

1 We note that the spelling “Murray” is also used in the record, including the judgment; however, it appears that

Mr. Murry signs his name “Murry.” We will, therefore, use “ Murry” in this opinion.
#### 2052.209-70 Current/former agency employee involvement.

As prescribed at 2009.105-70, the contracting officer shall insert the following provision in all solicitations:

# Current/Former Agency Employee Involvement (OCT 1999)

(a) The following representation is required by the NRC Acquisition Regulation 2009.105-70(b). It is not NRC policy to encourage offerors and contractors to propose current/former agency employees to perform work under NRC contracts and as set forth in the above cited provision, the use of such employees may, under certain conditions, adversely affect NRC's consideration of non-competitive proposals and task orders.

(b) There ( ) are ( ) are no current/former NRC employees (including special Government employees performing services as experts, advisors, consultants, or members of advisory committees) who have been or will be involved, directly or indirectly, in developing the offer, or in negotiating on behalf of the offeror, or in managing, administering, or performing any contract, consultant agreement, or subcontract resulting from this offer. For each individual so identified, the Technical and Management proposal must contain, as a separate attachment, the name of the individual, the individual's title while employed by the NRC, the date individual left NRC, and a brief description of the individual's role under this proposal.

(End of provision)
# URI - 9-29-08
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 4105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Dietary 
Biomarker Development Centers (U2C).
    Date: February 17-18, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lan Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 7349, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 496-7050, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b4f525a55577b555253155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="45312c242b29052b2c2d6b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00920 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
217.7104 Contract clauses. ( a ) Use the following clauses in solicitations for, and in, master agreements for repair and alteration of vessels: ( 1 ) 252.217-7003, Changes.
( 2 ) 252.217-7004, Job Orders and Compensation.
( 3 ) 252.217-7005, Inspection and Manner of Doing Work.
( 4 ) 252.217-7006, Title.
( 5 ) 252.217-7007, Payments.
( 6 ) 252.217-7008, Bonds.
( 7 ) 252.217-7009, Default.
( 8 ) 252.217-7010, Performance.
( 9 ) 252.217-7011, Access to Vessel.
( 10 ) 252.217-7012, Liability and Insurance.
( 11 ) 252.217-7013, Guarantees.
( 12 ) 252.217-7014, Discharge of Liens.
( 13 ) 252.217-7015, Safety and Health.
( 14 ) 252.217-7016, Plant Protection, as applicable.
( b ) ( 1 ) Incorporate in solicitations for, and in, job orders, the clauses in the master agreement, and any other clauses on subjects not covered by the master agreement, but applicable to the job order to be awarded.
( 2 ) Use the clause at 252.217-7016, Plant Protection, in job orders where performance is to occur at the contractor's facility.