alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Violence Against Women Act Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 

Issue Paper #4

Issue: Applicable Jurisdiction

Statutory Cites: §485(f) of the HEA, as amended by §304 of the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013

Regulatory Cites: 34 CFR §668.41, §668.46, and Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 668

Summary Question(s): What is the applicable jurisdiction for purposes of certain disclosures? 

Summary of Issue:

Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA) (Pub. Law 

113-4) amended §485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, otherwise 

known as the Clery Act. Under new section 485(f)(8)(B)(i) of the HEA, institutions must provide 

education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, 

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking for incoming students and new employees. Among 

other information these programs must include the definition of the terms “domestic violence,”

“dating violence,” “sexual assault,” and “stalking” in the applicable jurisdiction and the 

definition of “consent,” in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction. 

The statutes’ reliance on the law of the “applicable jurisdiction” raises several implementation 

issues. First, how can we best ensure that the required disclosures provide students and 

employees with useful information about the definitions of these terms? Different states have 

different definitions of the terms “domestic violence,” “dating violence,” “sexual assault” and 

“stalking,” and some states do not use some or all of these terms. Moreover, states have different 

definitions of “consent” in reference to sexual activity and, in some cases, the applicable 

definition relies on the age of the victim, the capacity of the victim, and the particular 

circumstances of the incident. These varying definitions raise questions about how to make this 

information as meaningful as possible for students and employees.

Second, the varying definitions pose enforcement challenges for the Department. What rules or 

guidelines, if any, should the Department establish for institutions to use in determining the 

applicable jurisdiction for purposes of these definitions? Should the Department require 

institutions to use a particular circumstance, such as the physical location of the campus where 

the student is attending or the employee is working, to determine applicable jurisdiction? What 

documentation should an institution be required to maintain to demonstrate that it has a 

reasonable basis for the jurisdiction it chooses to use as the applicable jurisdiction? 

Alternatively, should it be left to the institution’s discretion to determine the applicable 

jurisdiction that it will use in providing information?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Dennis Adkins, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02871

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Nestle Purina Petcare Company, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, February 19, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman:Motion for extension

of time [146] is granted. This is the final extension. Amended complaint is due by

3/12/2014. Response is due by 4/25/2014. Joint status report is due by 5/2/2014. Status

hearing date of 4/9/2014 is re−set to 5/14/2014 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice (gds)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02871 Document #: 148 Filed: 02/19/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2088
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          74,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  276,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,300)
<INVENTORY>                                    837,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,221,144
<PP&E>                                       2,414,432
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,098,232)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,046,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,931,358
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       734,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (627,175)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,046,621
<SALES>                                      1,741,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,730,240
<CGS>                                        1,516,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,516,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               714,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                490,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (32,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            458,741
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   458,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 55 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 55

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
   state of the remains of the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st 
                    President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2018

   Mr. Blunt (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
   state of the remains of the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st 
                    President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered to 
the Nation and to the world, by the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 
the 41st President of the United States, his remains be permitted to 
lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol from December 3, 2018 until 
December 5, 2018, and the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction 
of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the 
accomplishment of that purpose.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES SPIDLE, 

 PLAINTIFF, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF COOK, et. al., 

 DEFENDANTS. 

 Case No. 12-CV-2891 

 

 JUDGE SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN 

 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL T. MASON

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to the 

above-entitled action, Plaintiff, James Spidle, by and through his undersigned attorney, 

and Defendants, County of Cook, d/b/a John H. Stroger, Jr., Hospital Police, Officer Joann 

Brothers, Officer Stuart Crose, Officer Ronald Caldwell, Officer Rodney Hunter, Correctional 

Officer Sherwood Wright, and Lt. Derrick Williams, by and through their undersigned 

attorneys, that this matter has been fully settled, and this cause should be dismissed with 

prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance 

with the terms of the Release and Settlement Agreement and the Agreed Order of 

Dismissal. 

Respectfully submitted, For the Defendants:

For the Plaintiff 

By: ___/s/ Dan Dorfman____

 Dan Dorfman, Esq. 

The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd. 

39 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1515 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

 : 

By: __/s/ Michael J. Sorich___

 Anita Alvarez

State's Attorney for Cook County 

by Michael J. Sorich 

Assistant State's Attorney 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-02891 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:101
Proposed Closed School Discharge Eligibility Date Language

§685.214 (c)(i)(B) Did not complete the program of study at that school 

because the school closed while the student was enrolled;, or the student 

withdrew from the school following the school’s communication that it will 

close, publicly or directly to students, or not more than 180 calendar days 

before the school closed, whichever is longer.
#### Basya Pollack, Appellant, v Dov Klein et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 290]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), entered October 3, 2006, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case at the close of the plaintiffs evidence, the trial court must determine “whether there [is] any rational basis on which a jury could [find] for plaintiffs, the plaintiffs being entitled to every favorable inference which could reasonably be drawn from the evidence submitted by them” *(Rhabb*v *New York City Hous. Auth.,*41 NY2d 200, 202 [1976]; *see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553 [1997]; *Tapia v Dattco, Inc.,*32 AD3d 842 [2006]; *Velez v Goldenberg,*29 AD3d 780 [2006]).

Viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion. The testimony of the plaintiff, largely corroborated by excerpts from the deposition of the defendant Ahuva Nicole Klein which were read into the record, demonstrated that the plaintiff was injured while she was an overnight guest at the defendants’ single-family residence when she was led down a dark hallway by Ahuva Nicole Klein, stepped through an open doorway, and fell down a set of concrete steps leading to the basement. According to the plaintiff, she was totally unfamiliar with that area of the house, she was unable to see anything in the hallway, and the defendants failed to illuminate the area, to close the basement door, or to take any steps to warn her of the danger. Given this evidence, the case should have been submitted to the jury for resolution rather *731than being disposed of as a matter of law *(see Quinlan v Cecchini,*41 NY2d 686 [1977]; *Gordon v Muchnick,*180 AD2d 715 [1992]; *see also Wrubel v Rose Boutique II, Inc.,*13 AD3d 264 [2004]; *Karsdon v Barringer,*298 AD2d 501 [2002]; *Miccoli v Kotz,*278 AD2d 460 [2000]; *Paynter v Moorehouse,*270 AD2d 708 [2000]). The defendants’ contentions to the contrary are factually inapposite and legally unpersuasive. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.4





CERTIFICATION 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 Amended Annual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin P. McIntosh, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





By:

/s/    KEVIN P.
MCINTOSHKevin P. McIntoshSenior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer


Dated:    October 3, 2002










1
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #:646
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #:647
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #:648
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #:649
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #:650
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #:651
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #:652
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #:653
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #:654
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #:655
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #:656
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #:657
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #:658
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #:659
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #:660
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #:661
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #:662
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #:663
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #:664
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #:665
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #:666
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #:667
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #:668
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #:669
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #:670
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #:671
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #:672
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #:673
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #:674
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #:675
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #:676
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #:677
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #:678
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-7 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #:679
### CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and

Emissions Data Reporting Interface

Air Emission Reports, e.g. Excess Emission Reports (fillable form) Source Tests (ERT upload)

Compliance Status Reports ( pdf )

WebFIRE Database Public Access 

### Up to 60 Days Review by Regulatory Authority
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report ofMaxtor Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 27, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dr. C.S. Park, Chairman andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(“Section 906”), that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934    (15 U.S.C. 78m); and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Dr. C.S. Park       Dr. C.S. Park     CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERDate: February 18, 2005A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING,ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARSIN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THECOMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
S. Con. Res. 14 Agreed to May 24, 2017

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE 

BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHAMEHA I. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor 

Center is authorized to be used on June 11, 2017 for an event 

to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                 ---------------

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

                     [PFL Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2000


PFL Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52499-0001

Re:      Access Variable Annuity Account
         Registration on Form N-4   SEC File No. 33-94489

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Access Variable Annuity policies are those
deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)  the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the Policies,

(2)  the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the policies,

(3)  the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
     of the Policies and/or riders to the Policy and that provides for a
     reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the Variable Account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including Premium and other Taxes if applicable)

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through
(iii) is established in the pricing of the Access Variable Annuity, to achieve a
reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of industry
practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.
<PAGE>

PFL Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2000
Page 2

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
Policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.



/s/ Calvin R. Birkey
-------------------------------
Calvin R. Birkey, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
PFL Life Insurance Company
#### 1352.239-70 Software license addendum.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1339.107, insert the following clause:

# Software License Addendum (APR 2010)

(a) This Addendum incorporates certain terms and conditions relating to Federal procurement actions. The terms and conditions of this Addendum take precedence over the terms and conditions contained in any license agreement or other contract documents entered into between the parties.

(b) Governing Law: Federal procurement law and regulations, including the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. Section 601 *et. seq.,* and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), govern the agreement between the parties. Litigation arising out of this contract may be filed only in those fora that have jurisdiction over Federal procurement matters.

(c) Attorney's Fees: Attorney's fees are payable by the Federal government in any action arising under this contract only pursuant to the Equal Access in Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 504.

(d) No Indemnification: The Federal government will not be liable for any claim for indemnification; such payments may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341(a).

(e) Assignment: Payments may only be assigned in accordance with the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3727, and FAR Subpart 32.8, “Assignment of Claims.”

(f) Invoices: Invoices will be handled in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. Section 3903) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-125, Prompt Payment.

(g) Patent and Copyright Infringement: Patent or copyright infringement suits brought against the United States as a party may only be defended by the U.S. Department of Justice (28 U.S.C. Section 516).

(h) Renewal of Support after Expiration of this Award: Service will not automatically renew after expiration of the initial term of this agreement.

(i) Renewal may only occur in accord with (1) the mutual agreement of the parties; or (2) an option renewal clause allowing the Government to unilaterally exercise one or more options to extend the term of the agreement.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]