alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:15

Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:16

Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:17

Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:18

Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:19

Case: 1:12-cv-01226 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:20
217.7404 Limitations. See PGI 217.7404 for additional guidance on obtaining approval to authorize use of an undefinitized contact action, documentation requirements, and other limitations on their use. ( a ) *Foreign military sales contracts.* ( 1 ) A contracting officer may not enter into a UCA for a foreign military sale unless— ( i ) The UCA provides for agreement upon contractual terms, specifications, and price by the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the contractor submits a qualifying proposal; and
( ii ) The contracting officer obtains approval from the head of the contracting activity to enter into a UCA in accordance with 217.7404-1.
( 2 ) The head of the contracting activity may waive the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a waiver is necessary in order to support any of the following operations: ( i ) A contingency operation.
( ii ) A humanitarian or peacekeeping operation.
( b ) *Unilateral definitization by a contracting officer.* Any UCA with a value greater than $50 million may not be unilaterally definitized until— ( 1 ) The earlier of— ( i ) The end of the 180-day period, beginning on the date on which the contractor submits a qualifying proposal to definitize the contractual terms, specifications, and price; or
( ii ) The date on which the amount of funds expended under the contractual action is equal to more than 50 percent of the negotiated overall not-to-exceed price for the contractual action;
( 2 ) The head of the contracting activity, without power of redelegation, approves the definitization in writing;
( 3 ) The contracting officer provides a copy of the written approval to the contractor; and
( 4 ) A period of 30 calendar days has elapsed after the written approval is provided to the contractor.
[84 FR 39206, Aug. 9, 2019]
#### Rhett Ravenal v. A. Louisa Davis, Also Known as Addell L. Cushion.

Motion for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 106 Filed: 08/14/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:911
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 106 Filed: 08/14/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:912
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>		NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                          1,121,489
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>		0
<PP&E>                          27,982,248
<DEPRECIATION>                  9,645,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  19,649,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         8,564,859
<COMMON>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      10,563,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	19,649,841
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		4,202,750
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,912,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>		1,190,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>		0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              929,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    85,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        

</TABLE>
| (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Anthony L. Havens          |   |   |        |
| Anthony              L. Havens |   |   |        |
| Chief Executive Officer        |   |   |        |

----
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/11 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11
#### LAX v. FOURTEENTH STREET STORE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Submission of Controversy—Requisites of Statement. *

Under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580, § 241, providing for submission of a controversy on an agreed statement of facts, but providing that such statement “must” be accompanied with the affidavit of a party that the controversy is real, and that the submission is made in good faith for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties, the court does not acquire jurisdiction in the absence of such affidavit.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Submission of Controversy, § 10.]

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

Submission of controversy on agreed facts between Bertha Lax, as plaintiff, and the Fourteenth Street Store. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Rose & Putzel (Benjamin C. Paslcus and Arthur O. Ernst, of counsel), for appellant.

Gainsburg & Solomon (I. Gainsburg, of counsel), for respondent.

SCOTT, P. J.

The judgment must be reversed, because the court below was without jurisdiction to render any judgment at all. The attorneys for the parties agreed to and signed a statement of facts, upon which the case was submitted; there being no written pleadings and no evidence taken. Section 241 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580) provides for the submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, but also provides that:

> “Such statement must be accompanied with the affidavit of one or more of the parties to the effect that the controversy is real and that the submission is made in good faith for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties.”

No such affidavit appears in the return. In its absence the justice should not have rendered any judgment, for there was nothing before him to show that he was dealing with a real controversy.

The judgment will therefore be reversed, but without costs to either party, and without direction for a new trial. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,571,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,573,510
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,467,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,461,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,467,723
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               424,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               730,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (305,950)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (305,950)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (305,950)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Calvin Hill, Also Known as Calvin Hill, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Queens County, dated February 24,1961, denying, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered April 30, 1956, on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted violation of section 1751 of the Penal Law as a felony (violations of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs), and sentencing him, as a third felony offender, to serve a term of 2% to 10 years. Order reversed on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court, Queens County, for the purpose of holding a hearing and making a determination, not inconsistent herewith, on the basis of all the facts, including particularly those adduced at such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. In this proceeding defendant seeks to 'be resentenced as a second offender on the ground that one prior conviction against him occurred in the State of Washington at a time when he was 15 years of age; hence such foreign conviction does not constitute a felony conviction in New York State and it was erroneously made the basis for the imposition of sentence upon him as a third felony offender. If defendant is able to establish his assertion that he was 15 years of age at the time of his prior conviction in Washington, then he may be entitled to the relief sought (cf. Penal Law, § 1941; *People ex rel. Harrison*v. *Jackson,*298 N. Y. 219; *People ex rel. Jones*v. *Martin,*7 A D 2d 829, 830). In view of defendant’s claim it is incumbent upon the court to hold a hearing; to examine into the facts as to the Washington conviction; to take proof as to defendant’s age; and then to determine if such conviction would constitute a felony in this State if the crime charged had been committed by the defendant here on the date when it was commitited in the State of Washington. Ughetta, Action P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1511.011-78 Advisory and assistance services.

Contracting Officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.211-78 in all contracts for advisory and assistance services.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    <ARTICLE>                         5

    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
    <PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1996
    <PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
    <CASH>                                            0
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2384819
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                      0
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 892 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to establish additional registration 

requirements for prescribers of opioids, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2017 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to establish additional registration requirements for prescribers of 

opioids, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Opioid Addiction Pre5 vention Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESCRIBERS. 

7 Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

8 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 892 IS

1 ‘‘(k)(1) The Attorney General shall not register, or 

2 renew the registration of, a practitioner under subsection 

3 (f) who is licensed under State law to prescribe controlled 

4 substances in schedule II, III, or IV, unless the practi5 tioner submits to the Attorney General, for each such reg6 istration or renewal request, a certification that the practi7 tioner, during the applicable registration period, will not 

8 prescribe any schedule II, III, or IV opioid, other than 

9 an opioid prescription described in paragraph (3), for the 

10 initial treatment of acute pain in an amount in excess of 

11 the lesser of— 

12 ‘‘(A) a 7-day supply (for which no refill is avail13 able); or 

14 ‘‘(B) an opioid prescription limit established 

15 under State law. 

16 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘acute pain’— 

17 ‘‘(A) means pain with abrupt onset and caused 

18 by an injury or other process that is not ongoing; 

19 and 

20 ‘‘(B) does not include— 

21 ‘‘(i) chronic pain; 

22 ‘‘(ii) pain being treated as part of cancer 

23 care; 

24 ‘‘(iii) hospice or other end-of-life care; or 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 892 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) pain being treated as part of pallia2 tive care. 

3 ‘‘(3) An opioid prescription described in this para4 graph is a prescription— 

5 ‘‘(A) for a schedule II, III, or IV opioid drug 

6 approved by the Food and Drug Administration for 

7 an indication for the treatment of addiction; and 

8 ‘‘(B) that is for the treatment of addiction.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01532

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Does 1−54, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 31, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court is still considering

Plaintiff's motion to compel [13] and the respective Doe's motions to quash [12, 18].

Status hearing of 11/01/12 is reset to 11/20/12 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(slb, )

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-01532 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:238
#### (A) In the Matter of Mott Haven Houses. City of New York, Appellant-Respondent; Eva G. Reisner, Respondent-Appellant. (B) Headley-Reed Company, Inc. v. Bolling Company, Inc. (C) Boris Garfinkel v. Liza P. Garfinkel.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. Concur-—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.— [In each action] Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
Proposal to Include Noncompleter Outcomes through a Repayment Rate Measurement 

9/10/13 

It is important that the Department revisit its decision to exclude the repayment rate calculation 

from the gainful employment measures. Without the repayment rate, the rule does not take 

program outcomes for noncompleters into account at all, and programs where 99 percent of 

students drop out with unmanageable debt may face no sanctions whatsoever. 

One way the regulation could incorporate a repayment rate measure is described below. 

Essentially, the repayment rate would be a trigger for additional scrutiny. Programs with a very 

high repayment rate would immediately pass. Those with lower rates would need to be assessed 

against the debt metrics. Those programs with exceedingly low repayment rates, would 

automatically fail. 

• Use a high repayment threshold as the trigger to determine which programs need further 

scrutiny. Programs with repayment rates above this threshold pass the gainful 

employment test. 

• Programs with a moderate to high repayment rate have graduates' debt-to-earnings ratios 

assessed. To continue with full aid eligibility, the program must pass one out of two debt 

ratios. 

• Programs with a low to moderate repayment rate also have graduates' debt-to-earnings 

ratios assessed. To continue with full aid eligibility, the program must pass both of the 

two debt ratios. 

• Programs below a low repayment threshold lose eligibility for federal aid, regardless of 

their debt-to-earnings ratios. 

We cannot set thresholds at this point, even for illustration purposes, as setting these thresholds 

depends substantially on factors that are currently in flux. For instance, this includes whether the 

repayment rate measure is based on borrowers or dollars, how loans in negative amortization are 

treated, etc. Once there is some agreement on a concept for how a repayment rate measure could 

be incorporated into a rule, negotiators will need to discuss exactly what (in terms of threshold 

and timeframe) constitutes a failing program versus a zone program.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

John Z. Lee Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1888 DATE 9/24/2012

CASE

TITLE

Flava Works, Inc. Vs. Fisher

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court strikes the in-court hearing set for 9/25/12 at 9:30 a.m. and resets it to 10/30/12 at 9:15 a.m. As

outlined herein, within seven days, the Court orders plaintiff to provide a supplemental brief on the prove-up

of the default.

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

STATEMENT

 The supplemental brief shall address whether the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and § 1391 are

satisfied. Plaintiff shall address whether (1) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred

in this district, (2) defendant has purposefully directed his activities at Illinois such that it comports with

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to hale Fisher into an Illinois court, and (3) plaintiff’s

alleged injury arose from defendant’s Illinois-related activities. 

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

LC/LG

12C1888 Flava Works, Inc. Vs. Fisher Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01888 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:82
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 345/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell'Unione europea | C 345 |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 58° anno18 ottobre 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell'Unione europea

C 345

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

58° anno18 ottobre 2015

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informazioni |
| | INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA |
| | Consiglio |
| 2015/C 345/01 | Dichiarazione del Consiglio | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

IV   Informazioni

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

Consiglio

2015/C 345/01

Dichiarazione del Consiglio

1

---

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

IV Informazioni

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

Consiglio

| 18.10.2015 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2015

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea

C 345/1

---

DICHIARAZIONE DEL CONSIGLIO

(2015/C 345/01)

Il Consiglio rileva che l'impegno di revocare tutte le sanzioni dell'UE relative al nucleare conformemente al piano d'azione congiunto globale (PACG) lascia impregiudicato il meccanismo di risoluzione delle controversie specificato nel piano e la reintroduzione di sanzioni dell'UE in caso di significativa inadempienza da parte dell'Iran degli impegni assunti nel quadro del PACG.

Il Consiglio si impegna a reintrodurre senza indugio tutte le sanzioni dell'UE relative al nucleare che sono state sospese e/o revocate in caso di significativa inadempienza da parte dell'Iran degli impegni assunti nel quadro del PACG su raccomandazione comune rivolta al Consiglio dall'alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza e da Francia, Germania e Regno Unito.

---