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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OCIE BANKS, ROBERT WILK, and JETTIE )

BIGGS, individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated, ) No. 12 CV 3730

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Magistrate Judge Finnegan

v. )

)

GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC, )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFFS’ UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 

1. Preliminarily approving the class-wide Settlement Agreement negotiated by the 

parties;

2. Conditionally certifying this case as a class action for settlement purposes only 

and defining two Settlement Classes as follows: 

A Not Eligible Class, which is defined as: 

All individuals who satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) GCA designated the 

individual as “Not Eligible” for hire based on a consumer report in an e-mail 

communication sent to a hiring manager between May 15, 2010 and March 1, 

2012, (2) GCA never mailed the individual a copy his or her consumer report

between May 15, 2010 and March 1, 2012, and (3) the individual never worked 

for GCA after being designated “Not Eligible” for hire. Also included in the Not 

Eligible Class are individuals who GCA fired between May 15, 2010 and March 

1, 2012 and whose termination code was “Failed Background Check” and who 

were not mailed a copy of his or her consumer report prior to termination. Not 

Eligible Class Members are named in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

An Adverse Action Letter Class, which is defined as:

All individuals to whom GCA mailed the form letter attached hereto as Exhibit A 

(or a substantially similar letter) between May 15, 2010 and March 1, 2012 and 

Case: 1:12-cv-03730 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/17/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:100
who were not working for GCA thirty days after the letter was mailed. Adverse 

Action Letter Class Members are named in Exhibit B to this Agreement.

3. Designating Ocie Banks, Robert Wilk, and Jettie Biggs as representatives of the 

Settlement Classes and their attorneys as Class Counsel;

4. Approving the form and manner of class notice;

5. Setting a date for a final fairness hearing; and

6. Pending the outcome of a final fairness hearing, preliminarily enjoining all 

members of the Classes from commencing, prosecuting, or maintaining any claim already 

asserted in and encompassed by this Action.

7. A draft order is attached to the memorandum of law filed in support of this 

motion.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request entry of the attached draft order or a similar order.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher J. Wilmes 

Matthew J. Piers

Christopher J. Wilmes

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym

70 W. Madison St. Suite 4000

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 580-0100

Case: 1:12-cv-03730 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/17/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:101
#### 217.7506 Spare parts breakout program.

See PGI 217.7506 and DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 9, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Programs, for spare parts breakout requirements.

[71 FR 27643, May 12, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 61480, Dec. 28, 2017]
# Head Start FACES (Pilot): Program Performance Measures, Second Progress Report

Listen

Publication Date:

Current as of:April 29, 2019

##       Introduction  

Expand

As the nation's premier early childhood education program, Head Start is leading the way in developing and reporting on its accountability for services to approximately 800,000 children and their families each year. From initial planning in 1995 to the publication of this Head Start Performance Measures Second Progress Report, Head Start has made dramatic progress toward the development of an outcome-oriented accountability system. This approach combines the best attributes of scientific research with program-level reporting and monitoring and is based on a consensus-driven set of criteria for program accountability.

The Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative is a response to a specific legislative mandate, strategic planning for Head Start, and broader public emphasis on accountability and the general movement toward results-oriented evaluation.

Specifically the Program Performance Measures were developed in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, the mandate of Section 641A (b) of the Head Start Act (42 USC 9831 et seq.) as reauthorized in 1994 and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)(Public Law 103-62). Signed into law in July 1993, the GPRA requires all federally funded programs to improve their performance and accountability. Other efforts taking place at the Federal level include the Chief Financial Officers Act and the National Performance Review, both of which added impetus to the development of the Head Start Program Performance Measures.

##       Files  

                      - PDF     Head Start FACES (Pilot): Program Performance Measures, Second Progress Report  (573.46 KB)

Types:

Report

OPRE Research Topics:

Head Start & Early Head Start

Projects:

Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)

Topics:

Early ChildhoodHead Start

Tags:

EducationEvidence-based ApproachesGrantsResearch

##       Directly Related Research  

                        -  FACES Findings: New Research on Head Start Program Quality and Outcomes                  June 15, 2000
C. A. No. 75-46.

#### State *v.*Kevin George Boily.

*Julius C. Michael-son,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *Aram K. Berberian,*for defendant.

Motion of State to dismiss appeal is denied pro forma.
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 53 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life of William ‘‘Billy’’ F. Graham, Jr. 

Whereas William ‘‘Billy’’ F. Graham, Jr., was born on November 7, 1918, in Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Whereas, in 1939, Reverend Graham was ordained by Peniel 

Baptist Church in Florida; 

Whereas Reverend Graham studied at Florida Bible Institute 

and graduated from Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, in 1943; 

Whereas Reverend Graham married his wife of nearly 64 

years, Ruth McCue Bell, in 1943; 

Whereas Reverend Graham had 3 daughters, 2 sons, 19 

grandchildren, and numerous great-grandchildren; 

Whereas, in 1950, Reverend Graham founded the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which is based in Charlotte, North Carolina; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 53 RFH 

Whereas Reverend Graham preached to nearly 215,000,000 

individuals in more than 185 countries and territories on 

6 continents; 

Whereas Reverend Graham provided spiritual counsel for 

every President since Harry Truman; 

Whereas Reverend Graham prayed with members of the 

Armed Forces in combat zones in South Korea and Vietnam; 

Whereas Reverend Graham spoke against the communist Soviet Union, saying, ‘‘Communism has decided against 

God, against Christ, against the Bible, and against all religion.’’; 

Whereas Reverend Graham— 

(1) fought for racial integration; 

(2) invited Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to preach 

with him in New York City in 1957; and 

(3) bailed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., out of jail 

when Dr. King was arrested for protesting segregation; 

Whereas, following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001, Reverend Graham spoke words of hope and comfort to the people of the United States at the Washington 

National Cathedral; 

Whereas Reverend Graham authored 34 books, including the 

bestselling autobiography, ‘‘Just as I Am’’, which began 

by discussing his early days on a dairy farm in North 

Carolina and continued through his career as a preacher 

and evangelist; and 

Whereas Reverend Graham received numerous honors, including— 

(1) the North Carolina Award for Public Service; 

(2) the Presidential Medal of Freedom; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

SJ 53 RFH 

(3) the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award; and 

(4) the Congressional Gold Medal: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress— 

4 (1) extends its sympathies to the family of Wil5 liam ‘‘Billy’’ F. Graham, Jr.; and 

6 (2) honors— 

7 (A) the life and ministry of Reverend Gra8 ham; and 

9 (B) the contributions of Reverend Graham 

10 to— 

11 (i) the State of North Carolina; 

12 (ii) the United States of America; and 

13 (iii) the moral and religious lives of 

14 millions of individuals. 

Passed the Senate February 28, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2  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 Annual Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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) 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/ Robin S. McRae By  ____________________________________ Robin S.  McRae Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:   October 20, 2006
1910.004-70 Brand name products or equal. ( a ) *General.* Consistent with the policy stated in FAR 10.004(a)(2), the Broadcasting Board of Governors acquisitions will generally not be based on a specifically identified product or feature(s) thereof. However, under unusual circumstances such an approach may be used as described below.
( b ) *Citing brand name products.* Brand name or equal purchase descriptions shall cite all brand name products known to be acceptable and of current manufacture. If the use of a brand name or equal purchase description results in the purchase of an acceptable brand name product which was not listed as an “equal” product, a reference to that brand name product should be included in the purchase description for later acquisitions. If a brand name product is no longer applicable, the reference thereto shall be deleted from subsequent purchase description.
( c ) *Specifying essential characteristics.* ( 1 ) It is imperative that brand name or equal purchase descriptions specify each physical or functional characteristic of the product that is essential to the intended use. Failure to do so may result in a defective solicitation and the necessity to resolicit the requirements. (See 1910.004-73.) Care must be taken to avoid specifying characteristics that cannot be shown to materially affect the intended end use and which unnecessarily restrict competition.
( 2 ) When describing essential characteristics, permissible tolerances should be indicated. Avoid specifying a characteristic (e.g., a specific dimension) of a brand name product unless it is essential to the Government's need. The contracting officer must be able to justify the requirement.
#### 1952.227-76 Government rights (unlimited).

As prescribed in 1927.405(g), insert the following clause:

# Government Rights (Unlimited) (FEB 1985)

The Government shall have unlimited rights, in all drawings, designs, specifications, notes and other works developed in the performance of this contract, including the right to use same on any other Government design or construction without additional compensation to the Contractor. The Contractor hereby grants to the government a paid-up license throughout the world to all such works to which he may assert or establish any claim under design patent or copyrights laws. The Contractor for a period of three years after completion of the project agrees to furnish the original or copies of all such works on the request of the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, 
February 25, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to February 25, 2021, 6:30 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting) which was published in the 
Federal Register on January 14, 2021, 86 FR 3164.
    This notice is being amended to change the date of this one-day 
meeting to April 22, 2021. The meeting time remains the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01701 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3, No. 33-58989) of McDonnell  Douglas Finance  Corporation and in the related
Prospectuses  of  our  report  dated  January  22,  1997  with  respect  to  the
consolidated  financial  statements,  schedule  and selected  financial  data of
McDonnell  Douglas Finance  Corporation  included in this Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 31, 1997
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Linda Wong

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−03102

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Accretive Health, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, April 30, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Fairness hearing

held on 4/30/2014. Plaintiff's oral motion to overrule Mr. Hayes' objection is granted.

Enter Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Enter Order Approving Plan

of Distribution of Settlement Proceeds. Enter Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and

Expenses. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(rth, )

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-03102 Document #: 81 Filed: 04/30/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2710
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Preston Hall, Also Known as Julius Middleton, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 9, 1962, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered October 10, 1945 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted rape in the second degree, and imposing sentence. The District Attorney joins defendant in requesting reversal and remission to the Supreme Court for a hearing. Order reversed on the law and the facts and matter remitted to the Criminal Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. On this record, we believe defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issue as to whether *he*was misled by the court, albeit inadvertently, into believing that he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor rather than to a felony. Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum : On October 10, 1945 defendant pleaded guilty to the felony of attempted rape in the second degree, but for purposes of sentence he was treated as a misdemeanant. Such treatment was accorded to him pursuant to a promise made to him by the court at the time of his plea. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term not exceeding three years. In my opinion, the proof is insufficient to entitle defendant to a hearing on the question as to whether he believed that the crime charged was a misdemeanor or that he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor.
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Vermont Agency of Education1 National Life Drive, Davis 5Montpelier, VT 05620-2501Phone: (802) 828-1130Website: http://www.education.vermont.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Vermont Student Assistance Corporation10 East Allen StreetP.O. Box 2000Winooski, VT 05404-2601Phone: (802) 655-9602Toll-Free: (800) 642-3177Website: http://www.vsac.org/

### Special Education Agency

Office of Special Education1 National Life Drive, Davis 5Montpelier, VT 05620-2501Phone: (802) 476-4588Website: https://education.vermont.gov/student-support/vermont-special-education

### State Adult Education Agency

Vermont Agency of EducationAdult Education and Literacy1 National Life Drive, Davis 5Montpelier, VT 05620-2501Phone: (802) 476-4588Website: https://education.vermont.gov/student-learning/adult-education

Back to state map
#### Emil Kraemer, Respondent, v. Philip Gallagher, Appellant.

On an appeal from a final judgment, motion by respondent to reject appellant’s notice of settlement of the transcript of the stenographic minutes of the trial which preceded the interlocutory judgment, and for other relief. Motion denied *in toto,*without prejudice to an application to the Trial Judge for appropriate relief. He is the one who in the first instance is required to settle the transcript to be used upon an appeal, and to decide any controversy with respect to such transcript. The proper procedure is prescribed by subdivision (e) of 5525 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for the September Term beginning September 9, 1964; the stay heretofore granted by order, dated March 26, 1964, is continued on condition that the appeal be perfected for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before July 20, 1964. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-02965 Document #: 68 Filed: 03/12/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2160
1:12-cv-02965 Document #: 68 Filed: 03/12/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #
1:12-cv-02965 Document #: 68 Filed: 03/12/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #
Case: 1:12-cv-02965 Document #: 68 Filed: 03/12/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2163
Case: 1:12-cv-02965 Document #: 68 Filed: 03/12/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2164
M. P. No. 74-320.

#### Victor Walka *v.*Frank Bestwick, Jr. Victor Walka *v.*William Collins.

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Daniel J. Murray, Jerome B. Spunt, Frank Licht,*for respondent-appellee. *Alan H. Pearlman,*for petitioners-appellants.

Matter assigned to the calendar for February 7, 1975 for oral argument.

Paolino and Joslin, JJ. not participating.
From: Magin Misael Sanchez, UnidosUS, Negotiator for Civil Rights Organizations

Jessi Morales, Negotiator for Students and Borrowers

To: 2024 Negotiated Rulemaking 

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee 

Date: January 9, 2024

Re: Sweeping meal plans [cash management]

As a representative for civil rights organizations and a recent student, we appreciate the Department’s 

proposal in §668.164(c)(1) to require institutions to return remaining Title IV funds from meal plans to 

students. The institutional practice of “sweeping” these meal plans at the end of the semester as 

revenue to the college, rather than providing funds designed to help students afford their costs of 

attendance back to those students, creates significant challenges for responsible budgeting and unfairly 

deprives students of funds they need to pay for school supplies, living costs, and other costs of 

attendance.

However, many institutions currently use meal plans in which students purchase “vouchers” or “swipes” 

for meals. To avoid a possible loophole in the Department’s proposal, we propose to further clarify that 

the funds institutions must return from meal plans include the value of such vouchers. The 

Department’s proposed language appears in red, below; my proposed addition is highlighted in yellow.

34 CFR §668.164(c)

(c) Crediting a student's ledger account.

(1) An institution may credit a student's ledger account with title IV, HEA program funds to pay for

allowable charges associated with the current payment period. Allowable charges are—

(i) The amount of tuition, fees, and institutionally provided room and board assessed the

student for the payment period or as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the prorated

amount of those charges if the institution debits the student’s ledger account for more than the

charges associated with the payment period. Any title IV, HEA program funds allocated for meal

plans must be fully utilized for the benefit of the respective students. No institution may retain

unused meal plan funds that were paid for with title IV, HEA program funds, and any remaining

balance, including the cash value of any unused meal vouchers, at the end of the payment

period must be returned to the student as soon as possible but no later than 14 days after the

end of the payment period;

(ii) The amount incurred by the student for the payment period for purchasing books, 

supplies, and other educationally related goods and services provided by the institution for 

which the institution obtains the student's or parent's authorization under § 668.165(b).
**CYoshitomi - Department of Education Regulatory Negotiations**

**Conference Agenda**

**Topic 1:   DOE Regulatory Negotiations: Accreditation - Alternative Standards and Waivers Part B**

The Department also seeks recommendations from negotiators about when and how agencies should be allowed to grant waivers to one or more standards, such as to allow for educational innovations that may not fit neatly into the agency’s typical requirements, or in situations where an institution cannot reasonably be expected to comply with a given standard due to circumstances beyond their control, or in the event that an institution has agreed to serve as a teach-out provider for students enrolled at a closed or closing institution.

FacilitatePro Conference Report