alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RYAN v. SWARTWOUT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Findings op Fact—Review.

Findings for plaintiff on the question whether defendant requested him to do work, and promised to pay for it, will not be disturbed on appeal; the parties contradicting each other, and there being against defendant the statement of one or more witnesses, and some corroborative incidents, though plaintiff was contradicted by one of his witnesses, and was confronted with a misstatement in his petition to sue in forma pauperis, the order for which was then vacated.

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

Action by Joseph A. Ryan against Frank G. Swartwout. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

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

James C. Bushby, for appellant.

Edward A. Scott, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiff brought this action for work done by himself and others, as assignors, upon premises not belonging to the *152defendant. A large portion of the claim was eliminated as objectionable under the statute of frauds, the learned justice deciding to submit to the jury only whether the defendant had on a certain day (the 27th of September, 1902) requested the doing of the work, and promised to pay therefor, and the value of such work, if any. Both parties testified, and each contradicted the other. As against the defendant, however, there were the statements of one or more other witnesses, and also some corroborative incidents in evidence. On the other hand, it is a fact that the plaintiff was straightly contradicted by.one of his own witnesses, and was also confronted with a misstatement in his petition to sue in forma pauperis, the order for which was vacated then and there upon the trial. Sorry as was the evidence, it may not be said that the jury might not give credence to it, and the judgment must stand, except as to two items—one, $79.30, a sum loaned to the supposed owner of the premises, and another, $26.55, for services rendered prior to September 27th, aggregating together $105.85, reducing the judgment to $164.92.

The judgment appealed from modified by its reduction to $164.92, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32 Certification of Trust Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Ted L. Hall, the Trust Officer of U.S. Bank National Association,
the trustee of the Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. By:
    
    /s/ Ted L. HallTed L. HallTrust OfficerU.S. Bank National AssociationTrusteeDate: March 30, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50824

Summary Calendar

__________________

DOYLE EMANUEL RAVENELL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK M. GARNER, Warden, in his

official and individual capacities;

MICHAEL W. MOORE, Reg. Director, in

his official and individual capacities;,

WAYNE SCOTT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-94-CV-164

- - - - - - - - - -

May 17, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Doyle Emanuel Ravenell appeals the district court's grant of

summary judgment for the defendants in this civil rights case. 

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Ravenell v. Garner, No. W-94-CA-164
No. 95-50824

-2-

(W.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 1995). The court did not err in granting

summary judgment for the defendants because the summary-judgment 

evidence revealed no genuine issue of material fact as to the

deliberate indifference of the defendants. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in failing to allow Ravenell to crossexamine a witness during the Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179

(5th Cir. 1985), hearing. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in granting summary judgment for the defendants

without affording Ravenell additional time to conduct discovery. 

See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 498 U.S. 901 (1990) and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1069

(1991). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Ravenell's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or

amend the judgment. See Edward H. Bohlin, Co., Inc. v. Banning

Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Ravenell's Motion to Strike the Appellee's brief is DENIED. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of James J. Healy, an Attorney.

Motion for an order suspending the execution of the order of this court, entered June 9, 1960, or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### 204.7105 Contract exhibits and attachments.

Follow the procedures at PGI 204.7105 for use and numbering of contract exhibits and attachments.

[71 FR 9269, Feb. 23, 2006]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 2, 2020 

Honorable Kathy Hoffman 

Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Arizona Department of Education 

1535 West Jefferson Street, Bin #2 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

kathy.hoffman@azed.gov 

Dear Superintendent Hoffman: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180007 and H173A180003. 

The Department received your June 8, 2020 request on behalf of the Arizona Department of

Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Kathleen Heck, at 

Kathleen.Heck@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PAYLOCITY HOLDING §

CORPORATION, § No. 46, 2017

§

Defendant Below, § Court Below

— Court of Chancery of

Appellant, § the State of Delaware

§

v. § C.A. No. 12299

§

JOHN SOLAK

, on behalf of himself §

and all other similarly situated §

stockholders of PAYLOCITY §

HOLDING CORPORATION, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: January 26 , 201 7

Decided: January 30 , 201 7

Before HOLLAND

, V ALIHURA

, and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 30 th day of January 2017

, having considered the defendant/appellant’s

notice and supplemental notice of appeal from interlocutory order under Supreme

Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 5, 2016, the plaintiff/appellee, John Solak (“Solak”)

, filed a

verified class action complaint against defendant/appellant, Paylocity Holding

Corporation (“Paylocity”)

, and individual members of Paylocity’s board of

directors (“the Board”). Solak is a stockholder of P aylocity

.2

( 2 ) Solak’s three

- count complaint alleged that Paylocity and the Board

had adopted a fee

- shifting bylaw in violation of Sections 109(b) and 102(b)(6) of

the Delaware General Corporation Law. Counts I and II of Solak’s complaint

sought a declar ation that the bylaw was invalid ; C ount III claimed that the Board

members had breached their fiduciary duties.

( 3 ) Paylocity and the Board moved to dismiss the complaint. In an

opinion issued on December 27, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in

part and dismissed Counts II and III of the complaint. 1 The court denied the

motion to dismiss Count I. 2

( 4 ) Paylocity filed an application for certification of an interlocutory

appeal from the December 27 decision. Solak opposed the application. By order

dated January 26, 2017, the Court of Chancery denied the application after

determining that certification of an interlocutory appeal was not warranted under

the principles and criteria of Rule 42(b)

.

(5) Applications for interlocutory review are add ressed to the sound

discretion of th e Court. In this case, the Court agrees with the Court of Chancery’s

January 26, 2017 order denying the application for certification. Rule 42(b) ’s

principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the

December 27, 2016 opinion.

1 Solak v. Sarowitz , ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 7 976089 (Del. Chan. Ct. Dec. 27, 2016).

2 Id.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory

appeal is REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
No. 7973.

#### Hamm *v.*Wilson et al.

(Decided October 27, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Ross county.

*Mr. John Logan; Mr. Seym,our Cunningham*and *Mr. F. P. Einton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. E. W. Woodrmo,*for defendants in error,

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### James Carioti, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.) (Claim No. 50387.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *Crisafulli v State*(66 AD2d 1009). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims—negligence, flooding.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
212.7002 Policy. ( a ) Contracting officers may only use a CSO— ( 1 ) To obtain innovative solutions or potential capabilities that fulfill requirements;
( 2 ) To close capability gaps, or provide potential innovative technological advancements; and
( 3 ) When meaningful proposals with varying technical or scientific approaches can be reasonably anticipated.
( b ) Notwithstanding FAR 12.207, contracting officers shall use fixed-price type contracts, including fixed-price incentive contracts, for awards resulting from a CSO. When using a fixed-price incentive contract, see FAR 12.214 and subpart 16.4 for additional requirements.
( c ) Contracting officers shall treat products and services acquired using a CSO as commercial products or commercial services.
( d ) When using a CSO to acquire research and development, contracting officers shall use the procedures of this subpart in conjunction with FAR part 35 and part 235. A CSO is not subject to the limitations at 235.016 and may be used to fulfill requirements for research and development, ranging from advanced component development through operational systems development.
217.502-1 General. ( a ) *Written agreement on responsibility for management and administration* — ( 1 ) *Assisted acquisitions.* Follow the procedures at PGI 217.502-1(a)(1), when a contracting activity from a DoD Component provides acquisition assistance to deployed DoD units or personnel from another DoD Component.
[83 FR 62502, Dec. 4, 2018]
M. P. No. 74-284.

*Feiner, Winsten and Oreenwald, Harold H. Winsten,*for petitioner. *Abedon, Michael-son, Stanzler & Biener, Richard A. Boren,*for respondent.

#### Howard Josephson *v.*Louis Diamond.

Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Diploma Provision Proposal

(1) Adequate procedures to evaluate the validity of a student’s high school diploma completion must include--

(i) Obtaining documentation from the high school that confirms the validity of the high school diploma, including at 

least one of the following—

(A) Transcripts;

(B) Written descriptions of course requirements; or

(C) Written and signed statements by principals or executive officers at the high school attesting to the 

rigor and quality of coursework at the high school; and

(ii) If the high school is regulated or overseen by a State agency,c Confirming with or receiving documentation from

that a state agency that the high school is registered or meets requirements established by that state agency.

(2) A high school diploma is not valid if it—

(i) Was obtained from an entity that does not meet (1)(ii)Does not meet the requirements established by the 

appropriate State agency in which the State where the high school is located;

(ii) Has been determined to be invalid by the Department, the appropriate State agency in which the State where 

the high school was located, or through a court proceeding; or

(iii) Was obtained from an entity that requires little or no secondary instruction education or coursework to obtain 

a high school diploma, including through a test that does not meet the requirements for a recognized equivalent of 

a high school diploma under 34 CFR 600.2.; or

(iv) Was obtained from an entity that—

(A) Maintains a business relationship or is otherwise affiliated with the eligible institution at which the 

student is enrolled; and

(B) Is not accredited.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single,

Font Alignment: Baseline, Pattern: Clear (White)
### §4533. Issuance of order

#### (a) Publication in Federal Register; public comment; submission

After receipt of a proposed dairy products research order, the Secretary may publish such proposed order in the Federal Register and shall give notice and reasonable opportunity for public comment on such proposed order. Such proposed order may be submitted by an organization certified under section 4505 of this title or by any interested person affected by the provisions of subchapter I.

#### (b) Effective date of order

After the Secretary provides for such publication and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing under subsection (a), the Secretary may issue the dairy products research order. The order so issued shall become effective not later than 90 days after publication in the Federal Register of the order.

#### (c) Amendment of order

The Secretary may amend, from time to time, the dairy products research order issued under subsection (b).

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §132, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title I, §121, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1369.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50324 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEJANDRO RIVERA-PASCUAL, also known as Alejandro Pascual-Rivera, also known as Robert Silva, also known as Jose Antonio Mejia, also known as Alejandro Rivera, also known as Antonio Rivera-Pascual, also known as Adonis Jose Mejia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-429

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro RiveraPascual raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

To correct the enrollment of S. 140. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

Mr. THUNE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To correct the enrollment of S. 140. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to 

3 amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

4 Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts 

5 in the WMAT Settlement Fund, the Secretary of the Sen6 ate shall amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to authorize 

7 appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other pur8 poses.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
p. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 58 ) IV-C-2

4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 58of 232P. 2 ,



## M - I 

## 9 198 8

Honorabl e William 8 . Broomfiel d Rous e o f Representative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5 Sea r Mr . Broomfield i Than k yo ufo r passin g along th e comment s o f Mr . Marvi nM . Tamarof. f concernin g BPA' s proposa l t o reguir e onboar drefuelin g emissio ncontrols * B e assure dtha t thes e comment s wil l b e considere d l

nth e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemakin g process . We wil l als o be placin g the m inth e publi c docke t fo r th e rulemaking * Than k yo u agai nfo r you r concer ni nthi s matter . Sincerel y

yours , ORIGINAL SIGNE D B Y RICHARD D . WILSO N Richar dD . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s CC t Docke t A-87-ll ! Prepare dby:PCarlso n JECTD : 8-374-827O:AL-0O62
_ bcc : MA^tr*-.*'



## m> «•" -
2009.105-70 Contract provisions. The contracting officer shall insert the following provisions in all solicitations: ( a ) Section 2052.209-70 Current/Former Agency Employee Involvement.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

September 28, 2020 

Honorable Colt Gill 

Director of the Oregon Department of Education 

and Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Oregon Department of Education 

255 Capitol Street Northeast 

Salem, Oregon 97310 

colt.gill@ode.state.or.us

Dear Director Gill: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H181A180109. 

The Department received your September 14, 2020 request on behalf of the State of Oregon for a

waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part C grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State lead, Marion Crayton at 

Marion.Crayton@ed.gov, if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

cc: Part C Coordinator
In response to the subcommittee’s recommendations the following Amendatory language for PEP was 

suggested by Daniel Barkowitz.

As requested I would propose adding the following language to the current proposed regulations.

On page 1 under definition of Additional Locations, add the following to the end of the 2nd paragraph. 

“Additional locations as defined under this clause, however, would not be subject to reporting 

and disclosure requirements under 668.46 (Clery Act)”

On page 5, at the end of the definition of additional location, add the following “Locations 

offering these programs, however, are exempt from reporting or inclusion under 668.46 (Clery 

Act).”
#### M. Lowell Harman, Suing as Director and Stockholder of and on Behalf of Lincoln Printing Company, Appellant, v. Samuel Grabowetsky et al., Individually and as Partners Doing Business under the Name of Pearl Bindery, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order, entered July 9, 1962, which denies his motion for an order directing that the individual defendants appear for an examination before trial, unanimously dismissed as moot, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. (See 21 A D 2d 862.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00206-CR

CARLOS DEMON HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-0424

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 15, 2017, Carlos Demon Harris pled guilty to and was placed on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for one year for driving while his license was invalid with a 

previous conviction for the same offense. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 521.457 (West 2018). 

On September 12, 2018, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of Harris’ guilt. 

On November 15, 2018, after a hearing, the trial court found all the State’s allegations contained 

in the motion to adjudicate true, revoked Harris’ community supervision, and sentenced him to 

100 days in the Harrison County Jail. 

In his sole point of error on appeal, Harris argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 

revoke his community supervision because it had already expired before the State filed its motion 

to adjudicate his guilt. Because the record reveals that Harris’ period of deferred adjudication 

community supervision was extended, we overrule his sole point of error. 

A trial court retains jurisdiction to hold a revocation hearing 

and to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, regardless of whether the period of 

deferred adjudication community supervision imposed on the defendant has 

expired, if before the expiration of the supervision period: 

(1) the attorney representing the state filed a motion to proceed with the 

adjudication; and 

(2) a capias is issued for the arrest of the defendant. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.108 (West 2018). 

Because Harris was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for one year 

on August 15, 2017, he argues that his community supervision expired on August 15, 2018, and 

the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the State’s September 12, 2018, motion. However, on 
3

August 13, 2018, the trial court extended Harris’ community supervision for six months after he 

failed to (1) pay fines and fees as ordered and (2) obtain a valid driver’s license or occupational 

license, as required by the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community 

supervision. Therefore, Harris’ period of deferred adjudication community supervision did not 

expire until February 15, 2019. 

We overrule Harris’ sole point of error on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: April 3, 2019

Date Decided: April 5, 2019

Do Not Publish
#### HAIGHT, Respondent, v. STOCK, GRAIN & PROVISION CO. OF NEW YORK, Limited, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by William C. Haight against the Stock, Grain & Provision Company of New York, Limited.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs.