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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CARL LOWE, individually and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 12-cv-2009

Judge Joan H. Lefkow

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

FOR DANIELLE M. KAYS

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.17, the undersigned, counsel of record for Defendant 

Diversified Consultants, Inc., hereby moves for leave to withdraw her appearance. In 

support thereof, the undersigned state as follows:

1. At the time of filing my appearance in this matter on behalf of Diversified 

Consultants, Inc., I was employed by the law firm of Grady Pilgrim Christakis Bell LLP.

2. As of September 7, 2012, I am no longer associated with Grady Pilgrim 

Christakis Bell LLP.

3. Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, partner of Grady Pilgrim Christakis Bell LLP, is also counsel 

of record for Diversified Consultants, Inc., and Diversified Consultants, Inc. will remain 

represented by Mr. Pilgrim in this matter.

4. My withdrawal from this matter will not prejudice Diversified Consultants, 

Inc. or any other party.

5. For all of the above reasons, the Court should grant me leave to withdraw my 

appearance on behalf of Grady Pilgrim Christakis Bell LLP.

Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 41 Filed: 09/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:222
2

WHEREFORE, Danielle M. Kays requests that this Court enter an Order withdrawing 

her appearance in this matter as counsel for Defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

DANIELLE M. KAYS

/s/ Danielle M. Kays

Danielle M. Kays

2634 Sierra Canyon

New Lenox, IL 60451

(312) 720-8042

Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 41 Filed: 09/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:223
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Presidential Documents 7053 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 

Memorandum for the Attorney General [and] the Secretary of Homeland 

Security 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Policy. In 2012, during the Obama-Biden Administration, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum outlining how, in 

the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security 

should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people. 

This memorandum, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA) guidance, deferred the removal of certain undocumented immigrants 

who were brought to the United States as children, have obeyed the law, 

and stayed in school or enlisted in the military. DACA and associated 

regulations permit eligible individuals who pass a background check to 

request temporary relief from removal and to apply for temporary work 

permits. DACA reflects a judgment that these immigrants should not be 

a priority for removal based on humanitarian concerns and other considerations, and that work authorization will enable them to support themselves 

and their families, and to contribute to our economy, while they remain. 

Sec. 2. Preserving and Fortifying DACA. The Secretary of Homeland Security, 

in consultation with the Attorney General, shall take all actions he deems 

appropriate, consistent with applicable law, to preserve and fortify DACA. 

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or 

the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable 

law. 

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right 

or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by 

any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, 

its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_MEMO2
7054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Presidential Documents 

(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized and directed to 

publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 20, 2021 

[FR Doc. 2021–01769 

Filed 1–22–21; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4410–10–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_MEMO2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
pCDR Time Lines 

pCDR End of pCDR Draft pCDR Official pCDR Possible Possible 

Cohort Monitoring pCDR Failing pCDR 

Year Period Program Ineligible 

program 

FY 2013 September 201S February September Yes No 

2016 2016 

FY 2014 September 2016 February September Yes No 

2017 2017 

FY 201S September 2017 February September Yes Yes 

2018 2018 

pCDR Cohort Year: Denominator is the number of students who entered repayment on FFEL or 

Direct Loans taken for attendance in the GE program during a federal fiscal year. Numerator is 

the number of students from the denominator who defaulted on those loans anytime during 

the pCDR monitoring period. 

pCDR Monitoring Period is the end of the second FY following the pCDR Cohort Year. 

Example: FY 2013: 

pCDR Cohort- Borrowers who entered repayment between October 1, 2012 and September 

30, 2013. 

pCDR Monitoring Period- Those who defaulted anytime between October 1, 2012 and 

September 30, 2015.
Third Department,

January, 1961

(January 11, 1961)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sigmond Krasinski, by Jean K. Krasinski, His Committee, Appellant, v. American Brass Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. In 1942 while claimant was working a machine in a brass plant a metal splice bar from the machine flew up striking him in the throat. Following the accident he underwent personality changes and a neurosis which an impartial specialist attributed to the accident. Awards based upon a finding of traumatic neurosis were made for resulting partial disability for various periods until 1948. In 1952 he was admitted to a State hospital upon diagnosis of psychosis (paranoia) and he still remains there under medical treatment. The board has disallowed the claim based on the attribution of the psychotic illness to the accident 16 years before and claimant appeals. There is in the record substantial medical evidence upon which to disallow the claim. A psychiatrist testified that in his opinion the psychosis was not caused by or related to the 1942 accident. The same impartial specialist who had advised the board there had been some association between the neurosis and the accident testified he could not express an opinion as to relation of the psychosis to the accident, although as to its causation he was of opinion there was no association, i.e., a paranoid condition “ cannot be caused by injury ”. There was reliable medical opinion favoring claimant’s contention; but on this factual issue the board’s findings are binding on us. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
(October 15, 1964)

#### Susan Keenan, Respondent, v. Francis Keenan, Appellant.

Motion for a stay granted, without costs, on the condition that appellant file a written undertaking in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant pay the amount specified in the order appealed from to the Family Court, Schenectady County. The Family Court shall disburse weekly payments of $30 for the support of petitioner-respondent or any other person for whose benefit such order was entered, and a monthly payment of $81.40 for the maintenance of the real property owned by the parties, the remaining portion of such payments received from appellant to be held in escrow, pending the determination of this appeal. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Indiana State University (IN): In November 2012, OCR  resolved a complaint against Indiana State University after a student alleged  that the university was aware of and failed to respond to discrimination on the  basis of national origin and sex when a professor subjected her to  inappropriate sexual comments. According to the complainant, the professor’s  behavior included unwelcome invitations for her to sleep at his house and  unwanted touching on two separate occasions. Under the terms of the resolution  agreement, the university agreed to issue a public statement emphasizing that  the university does not tolerate harassment on the basis of race, national  origin, and sex and to revise its policies and procedures around race- and  sex-based harassment.

Read the Resolution Letter PDF (304K) | Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (451K)
#### John Lada et al., Infants by Their Guardian ad Litem, Bohdan Dzerovych, Respondents, v. Louise Cester et al., Appellants.

Order entered on January 23, 1964, denying motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion granted. It appears that the automobile accident which is the basis of this suit took place in Suffolk County, and that all persons involved in it are residents of that county. So are the physicians who treated plaintiffs and the police officers who investigated the accident. The sole *643grounds urged for denial of the motion are that the infant plaintiffs, have been placed in the custody of an organization whose home office is located in this county. That this will not serve to defeat the motion can be seen from the disposition in *Slavin*v. *Whispell,*5 A D 2d 296, and the authorities therein collated. (See, also, *Fisher*v. *Rothrum,*9 A D 2d 734.) In view of the fact that this application was not made promptly, no costs are allowed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 29

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the final rule of the Office of Natural 
    Resources Revenue of the Department of the Interior relating to 
consolidated Federal oil and gas and Federal and Indian coal valuation 
                                reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2017

  Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Barrasso) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the final rule of the Office of Natural 
    Resources Revenue of the Department of the Interior relating to 
consolidated Federal oil and gas and Federal and Indian coal valuation 
                                reform.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue of the 
Department of the Interior relating to ``Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas 
and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 
43337 (July 1, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10072

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-229-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Garcia has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10072 Document: 00512870933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
No. 14-10072

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-10072 Document: 00512870933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
222.1310 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( a ) ( 1 ) Use of the clause at FAR 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, with its paragraph (c), Listing Openings, also satisfies the requirement of 10 U.S.C. 4704.
[71 FR 18670, Apr. 12, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 67255, Oct. 30, 2015; 87 FR 76993, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joe Rogers, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 5, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of assault in the second degree with intent to commit the crime of incest, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts; and defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty to the indictment, granted; and action remitted for trial. At the time of sentence, but before the sentence was pronounced, defendant moved to withdraw his prior guilty plea. Under the circumstances here disclosed, it is our opinion that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to substitute a plea of not guilty. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
# Sheet1

# A
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 26, 2016

a1017

Order 

Clerk

October 26, 2016

152943

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152943

COA: 329182

Wayne CC: 11-002069-FC

DEMETRIUS DARELL CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Search                   | Contact                   Us249th Army Band | Recruit                         Sustainment Program | Education                         Services Office | Public                         Affairs | Customer                         LinksPublic Affairs Office PA                               Home Page Command                               Photos2009                               InaugurationPublicationsAnnual                               ReportsMountaineer                               Defender                   
WVARNG Annual Report 

Annual reports for the WVARNG. Adobe Acrobat is required to view these                   files. 
- 2007                     Annual Report  
- 2006                     Annual Report  
- 2005                     Annual Report 
- 2004                     Annual Report 
Guard Home | Join the Guard |                   Camp Dawson |                   Army                   AviationWV Guard                   Contacts | Site Map | Search Official Web Site for the West Virginia Army                   National GuardComments                   regarding this site should be sent to the webmaster                   You have reached a United States Government                   Server. Please read this Important                   Notice.
From: Richard Krock

Sent: 8/30/2005 9:47:16 AM

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Vinyl Institute Letter on Resin Stripping and 

10-26-10 Meeting

Dear Ms. Howard,

Thank you for taking time to meet with the Vinyl Institute and some of 

its members on October 26, 2010. As you requested as a follow up to the

discussion from that meeting, I am attaching a brief letter and chart 

that documents some of our comments regarding resin stripping and other 

items that were reviewed. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any

questions. Thank you. 

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com
**Background Information**            The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) collected data about key education and  civil rights issues for the 2015-16 school year from virtually every public  school in the country through the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The CRDC collects a variety of information including student enrollment and  educational programs and services, most of which is disaggregated by  race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability.  For  more general information about the CRDC (including past and future  collections), visit the CRDC home page. 

----

**2015-16 CRDC******

Documents released in 2018 that use the 2015-16 CRDC  data to provide insights into equity in school districts are presented below: 
            - Press Release  (issued April 24, 2018)    Public announcement of availability of 2015-16 CRDC data
            - STEM Course Taking  Issue Brief    PDF  (2.4M) (issued April 24, 2018)   Highlights of the data from the 2015-16 CRDC on student access  to STEM courses that foster college and career readiness
            - School Climate and  Safety Issue Brief    PDF  (2.6M) ( **UPDATED**  May 17, 2019)   Highlights of the data from the 2015-16 CRDC on school climate  and safety factors in the educational environment
            - STEM Data Story  (issued November 8,  2018)   Story on the  exploration of both access to and enrollment in Algebra I in K-12 public  schools using data from the 2015-16 CRDC, developed by the InformED initiative.       
**Access 2015-16 CRDC  Data******

Data from the 2000,  2004, 2006, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2015-16 CRDC surveys are available  in the CRDC reporting tool at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. The tool facilitates school- and  district-level searches, viewing of data reports, and exploring and analyzing  data.

To access a copy of  the public-use data file:
- A public-use data file  containing the entire 2015-16 CRDC in CSV format can be downloaded in a     zip file  (34M).   Warning – Large file **(UPDATED September 28, 2018)**.

For information about  the data file:
- The  Public-Use Data File User’s Manual  for the 2015-16 CRDC provides  information about the purpose of the study, the target population and  respondents, data anomalies and considerations, differences in the restricted  and public-use data, data collection procedures, the data file structure, and  data processing.
- The Data Notes Addendum    is a notice of known data quality issues for the 2015–16 CRDC Restraint and Seclusion Module.  ***New!***
- The 2015-16 CRDC    school-level  and  district-level  table layouts are also available for download.

 
OCR also provides a  restricted-use data file for the education researcher.  If you are interested in obtaining a license  to access the 2015-16 CRDC restricted-use data file, then please visit the  National Center for Education Statistics page for Restricted-use  Data Applicants.
**For additional information about the CRDC,  please e-mail OCR at****ocrdata@ed.gov**.

 
                 Last Modified: 02/24/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the nine months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          274,966
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          3,300
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              27,065
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            27,909
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     333,240
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 56,252
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     102,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                83,917
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  12,470
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          350
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         11,448
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       574
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     121,828
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      333,240
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          161,471
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 7,438
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         136,466
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         143,904
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             17,567
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     361
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      17,928
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             6,833
<NET-INCOME>                        11,095
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       11,095
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             7,463
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            5,933
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              33,099
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>