alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Clarksville-Montgomery School District submitted an agreement to resolve a compliance review that OCR initiated that focused on whether the District was discriminating on the basis of disability by not appropriately evaluating students with food allergies, diabetes, asthma and other health impairments with Individual Health Care Plans (IHCPs), by denying them the opportunity to receive related aids and services.

Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the district entered into a voluntary resolution agreement with the department. Under the terms of the agreement the district will contact the parents or guardians of all students to inform them of the district’s obligation to evaluate students who, because of disability, need or are believed to need special education or related services. If a student currently has an IHCP, the district will provide parents or guardians with information regarding the student’s possible rights to evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards.  An IHCP for a student who has a qualifying disability is insufficient if it does not incorporate these rights.  In these notifications, parents or guardians are encouraged to address inquiries to their school counselor. Further, the  district will revise and implement policies and procedures to ensure appropriate and prompt identification, evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities, including students with health related concerns such as food allergies, asthma and diabetes and other physical or mental conditions which may impact major life activities. Finally, the district will provide mandatory training to all district personnel involved in the referral, identification, evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities under Section 504 and Title II.

***Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (275K) | ***Read the Compliance Agreement***PDF (126K)

Top
#### KELLEGHER v. FORTY-SECOND ST., M. & ST. N. AVE. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1903.)

1. Appeal—New Trial—Law op Case—Effect on Second Appeal.

Where, on a former appeal to the Appellate Division, it was' held, on affirmance, that the question raised was for the jury, and on appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment was reversed, but on grounds of error in a charge, the verdict could not be set aside on a second appeal to the Appellate Division as against the weight of evidence.

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.

Action by Eliza M. Kellegher against the Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.

Henry Melville, for appellant.

George M. Brooks, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

The only attack upon this judgment by the appellant is that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of evidence. When the case was before this court on a former appeal (56 App. Div. 332, 67 N. Y. Supp. 767), it was held that the question was one for the jury, and the judgment was affirmed. There was a dissent in that case, based entirely upon an exception to the charge. Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeals (171 N. Y. 309, 63 N. E. 1096) that judgment was reversed upon the ground that there was error in the charge, to which the defendant excepted, and which entitled the defendant to a new trial. We think that, in view of this determination of the court upon the former appeal, we would not be justified m setting aside the verdict upon the ground that it was against the weight of evidence.

It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Librizzo, Appellant, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System et al., Respondents.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 6, 1978, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Asch, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
#### 213.302 Purchase orders.
Appeal No. 75-49.

#### Richard D. Worrell *et al. v.*Frank A. DelSesto *et al.*

*Edwards & Angeli, Deming E. Sherman,*for plaintiffs. *Milton Bernstein,*for defendants.

Motion of plaintiffs that instant appeal be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari is granted. Plaintiffs are directed to file a new petition for writ of certiorari in the correct form. Motion of defendants to dismiss the appeal is denied.
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking**

**1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center**

**Washington, D.C.**

**Violence Against Women Act**

**January 13-14, 2014, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.**

**AGENDA**

**Welcome**

**Introductions**

**Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process**

**Review and Adopt Protocols**

**Petitions for Membership**

**Overview of the Issues**

**Adopt Agenda**

**Review of Title IX**

**Discussion of Issues**

· Key Terms and Definitions

· Counting Crimes

· Disciplinary Proceedings

· Applicable Jurisdiction

· Technical Changes

**Next Steps**

· Meeting 2:  February 24-25, 2014

· Meeting Summary

· Other

**Opportunity for Public Comment**
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certifications:

I, R.V. Bailey, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aspen Exploration Corporation;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.      The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:

     a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b)      designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

     c)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     d)      disclosed in this report any changes in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)      all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSUE MARIN-MOLINA, a.k.a. Joshue

Marin Molina,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72617

Agency No. A078-085-700

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Josue Marin-Molina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under

FILED

JUN 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition

for review.

Marin-Molina does not claim he was tortured in the past, but fears torture in

Mexico primarily due his grandfather’s anti-drug activities as municipal president

over 20 years ago, and because he has tattoos. Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s denial of Marin-Molina’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is

more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v.

Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding the record did not

compel reversal of the agency’s denial of CAT where the petitioner’s claims of

possible torture remained speculative). We reject Marin-Molina’s contentions that

the agency ignored evidence, see Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th

Cir. 2006), or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-72617
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Payne, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered December 28, 1976, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the facts, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. In our opinion the guilt of defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased. Charles Greenfield et al., as Executors of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, Appellants; Clarence A. Baracks et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s 'Court Act, to fix the compensation of petitioner, an attorney, for legal services rendered by him to the decedent’s estate, two of the executors of said estate appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, rendered August 30, 1963 upon the Acting Surrogate’s decision after trial, which fixed said compensation at $3,333 (which included disbursements of $83). Decree modified on the facts by reducing the allowance to $2,333; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the decision of the Acting Surrogate which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new finding’s are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the sum of $2,250 (plus disbursements of $83) is fair and reasonable compensation for the work performed by petitioner in this estate. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7767

In Re: RAHSAAN JAMAR WATKINS, Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (CR-99-189; CA-02-1137-2)
Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rahsaan Jamar Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rahsaan Jamar Watkins has filed three petitions for writs of mandamus, which have been docketed together for consideration. His first petition addresses the alleged difficulties he has had getting papers filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. Watkins seeks to have the magistrate judge recused from his case and an investigation ordered into the magistrate judge, district court judge, and their clerks. In his second petition, Watkins seeks an order requiring the district court to give specific reasons for failing to grant him a certificate of appealability, and in his third petition, Watkins requests that we order the district court to file his notice of appeal. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is available only where there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. Id. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and undisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980), Regarding Watkins’ first mandamus petition, all of Watkins’ documents were filed with the exception of a letter dated- 3 - September 18, 2003, in which Watkins inquired about his reply brief. Since this letter may have been construed as an inquiry rather than a motion, it is likely that it was intentionally and properly not “filed.” The other motions were apparently not properly sent to the clerk’s office, even though Watkins was informed in an August 14, 2003 court order that his documents should be filed with the clerk’s office. In any event, Watkins fails to show prejudice from any of the filing delays, and any errors were quickly rectified. Accordingly, Watkins does not establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances for mandamus relief. Watkins’ two other mandamus petitions are moot, as he has already received the relief he requested. The district court’s January 12, 2004 order specifically stated why Watkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability was denied, and Watkins’ notice of appeal was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Watkins’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his mandamus petitions. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIONS DENIED
Exhibit
      23.1


****


CONSENT
        OF
        INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 INDEPENDENT
        AUDITORS’ CONSENT











The
        Board
        of Directors
 P hotoMedex,
        Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K for the year ended
        December 2005, the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580,
        333-91926, 333-106605 and 333-120921) on Form S-3, in the registration
        statements (Nos. 333-100609 and 333-121864) on Form S-4, and in the registration
        statements (Nos. 333-30298 and 333-114181) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex, Inc.
        of
        our report dated March 10, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial
        statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls
        over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal controls over
        financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.





/s/ Amper,
              Politziner & Mattia, P. C.Edison,
                New Jersey
              March
                15, 2006






E-23.1
#### 211.270 [Reserved]
#### 1452.201-70 Authorities and delegations.

As prescribed in section 1401.670-1, insert the following clause:

# Authorities and Delegations (SEP 2011)

(a) The Contracting Officer is the only individual authorized to enter into or terminate this contract, modify any term or condition of this contract, waive any requirement of this contract, or accept nonconforming work.

(b) The Contracting Officer will designate a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) at time of award. The COR will be responsible for technical monitoring of the contractor's performance and deliveries. The COR will be appointed in writing, and a copy of the appointment will be furnished to the Contractor. Changes to this delegation will be made by written changes to the existing appointment or by issuance of a new appointment.

(c) The COR is not authorized to perform, formally or informally, any of the following actions:

(1) Promise, award, agree to award, or execute any contract, contract modification, or notice of intent that changes or may change this contract;

(2) Waive or agree to modification of the delivery schedule;

(3) Make any final decision on any contract matter subject to the Disputes Clause;

(4) Terminate, for any reason, the Contractor's right to proceed;

(5) Obligate in any way, the payment of money by the Government.

(d) The Contractor shall comply with the written or oral direction of the Contracting Officer or authorized representative(s) acting within the scope and authority of the appointment memorandum. The Contractor need not proceed with direction that it considers to have been issued without proper authority. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing, with as much detail as possible, when the COR has taken an action or has issued direction (written or oral) that the Contractor considers to exceed the COR's appointment, within 3 days of the occurrence. Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the Contractor assumes all costs, risks, liabilities, and consequences of performing any work it is directed to perform that falls within any of the categories defined in paragraph (c) prior to receipt of the Contracting Officer's response issued under paragraph (e) of this clause.

(e) The Contracting Officer shall respond in writing within 30 days to any notice made under paragraph (d) of this clause. A failure of the parties to agree upon the nature of a direction, or upon the contract action to be taken with respect thereto, shall be subject to the provisions of the Disputes clause of this contract.

(f) The Contractor shall provide copies of all correspondence to the Contracting Officer and the COR.

(g) Any action(s) taken by the Contractor, in response to any direction given by any person acting on behalf of the Government or any Government official other than the Contracting Officer or the COR acting within his or her appointment, shall be at the Contractor's risk.

(End of clause)

[76 FR 50142, Aug. 12, 2011]
FIRST
INDUSTRIAL        FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC.
                  354 Eisenhower Parkway
                  P.O. Box 1639 -
                  Livingston, New Jersey 07039
                  973/533-7111
                  Fax 973/597-9660

SENT VIA FACSIMI]LE (201) 569-3224 AND REGULAR MAIL

NOVEMBER 17,1999

Mr. Arnold M. Gans
MEDICAL NUTRITION, INC.
1O West Forest Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631

RE:     LEASE EXTENSION FOR:                            PROP#.1254
        10 WEST FOREST AVENUE, ENGLEWOOD, NJ            ID# MEDNU-1

Dear Mr. Gans:

It was my pleasure speaking with you regarding your future space requirements.
Per your request, enclosed please find a proposal to extend your lease as
follows:

RENTABLE AREA:      7,500 square feet

NEW LEASE TERM:     1/l/2000 - 12/31/2004
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                 <C>             <C>                          <C>
NEW BASE RENT:      Years 1, 2, 3    $65,625.00 N/N/N Annually    $5,468.75 N/N/N Monthly
                    Years 4, 5       $67,500.00 NININ Annually    $5,625.00 N/N/N Monthly
</TABLE>

LANDLORD WORK:          Landlord shall perform the following work:
                        1)    Replace all exterior windows and frames
                        2)    Repair plumbing in men's bathroom
                        3)    Replace damaged ceiling tiles in office area
                        4)    Replace existing HVAC unit and both warehouse
                              heaters.
                        5)    Repair loading dock area.

The Landlord shall, at Tenant own cost and expense, enter into a periodic
maintenance agreement with a reputable heating, ventilating and air-conditioning
contractor, which contractor shall provide for a minimum of two (2) inspections
per year.

All other terms and conditions of your existing Lease dated, October 4, 1984, as
amended, will remain in full force and effect.  Please sign below as to your
approval of the above and return to me via facsimile and both originals by
regular mail. This offer will be valid until November 19, 1999, thereafter
subject to change.
<PAGE>

1 First Industrial would like to thank you for your continued occupancy.

Sincerely,
FIRST 1NDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC-

/s/ Michael Sargis                  ACKNOWLEDGED & APPROVED
Leasing Specialist                  /s/ Mr. Arnold M. Gans      11/19/99
                                    ------------------------
                                    Mr. Arnold M. Gans            Date
                                    MEDICAL NUTRITION, INC.
#### CENCIE, Appellant, v. FORTE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Mary Cencie, an infant, by guardian, etc., against Leonaldo Forte.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

STOVER, J., not voting.
#### 2132.772 Contract clause.

The clause at 2152.232-71 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.