alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
On  September 26, 2013, OCR resolved this Title IX athletics compliance review with  a resolution agreement with the Portland Public Schools (District).  Following its investigation, OCR concluded  that the District discriminated against female students by denying them an  equal opportunity to participate in its interscholastic athletics program and  by failing to provide the opportunity to receive coaching and the provision of  locker rooms, practice and competitive fields, that are equivalent to those  provided to boys.  Under the terms of the agreement, the District will add  girls’ volleyball to its interscholastic athletics program beginning in the  2014-15 school year based on its assessment of student interest and ability in  girls’ volleyball; and the District will promote and recruit for the volleyball  teams and provide resources and facilities, including locker rooms, practice and  competitive facilities, to the new volleyball teams.  The District will also continue to assess  student interest and ability and add teams and additional athletic  opportunities for girls so that by no later than the 2015-16 school year, the  district’s interscholastic athletics program will either fully accommodate the  interest of girls in athletics or the number of girls participating in  athletics will be in proportion to their enrollment.  The District agreed to ensure that booster  club and other private funding are considered as part of the district’s  responsibility to provide equivalent athletics benefits and services to both  sexes, ensure that locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities for girls’  teams are equivalent to those provided to boys’ teams, and maintain girls’  athletic facilities to ensure they are equitable as compared to the boys’  facilities.***Read the Press Release*** | ***Read  the Resolution Letter***PDF (264K) ***| Read    the Resolution Agreement***PDF (106K)

Top
17.602 Policy. ( a ) Heads of agencies, with requisite statutory authority, may determine in writing to authorize contracting officers to enter into or renew any management and operating contract in accordance with the agency's statutory authority, or 41 U.S.C. chapter 33, and the agency's regulations governing such contracts. This authority shall not be delegated. Every contract so authorized shall show its authorization upon its face.
( b ) Agencies may authorize management and operating contracts only in a manner consistent with the guidance of this subpart and only if they are consistent with the situations described in 17.604.
( c ) Within 2 years of the effective date of this regulation, agencies shall review their current contractual arrangements in the light of the guidance of this subpart, in order to ( 1 ) identify, modify as necessary, and authorize management and operating contracts and
( 2 ) modify as necessary or terminate contracts not so identified and authorized, except that any contract with less than 4 years remaining as of the effective date of this regulation need not be terminated, nor need it be identified, modified, or authorized unless it is renewed or its terms are substantially renegotiated.
[48 FR 42163, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 52434, Dec. 23, 1985; 79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014]
Name Organization

1 Bennett, Marie National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, 

NASSGAP

2 Benz, Mollie Association of American Universities

3 Bieda, Anthony Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools

4 Broff, Nancy ITT Educational Services Corporation

5 Cendana, Gregory United States Student Association

6 Day, Phillip National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

7 Dorrell, Mary Career Education Corporation

8 Dungy, Gwen NASPA

9 Fowler, Pamela Big Ten Conference

10 Fox, Wendy American Speech Language Hearing Association

11 Gerson, Matt Universal Music Group

12 Jarvis, Heather Equal Justice Works

13 Johnson, Christine Capella University

14 Kassa, Jonathan Security on Campus, Inc.

15 Kitchner, Russell American Public University

16 Littlefield, Cindy Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities

17 Luker, Mark EDUCAUSE

18 McComis, Michale Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of 

Technology

19 McLaurin, Stewart Motion Picture Association of America

20 McNabb, Nancy National Fire Protection Association

21 Miller, Harris Career Colleges Association

22 Morse, Jean Middle States Commission on Higher Education

23 Neely, Elaine KAPLAN Higher Education

24 Nunez, George George Washington University

25 Pelesh, Mark Corinthian Colleges

26 Peoples, Angela United States Student Association

27 Pickelsimer, Tammie Association for University Centers on Disabilities

28 Rushing, Ginger Recording Industry Association of America, RIAA

29 Salomon, Ken Association for Information Communications Technology 

Professionals in Higher Education

30 Saunders, Shelly National Association of Student Loan Administrators, NASLA

31 Saxton, Susan Laureate Higher Education Group

32 Sickman, Linda American Speech Language Hearing Association

33 Singer, Emily Association of Higher Education and Disability, AHEAD

34 Spicer, Donald University System of Maryland

35 Sumby, Dialo District of Columbia Consolidation for Educational Services

36 Them, Richard Education Management Corporation

37 West, Jane American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

38 Williams, Richard United States Public Interest Research Group, US PIRG

Department of Education - Public Hearing

Washington, D.C. - October 8, 2008

Office of Postsecondary Education
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

O2COOL, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2109

)

WINDY CITY NOVELTIES, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Limited liability company O2COOL, LLC (“O2COOL”) has filed

an Amended Complaint that adds three new alleged infringers of

one of its spray fan water bottle patents to its original

Complaint that had charged Windy City Novelties, Inc. (“Windy

City”) with infringing that and another of O2COOL’s patents. 

This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the

problematic nature of that new pleading.

It was of course permissible for O2COOL to bring both of its

claims against Windy City in a single lawsuit--see Fed. R. Civ.

P. (“Rule”) 18(a). But if, as appears to be the case from

Amended Complaint ¶¶9 and 10, the three newly-added defendants’

asserted infringement of one of O2COOL’s patents is independent

of Windy City’s activity (apparently involving a different

product), Rule 20(a)(2) does not support their addition to this

litigation.

On the face of things, then, O2COOL ought to go back to its

original Complaint and its one-defendant action. And if that is
so it must do so swiftly, to avoid the need for the putative new

defendants to retain counsel and to expend any resources on the

present lawsuit.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 26, 2012

2
#### 16.402 Application of predetermined, formula-type incentives.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 892 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 892

    To amend the Controlled Substances Act to establish additional 
  registration requirements for prescribers of opioids, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2017

 Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. McCain) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Controlled Substances Act to establish additional 
  registration requirements for prescribers of opioids, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Opioid Addiction Prevention Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESCRIBERS.

    Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k)(1) The Attorney General shall not register, or renew the 
registration of, a practitioner under subsection (f) who is licensed 
under State law to prescribe controlled substances in schedule II, III, 
or IV, unless the practitioner submits to the Attorney General, for 
each such registration or renewal request, a certification that the 
practitioner, during the applicable registration period, will not 
prescribe any schedule II, III, or IV opioid, other than an opioid 
prescription described in paragraph (3), for the initial treatment of 
acute pain in an amount in excess of the lesser of--
            ``(A) a 7-day supply (for which no refill is available); or
            ``(B) an opioid prescription limit established under State 
        law.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `acute pain'--
            ``(A) means pain with abrupt onset and caused by an injury 
        or other process that is not ongoing; and
            ``(B) does not include--
                    ``(i) chronic pain;
                    ``(ii) pain being treated as part of cancer care;
                    ``(iii) hospice or other end-of-life care; or
                    ``(iv) pain being treated as part of palliative 
                care.
    ``(3) An opioid prescription described in this paragraph is a 
prescription--
            ``(A) for a schedule II, III, or IV opioid drug approved by 
        the Food and Drug Administration for an indication for the 
        treatment of addiction; and
            ``(B) that is for the treatment of addiction.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

      ( print page 6949)    
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Utah Inland Port Authority (WB21-07—1/13/21) for permission to use select data from the Board's 2019 Masked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB21-07.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Eden Besera,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2021-01533 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 5 -00019 -CV Ra lph D r e ye r , A ppe lla nt

v. Delore s Smit h , Appellee
F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. 03P 219- L, HO NORAB LE BEN NOLEN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Ralph Dre y er n o l o n gerwishes to pursue his appe al and ha s filed a mot ion to d ism iss that a

pp e lle e De lor e s Smit

h do e s no t op po se . We gra nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Puryear Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Nove mber 14, 2008
#### In the Matter of Charles Watson, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 464]—

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 11, 2005 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievances.

Petitioner, an inmate, filed a grievance prior to the winter of 2003-2004 alleging adequate seasonal clothing had not been provided, and he filed another grievance in December 2003 challenging the institutional procedure for reviewing his complaint about medical care. The grievances were administratively denied in September 2003 and January 2004, respectively. In January 2005, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. The four-month statute of limitations controls *(see*CPLR 217 [1]; *Matter of Loper v Selsky,*26 AD3d 653, 654 [2006]) and this proceeding was not commenced as to either final administrative determination until well beyond four months. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the facts and circumstances of these particular grievances do not implicate the type of continuing duty for which there is a narrow exception to the limitations’ period *(compare Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*288 AD2d 572, 573 [2001], *appeal dismissed*97 NY2d 725 [2002]).

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
# DTE N>=30 & PCDR N>=30

# DTE N>=10 & PCDR N>=30
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00092-CR

Michael Lewis ARCE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-2118-CR-C

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED May 29, 2019.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### Natco Corporation v. New York City Housing Authority.

Motion for leave to reargue appeal or in the alternative to resettle the order of this court entered April 21,1964 is granted to the extent of granting leave to reargue. Implicit in the dismissal of the appeal was a holding that the action had become moot, plaintiff having been furnished the relief sought by the complaint. Accordingly, upon reargument, the complaint is dismissed as moot, as is now expressly ordered, and it follows that the decision dismissing the appeal should be adhered to. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
22.1306 Department of Labor notices and reports. ( a ) The contracting officer must furnish to the contractor appropriate notices for posting when they are prescribed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor (see *http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/ofccpost.htm .*
( b ) The Act requires contractors and subcontractors to submit a report at least annually to the Secretary of Labor regarding employment of protected veterans (*i.e.,* active duty wartime or campaign badge veterans, Armed Forces service medal veterans, disabled veterans, and recently separated veterans, unless all of the terms of the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, have been waived see 22.1305). The contractor and subcontractor must file VETS-4212, Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report (see “VETS-4212 Federal Contractor Reporting” and “Filing Your VETS-4212 Report” at *http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm*).
[75 FR 60251, Sept. 29, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 204, Jan. 3, 2012; 80 FR 75910, Dec. 4, 2015]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01532

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Does 1−54, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, November 15, 2012:

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

both the motion to compel [13] filed by Plaintiff and the respective Doe's motions to

quash [12, 18]. Status hearing of 11/19/12 is reset to 12/3/2012 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed

notice(slb, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 37 Filed: 11/15/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:240
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,692
<INVENTORY>                                    101,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,629
<PP&E>                                         441,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 273,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 430,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,249
<BONDS>                                         12,105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,526
<OTHER-SE>                                     198,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   430,390
<SALES>                                        135,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,424
<CGS>                                          107,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                       866
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,249
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & GuidanceSPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
sourceTypeID roadTypeID roadTypeVMTFraction

11 1

11 2 0.193379314

11 3 0.190392761

11 4 0.152410311

11 5 0.463817613

21 1

21 2 0.178510475

21 3 0.152066048

21 4 0.434094396

21 5 0.235329081

31 1

31 2 0.182615108

31 3 0.195661673

31 4 0.386245781

31 5 0.235477438

32 1

32 2 0.182615108

32 3 0.195661673

32 4 0.386245781

32 5 0.235477438

41 1

41 2 0.270308988

41 3 0.164712158

41 4 0.345388044

41 5 0.21959081

42 1

42 2 0.270308988

42 3 0.164712158

42 4 0.345388044

42 5 0.21959081

43 1

43 2 0.270308988

43 3 0.164712158

43 4 0.345388044

43 5 0.21959081

51 1

51 2 0.150566537

51 3 0.183230466

51 4 0.291513049

51 5 0.374689949

52 1

52 2 0.150566537

52 3 0.183230466

52 4 0.291513049

52 5 0.374689949

53 1

53 2 0.150566537

53 3 0.183230466

53 4 0.291513049

53 5 0.374689949

54 1
54

2 0.150566537

543 0.183230466

544 0.291513049

545 0.374689949

611

612 0.4131396

613 0.115349617

614 0.321457001

615 0.150053781

621

622 0.4131396

623 0.115349617

624 0.321457001

625 0.150053781
17.203 Solicitations. ( a ) Solicitations shall include appropriate option provisions and clauses when resulting contracts will provide for the exercise of options (see 17.208).
( b ) Solicitations containing option provisions shall state the basis of evaluation, either exclusive or inclusive of the option and, when appropriate, shall inform offerors that it is anticipated that the Government may exercise the option at time of award.
( c ) Solicitations normally should allow option quantities to be offered without limitation as to price, and there shall be no limitation as to price if the option quantity is to be considered in the evaluation for award (see 17.206).
( d ) Solicitations that allow the offer of options at unit prices which differ from the unit prices for the basic requirement shall state that offerors may offer varying prices for options, depending on the quantities actually ordered and the dates when ordered.
( e ) If it is anticipated that the Government may exercise an option at the time of award and if the condition specified in paragraph (d) above applies, solicitations shall specify the price at which the Government will evaluate the option (highest option price offered or option price for specified requirements).
( f ) Solicitations may, in unusual circumstances, require that options be offered at prices no higher than those for the initial requirement; e.g., when ( 1 ) the option cannot be evaluated under 17.206, or
( 2 ) future competition for the option is impracticable.
( g ) Solicitations that require the offering of an option at prices no higher than those for the initial requirement shall— ( 1 ) Specify that the Government will accept an offer containing an option price higher than the base price only if the acceptance does not prejudice any other offeror; and
( 2 ) Limit option quantities for additional supplies to not more than 50 percent of the initial quantity of the same line item. In unusual circumstances, an authorized person at a level above the contracting officer may approve a greater percentage of quantity.
( h ) Include the value of options in determining if the acquisition will exceed the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or Free Trade Agreement thresholds.
[48 FR 42231, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 27464, July 20, 1988; 58 FR 31141, May 28, 1993; 59 FR 545, Jan. 5, 1994; 64 FR 72419, Dec. 27, 1999; 69 FR 1053, Jan. 7, 2004; 69 FR 77872, Dec. 28, 2004; 82 FR 4714, Jan. 13, 2017]
#### Marcia Guttentag, Appellant, v. David Guttentag, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal from order denying “ without prejudice to renewal” appellant’s motion for counsel fees, on the ground that such an order is not appealable. Motion denied (see *Winn*v. *Warren Lbr. Co.,*11 A D 2d 713). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.