alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OCR Case Number 08-10-4038: The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) in response to a class action  discrimination complaint.  The complaint  alleged that ADE discriminated against teachers of the English Language Learner  (ELL) program on the basis of national origin.  The complainant specifically alleged that ADE enforced a policy,  procedure, or practice that results in the removal of teachers from ELL classes based on a determination that their spoken English is accented or ungrammatical.  The complainant further alleged that the  policy may also have unlawfully discriminated against the ELL students who previously  had been taught by the teachers who had been removed by the policy.  ADE’s  on-site monitoring processes included on-site visits to Arizona local educational agencies (LEAs) to monitor their ELL teachers’ English fluency (including grammar and accent) using subjective evaluations.  Based only  on brief classroom on-site visits, ADE required LEAs to create and implement  corrective action plans to resolve ADE’s concerns about teachers’ accents for spoken English, even when LEAs did not have concerns about the teachers’  English fluency and had already assessed the teachers’ English fluency using objective measures.  ADE defended its  actions based on the fluency requirement in Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6801 *et seq. *(NCLB Title III). Following clarification provided to ADE  from the U.S. Department of Education’s Offices of General Counsel and Elementary and Secondary Education, DOJ and OCR received correspondence from  ADE confirming its commitment to change its current on-site teacher English fluency monitoring practices.  ADE will now focus its inquiry on whether LEAs have certified that their teachers are fluent in English, and it will not monitor teachers’  accents to determine their fluency.  ADE submitted a revised ELL monitoring guide that confirms to OCR and DOJ that ADE has made this change.

***Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (316K)

Top
EXHIBIT 2

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:13414
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:13415
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:13416
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:13417
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:13418
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:13419
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 571-2 Filed: 02/09/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:13420
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE) In connection with the Annual Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
partnership. Date: March 30, 2004
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. Moriarty
Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2004
    
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. Terrano
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar ALCALA-ARREDONDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40135

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Baldemar Garcia, Jr., Person, Whit-worth, Ramos, Borchers & Morales, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Oscar AIcala-Arredondo (Alcala) was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine and of possessing with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, he asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence a report culled from the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS). Alcala asserts that the report was inadmissible because it was created in anticipation of the criminal *363trial. Because he did not challenge the report on this ground below, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Alcala cannot establish error by the district court because the license plate data was originally gathered in the ordinary course of business as part of a general information-gathering procedure. *See United States v. Puente,*826 F.2d 1415, 1418 (5th Cir.1987).

Alcala contends that in order to offer computer business or public records, the Government had to meet a “heightened showing” for admissibility by establishing the original source of the computer program and detailing testing procedures used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of input control. “Circumstances relating to the identity or competency of the preparer are relevant only to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.” *United States v. Gremillion,*464 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir.1972)(upholding admission of evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 1732).

Alcala asserts that the admission of the evidence without corroborating testimony rendered the evidence inadmissible. Any absence of corroboration affects the weight that the evidence should receive, rather than its admissibility. *See United States v. Garcia Abrego,*141 F.3d 142, 176 (5th Cir.l998)(FED.R.Evid. 404(b) evidence). The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the TECS report into evidence. *See United States v. Lopez-Moreno,*420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir.2005). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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.
 Department of Justice
 On January 19, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Midwest Can Company,*
                     Civil Action No. 21 C 299. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the Act pertaining to Defendant's applications for certificates of conformity that were issued to the Defendant authorizing the sale and manufacture of portable fuel containers (“PFCs”). Among other things, the Consent Decree requires the Defendant to conduct additional testing of PFCs manufactured by the Defendant and to report the results of those tests to EPA. The Defendant will also pay a civil penalty of $1.7 million to the United States. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States and Illinois*
                     v. 
                    *Midwest Can Company,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-12397. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $8.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Patricia A. McKenna, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2021-01829 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The United States GeologicalSurvey in Alaska, accomplishments during...**
 
1975 | 1976 | 1977 | 1978 | 1979
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.4/3:
Item Number:0620-A (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001097244
 
July 8, 2019
----

----

----

----

|   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.a Delaware corporation |                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|   |                                   |                       |   |
|   | By:                                    | /s/ Dennis M. McGrath |   |
|   |                                   | Dennis M. McGrath          |   |
|   |                                   | Chief Executive Officer    |   |
|   |                                   |                       |   |

|   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.a Nevada corporation |                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|   |                                 |                       |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ Dennis M. McGrath |   |
|   |                                 | Dennis M. McGrath          |   |
|   |                                 | Chief Executive Officer    |   |
|   |                                 |                       |   |

----

----
#### 2033.103 Protests to the agency.

Protests to the agency are first considered by the contracting officer. In accordance with FAR 33.103(d)(4), the protestor may appeal the contracting officer's decision by delivering or providing a written request to the agency Director, Division of Contracts or Property Management, or designee, to conduct an independent review of the Contracting Officer's decision.
232.7004 Contract clauses. ( a ) Unless an exception to submission in electronic form at 232.7002(a) applies and instructions for invoices are contained in the contract administration data section of the contract, task order, or delivery order, use the clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
( b ) Use the clause at 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, in solicitations and contracts, task orders, or delivery orders, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, when 252.232-7003 is used and none of the exceptions at 232.7002(b)(1) apply. See PGI 232.7004 for instructions on completing the clause.
[83 FR 66063, Dec. 21, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 6587, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### 1852.239-70 Alternate delivery points.

As prescribed in 1839.107-70(a)(1), insert the following clause:

# Alternate Delivery Points (NOV 1993)

(a) The first priority of this contract is to satisfy the anticipated requirements of ____ (identify contracting activity). However, should the actual requirements of ____ (contracting activity) be less than the maximum quantities/values specified in section B of this contract, ____ (contracting activity) may order the remaining available quantities/values to satisfy the requirements of other installations. The other installations at which delivery may be required are:

(List installations and their locations)

(b) The prices of the deliverables in section B are F.O.B. destination to ____ (contracting activity). If delivery to an alternate location is ordered, an equitable adjustment may be negotiated to recognize any variances in transportation costs associated with delivery to that alternate location.

(End of clause)

*Alternate I* (NOV 1993). As prescribed in 1839.107-70(a)(2), delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

(b) The prices of the deliverables in section B are F.O.B. origin with delivery to NASA via Government bill of lading (GBL). If delivery to an alternate location is ordered, the same delivery procedures will be used and no equitable adjustment to any price, term, or condition of this contract will be made as a result of such order.

(End of clause)

[58 FR 59189, Nov. 8, 1993; 58 FR 62556, Nov. 29, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 4477, Jan. 30, 1997; 62 FR 36735, July 9, 1997; 81 FR 24501, Apr. 26, 2016]
22.605 Rulings and interpretations of the statute. ( a ) As authorized by the statute, the Secretary of Labor has issued rulings and interpretations concerning the administration of the statute (see 41 CFR 50-206). The substance of certain rulings and interpretations is as follows: ( 1 ) If a contract for $15,000 or less is subsequently modified to exceed $15,000, the contract becomes subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.
( 2 ) If a contract for more than $15,000 is subsequently modified by mutual agreement to $15,000 or less, the contract is not subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.
( 3 ) If a contract awarded to a prime contractor contains a provision whereby the prime contractor is made an agent of the Government, the prime contractor is required to include the stipulations of the statute in contracts in excess of $15,000 awarded for and on behalf of the Government for supplies that are to be used in the construction and equipment of Government facilities.
( 4 ) If a contract subject to the statute is awarded to a contractor operating Government-owned facilities, the stipulations of the statute affect the employees of that contractor the same as employees of contractors operating privately owned facilities.
( 5 ) Indefinite-delivery contracts, including basic ordering agreements and blanket purchase agreements, are subject to the statute unless it can be determined in advance that the aggregate amount of all orders estimated to be placed thereunder for 1 year after the effective date of the agreement will not exceed $15,000. A determination shall be made annually thereafter if the contract or agreement is extended, and the contract or agreement modified if necessary.
( b ) [Reserved]
[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 79 FR 24205, Apr. 29, 2014]
17.105-2 Objectives. Use of multiyear contracting is encouraged to take advantage of one or more of the following: ( a ) Lower costs.
( b ) Enhancement of standardization.
( c ) Reduction of administrative burden in the placement and administration of contracts.
( d ) Substantial continuity of production or performance, thus avoiding annual startup costs, preproduction testing costs, make-ready expenses, and phaseout costs.
( e ) Stabilization of contractor work forces.
( f ) Avoidance of the need for establishing quality control techniques and procedures for a new contractor each year.
( g ) Broadening the competitive base with opportunity for participation by firms not otherwise willing or able to compete for lesser quantities, particularly in cases involving high startup costs.
( h ) Providing incentives to contractors to improve productivity through investment in capital facilities, equipment, and advanced technology.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E.
Skowronski, President and Director of the Company, certify 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 Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                         
|----------------- |  | ------------------------
|February 16, 2007 |  | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI
|                  |  | Walter E. Skowronski    
|                  |  | President               



47
Publications

Table 2. Number of northern squawfish removed by day (all electrofishing sites) and number of coded-wire tags recovered in digestive tracts of northern squawfish, release site study, 1991.

a CWT - coded wire tag (Agency/Data 1/Data 2 codes). Number of CWTs recovered in the digestive tracts of northern squawfish represent a minimum number of juvenile salmon ingested.b CPUE = catch per unit effort, number of fish caught per hour.c CWT code = 07/14/16, released 24 June.d CWT code = 07/46/49, released 24 June. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
Kevin Washington

ITW Government Affairs202.261.3550kwashington@itw.com

Mary DaneAgency Approval EngineerTraulsen – ITW Food Equipment Group800.825.8220 x6741mdane@traulsen.com

Joe SandersPrincipal EngineerTraulsen – ITW Food 817.625.9671 x6537jsanders@traulsen.co
Traulsen Self-Contained Product Scope

• Blast Chillers• Thawing Cabinets• Beverage Cooler• Milk Cooler• Wine Chillers• Deli Cabinets• Pastry Cabinets• Undercounter Refrigerators / 

Freezers

• Reach-in Refrigerators / Freezers• Refrigerated Merchandisers• Refrigerated Drawers• Refrigerated Chef Bases• Prep Tables

• Restaurants/chains

• (~1 million nationwid

• Corporate Facilities• Correctional Facilities• Health Care• Casinos & Stadiums• Schools• Laboratories and Flower S• Supermarkets

 Approved substitutions and available technologies are inadequate (see Tra

comments p.3)
Traulsen Rule 20 Comments

• Provide better definitions of product scope • Set GWP levels by applications and so that manufacturers can decide whe

dedicate redesign resources (see page3)

• Effective date no earlier than 2020 for self-contained refrigeration using HF

GWP or higher (see page 10-12)

• Effective date no earlier than 2023 for self-contained refrigeration foam rat

higher (see page 10-12)

• Exempt for at least 5 years beyond the effective date for CRE product cate

requiring more than 150 grams of refrigerant until nonflammable options aavailable and technical feasibility can be established (see page 16)

• Allow destination market-based product export requirements (see pages 9, 12)
Rule 20 Product Implications

• Design cycle for CRE

• Compressor approvals

• Product categories used by industry

• New v. retrofit issue

• Alternative substances

• Refrigerant, foam quantity• Which products used in• Pros and cons of each

• International issues

• EU and Canada harmonization

• Supermarket issues
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 10(b)

                        REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL



I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life (N.Y.) Variable
Account C (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed pursuant to
paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based on my
review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material relating to
the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby certify as of
the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                         /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                         -----------------------
                                         Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.

May 5, 2000
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-3255.

David M. ARMSTRONG, L. Benson Barger, Wallace D. Black, Howard

Brooks, Jerry A. Budd, Sonja M. Carter, Dominick C. Cizek, Carol D.

Clark-Iley, Charles H. Davis, Kenneth O. Giessuebel, Herold P.

Glaser, Robert A. Havlish, Kumar Hinduja, Joseph C. Jett, Glenn E.

Johnson, Robert C. Lerche, Calvin N. Lightner, George W. McGuirk,

James W. McLean, William G. Murphy, Donald L. Prasky, Clark C.

Rains, Myrtle Y. Redding, Kenneth A. Richards, Russell G. Roberts,

Linda L. Ryan, Victor W. Shaw, Linton W. Smith, Michael Sylvestri,

Marlon K. Tarter, Delbert S. Turner, Edward W. Walsh, Joseph W.

Williamson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Constantino A. Barbitta, James R. Baxter, Robert D. Biggs, James

H. Black, Rick L. Bordner, Rodmond M. Cookson, David B. Pool, Roger

A. Purcell, Rama S. Singh, Charles M. Smith, Robert G. Swanson,

William F. Waldrop, Kenneth E. Welch, Plaintiffs,

v.

MARTIN MARIETTA CORP., Martin Marietta Technologies, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida (No. 94-1066-CV-ORL-18), G. Kendall Sharp,

Judge.

Prior report: 93 F.3d 1505.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON,

COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a

poll on the appellees' Suggestion of Hearing En Banc and a majority

of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor

thereof,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be heard by this

court sitting en banc.