alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID S. PERRYMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16199

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04973-TEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David S. Perryman appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

FILED

FEB 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-16199

district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for

clear error its factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th

Cir. 2003), and we affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Perryman’s action because Perryman

did not properly exhaust administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires

adherence to administrative procedural rules). The district court did not clearly err

in finding that Perryman’s submission of a grievance to the captain did not exhaust

Perryman’s administrative remedies. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027

(9th Cir. 2009) (noting that prisoners must “complete the administrative review

process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules”) (quoting Woodford,

548 U.S. at 88)). 

We do not consider matters not distinctly raised and argued in the opening

brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 66 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 66

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 
            Qatar of certain defense articles and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 29, 2018

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 
            Qatar of certain defense articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a letter 
of offer with respect to any of the following proposed exports to the 
Government of Qatar (described in the certification Transmittal No. 18-
43, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate pursuant 
to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2776(b)(1)) on November 28, 2018), is hereby prohibited:
            (1) The proposed sale of 40 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium 
        Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) (Transmittal Numbered 18-
        43).
            (2) The proposed sale of 1 spare AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Guidance 
        Section (Transmittal Numbered 18-43).
            (3) The proposed sale of 1 spare AIM-120C-7 control section 
        (Transmittal Numbered 18-43).
            (4) The proposed sale of 8 AMRAAM Captive Air Training 
        Missile (CATM-120C) (Transmittal Numbered 18-43).
            (5) The proposed sale of missile containers, classified 
        software for the AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel Radar, spare and repair 
        parts, cryptographic and communication security devices, 
        precision navigation equipment, other software, site surveys, 
        weapons system equipment and computer software support, 
        publications and technical documentation, common munitions and 
        test equipment, repair and return services and equipment, 
        personnel training and training equipment, integration support 
        and test equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor, 
        engineering, technical and logistics support services, and 
        other related elements of logistical and program support 
        (Transmittal Numbered 18-43).
                                 <all>
```
Executive Order 14002

# Economic Relief Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**                    .                     *Background.*                     The pandemic caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an economic crisis marked by the closure of small businesses, job loss, food and housing insecurity, and increased challenges for working families balancing jobs and caregiving responsibilities. The current economic crisis has affected Americans throughout the Nation, but it is particularly dire in communities of color. The problems are exacerbated because State and local governments are being forced to consider steep cuts to critical programs to address revenue shortfalls the pandemic has caused. In addition, many individuals, families, and small businesses have had difficulties navigating relief programs with varying eligibility requirements, and some are not receiving the intended assistance. The economic crisis resulting from the pandemic must be met by the full resources of the Federal Government.                

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *Providing Relief to Individuals, Families, and Small Businesses; and to State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments.*                     (a) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall promptly identify actions they can take within existing authorities to address the current economic crisis resulting from the pandemic. Agencies should specifically consider actions that facilitate better use of data and other means to improve access to, reduce unnecessary barriers to, and improve coordination among programs funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government.                

(b) Agencies should take the actions identified in subsection (a) of this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and in doing so should prioritize actions that provide the greatest relief to individuals, families, and small businesses; and to State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.

(c) Independent agencies, as enumerated in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), are strongly encouraged to comply with this section.

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

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or 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 order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order 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.

[FR Doc. 2021-01923

Billing code 3295-F1-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         335,603                 425,306
<SECURITIES>                                    18,823                  18,823<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,913                 115,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,770                   8,762<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               473,109                 568,035
<PP&E>                                         178,403                 171,122
<DEPRECIATION>                               (136,237)               (120,544)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,783,631               1,556,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          439,735                 618,769
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      (4,686,665)             (5,016,915)<F3>
<PREFERRED>                                   (28,000)                (28,000)<F4>
<COMMON>                                     5,977,558               5,702,558
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,783,631               1,556,772
<SALES>                                      1,290,692                 863,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,316,877                 910,824
<CGS>                                           78,971                  75,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  986,627                 800,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                330,250                 110,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   330,250                 110,538
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .06                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .02
<FN>
<F1>Precious Metal Inventory
<F2>Prepaid Expense
<F3>Retained Earnings Deficit
<F4>Deferred Compensation
</FN>






</TABLE>
TO: Program Integrity and Ins�tu�onal Quality Nego�ators 

FROM: Joe Weglarz, primary nego�ator represen�ng business officers from ins�tu�ons of higher educa�on

Dom Chase, alternate nego�ator represen�ng business officers from ins�tu�ons of higher educa�on

DATE: January 18, 2024

RE: Proposed Changes to Cash Management Regula�ons 

Payment methods have evolved significantly since the last �me the Department of Educa�on revisited its cash 

management regula�ons in 2015. Students and consumers con�nue to adopt new and evolving payment methods 

because they want their transac�ons to be faster, cheaper, and safer. 

For years, ED has relied on a defini�on of Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) provided by the Department of the 

Treasury.1 While ED has allowed payments ini�ated by the Secretary to u�lize the broad EFT defini�on provided by 

Treasury, it has limited transac�ons ini�ated by or on behalf of an institution to only Automated Clearinghouse 

(ACH) transac�ons.2 This is commonly known as a “direct deposit” transac�on. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, ED provided several regulatory flexibili�es to ins�tu�ons via waivers and 

modifica�ons of statutory and regulatory provisions due to the na�onal emergency. ED expanded disbursement 

methods beyond ACH in a December 11, 2020 Federal Register no�ce to allow ins�tu�ons and third-party 

servicers to u�lize Treasury’s comprehensive defini�on of EFT, allowing students and families �mely access to their 

funds.3 This waiver specifically allowed ins�tu�ons to disburse funds via ACH, via person-to-person payment 

methods (such as Zelle and PayPal), or to use a student’s debit card number to transfer Title IV credit balances to 

their checking account using an original credit transac�on (OCT). 

These flexibili�es provided during the pandemic were appreciated by students, families, and higher educa�on 

ins�tu�ons. Given that ED required ins�tu�ons to no�fy their auditors of alterna�ve payment methods used 

during the na�onal emergency, there should be sufficient data to determine if these methods are safe and 

affordable. 

Proposed Regula�on Redline:

§668.161 Scope and Ins�tu�onal Responsibility

*****

(a) General

(2) As used in this subpart—

***

(iv) EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) means a transac�on ini�ated electronically instruc�ng the credi�ng or debi�ng 

of a financial account, or an ins�tu�on’s depository account. For purposes of this subpart transac�ons ini�ated by 

the Secretary, the term “EFT” includes all transac�ons covered by 31 CFR 208.2(f). For purposes of transac�ons 

ini�ated by or on behalf of an ins�tu�on, the term “EFT” includes, from among the transac�ons covered by 31 CFR 

208.2(f), only Automated Clearinghouse transac�ons;

1 31 CFR 208.2(f)

2 34 CFR 668.161(a)(2)(iv)

3 85 Fed. Reg. 79,856 (Dec. 11, 2020)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SANCHEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 12 C 2255

)

vs. ) Judge Kennelly

)

COOK COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: James Pullos

James S. Murphy-Aguilu

Assistant State’s Attorneys

50 West Washington Street, Room 500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, May 31, 2012, or as soon

thereafter as counsel may be heard, I shall appear before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, or any

judge sitting in his stead, in courtroom 2103 of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, and present the

accompanying Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File the Attached Second

Amended Complaint Instanter.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Adele D. Nicholas, certify that on Thursday, May 24, 2012, this notice and the abovedescribed motion were filed through the District Court’s CM/ECF automated docketing system

thereby causing service upon all counsel of record. 

/s/ Adele D. Nicholas 

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Adele D. Nicholas 

Jackowiak Law Offices

20 North Clark Street, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 795-9595

Case: 1:12-cv-02255 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:46
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05981

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 05981\05981_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05981\05981_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

05981\05981_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05981\05981_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05981\05981_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05981\05981_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05981\05981_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05981\05981_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05981\Certification Statement Plant ID 05981.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05981\Follow-up\Follow-up Questions - Steam Electric Questionnaire (Plant 0.docx Questions for follow up

x 05981\Follow-up\Letter.docx Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 05981\Supplemental Documents\05981_CC_ D3-1 POND 1 DRAWING.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05981\Supplemental Documents\05981_CC_A5-2_SITE PLAN.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05981\Supplemental Documents\05981_CC_A5-3_Water Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05981\Supplemental Documents\05981_CEC_POND -2 DRAWING part D sec 3.1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05981\05981_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Revere *v.*Chandler, guardian.

March 11, 1913.

Equitable-petition. .Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. May 2, 1912.

*Dean E. Byman*and *Green, Tilson & McKinney,*for plaintiff.

*G. P. Goree,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

This case on its facts is controlled by the decision of this court *In re Williams,*rendered February 26th, 1913. Ante, 524.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bech, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEREK J. WIGGINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 755 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




2006 Base Salaries for Certain Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Principal Position(s)	 	Salary
	David A. Dull, Senior Vice President, Business Affairs, and General
Counsel
	 	$	285,000	 
	Bruce E. Kiddoo, Vice President and Corporate Controller
	 	$	242,000	 
	Vahid Manian, Senior Vice President, Global Manufacturing Operations
	 	$	285,000	 
	William J. Ruehle, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 	$	285,000
225.772-1 Definitions. As used in this section— *Covered foreign country* means— ( 1 ) The People's Republic of China;
( 2 ) North Korea;
( 3 ) The Russian Federation; or
( 4 ) Any country that is a state sponsor of terrorism. (10 U.S.C. 2279)
*Cybersecurity risk* means threats to and vulnerabilities of information or information systems and any related consequences caused by or resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, degradation, disruption, modification, or destruction of such information or information systems, including such related consequences caused by an act of terrorism. (10 U.S.C. 2279)
*Foreign entity* means— ( 1 ) Any branch, partnership, group or sub-group, association, estate, trust, corporation or division of a corporation, or organization organized under the laws of a foreign state if either its principal place of business is outside the United States or its equity securities are primarily traded on one or more foreign exchanges.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this definition, any branch, partnership, group or sub-group, association, estate, trust, corporation or division of a corporation, or organization that demonstrates that a majority of the equity interest in such entity is ultimately owned by U.S. nationals is not a foreign entity. (31 CFR 800.212)
*Government of a covered foreign country* includes the state and the government of a covered foreign country, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
*Launch vehicle* means a fully integrated space launch vehicle. (10 U.S.C. 2279)
*Satellite services* means communications capabilities that utilize an on-orbit satellite for transmitting the signal from one location to another.
*State sponsor of terrorism* means a country determined by the Secretary of State, under section 1754(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (Title XVII, Subtitle B, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. 115-232), to be a country the government of which has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. As of December 14, 2020, state sponsors of terrorism include Iran, North Korea, and Syria. (10 U.S.C. 4871)
[83 FR 66072, Dec. 21, 2018, as amended at 86 FR 53883, Sept. 29, 2021; 87 FR 76993, Dec. 16, 2022]
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0003085 22-JUL-2015 10:41 AM

SCWC-13-0003085 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

KURT BOSSHARD, Trustee of the unrecorded Kurt Bosshard Trust, dated September 9, 1999, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant,
vs. THE THREE STOOGES, LLC, a Hawai ' i Limited

Liability Company; GREG L. ALLEN, SR., individually, and GREG L. ALLEN, JR., individually,

Respondents/Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees, and ALLEN FAMILY, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Respondent/Defendant-Counterclaimant, Cross-Claimant-Appellee, and MOLOA ' A BAY VENTURES, LLC, a Hawai ' i Limited Liability Company, Respondent/Defendant-Counterclaimant, Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., in his official capacity as Director of Finance, County of Kaua ' i, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0003085; CIV. NO. 12-1-0234) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant Kurt Bosshard’s application for writ of certiorari filed onJune 11, 2015, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, July 22, 2015. ' Harold Bronstein for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
[No. 8920.

*En Banc.*

May 10, 1911.]

#### Arthur S. Burr, *Appellant,*v. George Dyer *et al.,*Respondents.1

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Main, J., entered January 8, 1910, upon findings in favor of the defendants, quieting their title, in an action brought for partition.

Affirmed.

*T. Howard Shelley*(J. *W. Russell,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Guie & Guie,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 115 Pac. 512.

On Rehearing.2

Per Curiam.

A rehearing was granted in this case. Upon re-argument of the case to all the members of the court, a majority are satisfied with the result reached. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

2

Note: For former opinion, see 60 Wash. 603, 111 Pac. 866. — Rep.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Sellers, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County, both rendered September 10,1976, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree (under Indictment No. 44169), and of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (under Indictment No. 44385), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to suppress (under Indictment No. 44169) granted only to the extent of suppressing his statements and case remanded to the County Court for further proceedings on the indictments. Defendant’s postindictment incriminating statements concerning the crime charged in Indictment No. 44169, were made in the absence of counsel and thus should have been suppressed (see *People v Colon,*62 AD2d 398; cf. *People v Settles,*46 NY2d 154). The judgment under Indictment No. 44169 must therefore be reversed. The judgment arising under Indictment No. 44385, which was based upon a plea entered at the same time defendant pleaded guilty to Indictment No. 44169, should also be reversed (see *People v Clark,*45 NY2d 432). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.