alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|| College Affordability and Transparency Center |||| College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form ||

Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, the college cost lists are updated annually using data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Additional updated data on individual schools is available on the Department's College Navigator.

Consumer tools such as the Consumer tools such as the College Financing Plan (formerly known as the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet) and the College Scorecard help students and families make more educated decisions about college and easily compare vital information such as college costs, average student loan debt and graduation rates across different institutions.

## College Affordability and Transparency Center

The College Affordability and Transparency Center (CATC) on the U.S. Department of Education's College Navigator website helps students make informed decisions about their choice for higher education. As part of this Center, the Department posts College Affordability and Transparency Lists that highlight institutions with the highest tuition prices, highest net prices, and institutions whose prices are rising at the fastest rates.

Included on the site are 'highest increase' lists applicable to all postsecondary institutions that participate in, or are applicants for participation in, any federal financial assistance programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Specifically, this includes:

- Highest increase in tuition and required fees (Tuition & Fees):  A list of the five percent of institutions within each institutional sector that have the largest increase in tuition and required fees, expressed as a percent change, over the three-year time period for which the most recent data are available.
- Highest increase in net price (Net Price):  A list of the five percent of institutions within each institutional sector that have the largest increase in average net price, expressed as a percent change, over the three-year time period for which the most recent data are available.

## College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form

Since 2011-12, the collection of information through the College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form (CATEF) has been necessary pursuant to §132 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (HEA), 20 U.S.C. §1015a, with the goal of increasing transparency of college tuition prices for consumers.

Institutions on either of the highest increase lists above must use the online College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form (CATEF) located at https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/catef/ to explain why costs have increased and what steps were or will be taken toward the goal of reducing these costs. The Department will summarize these reports and make them publicly available to parents and students on the CATC Web site.

The CATEF Help Desk is available toll-free at (888) 288-6131 or catef@inovas.net.

 Top

| CAT Center | OPE Home | Education Planning |
216.403-1 Fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts. ( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall give particular consideration to the use of fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts, especially for acquisitions moving from development to production.
( 2 ) The contracting officer shall pay particular attention to share lines and ceiling prices for fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts, with a 120 percent ceiling and a 50/50 share ratio as the point of departure for establishing the incentive arrangement.
( 3 ) See PGI 216.403-1 for guidance on the use of fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts.
[76 FR 57679, Sept. 16, 2011]
##### 



EXHIBIT 3.2
 
 ARTICLE 1
 STOCKHOLDERS
 Annual Meeting
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Meetings
  1




---



##### 



Quorum
   Conduct of Stockholders Meeting
   Notice of Stockholder Business
 2




---



##### 



Proxies and Voting
 3




---



##### 



Action at Meeting
  Stock List
  No Stockholder Action Without Meeting
  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Number and Term of Office
 4




---



##### 



Vacancies and Newly Created Directorships
 Removal
 Regular Meetings
 Special Meetings
 5




---



##### 



Quorum
 Participation in Meetings by Conference Telephone
 Action by Consent
 Compensation of Directors
 Nomination of Director Candidates
 6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 COMMITTEES
 Committees of the Board of Directors
 Conduct of Business
 ARTICLE IV
 OFFICERS
 Generally
 8




---



##### 



Chairman of the Board
 Chief Executive Officer
 President
 Vice President
 Treasurer
 9




---



##### 



Secretary
   Delegation of Authority
 Removal
 Action With Respect to Securities of Other Corporations
 10




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 STOCK
 Certificates of Stock
  Transfers of Stock
 Record Date
  11




---



##### 



Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Certificates
 Regulations
 ARTICLE VI
 NOTICES
 Notices
 Waivers
 ARTICLE VII
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Facsimile Signatures
 12




---



##### 



Corporate Seal
 Reliance Upon Books, Reports and Records
 Fiscal Year
 Time Periods
 ARTICLE VIII
  Right to Indemnification
 13




---



##### 



Right of Claimant to Bring Suit
 Non-Exclusivity of Rights
 Indemnification Contracts
 Insurance
 14




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment
 ARTICLE IX
 AMENDMENTS
 By the Board of Directors
 By the Stockholders provided
 15




---



##### 



/s/ William O. SweeneyWilliam O. Sweeney, Assistant Secretary
 16
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3308

_____________________________ C HRISTOPHER L YNN C ORMIER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. May 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , R AY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Christopher Lynn Cormier, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appelle e.
Functional Statements > Office of the Under Secretary

## Office of the Under Secretary

This Office, under the leadership of the Under Secretary, assists the Secretary in the discharge of Secretarial duties and responsibilities. 

The Under Secretary coordinates policies, programs, and activities related to vocational and adult education, postsecondary education, college grant aid, and the Federal Student Aid.

### Order of Succession

In the event that the Under Secretary dies, resigns or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office, and the office is thereby deemed to be vacant, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary shall temporarily perform the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity.

In instances where the office is not vacant, but the Principal Deputy Under Secretary is absent, the following officials, in the order shown, shall perform the functions and duties of the office:

- Deputy Under Secretary
- Deputy Under Secretary and Chief Economist
- Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education
- Assistant Secretary, Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education
"Brown, Elizabeth" 

<eabrown@steptoe.co

m> 

06/26/2008 11:31 AM 

To Jean Holmes/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc

Subj

ect

Ammonia - petition to cancel - follow up 

 

Jean:

I just wanted to follow up on our conversation this morning regarding the Nalco petition to cancel 

ammonia registrations. If you have any questions or need anything further, please don't hesitate 

to contact me. 

Regards,

Elizabeth 

Elizabeth Anne Brown, Ph.D.

Technical and Regulatory Analyst

Steptoe & Johnson, LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

tel: 202-419-5166

fax: 202-429-3902

eabrown@steptoe.com 

This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have 

received this email in error, do not copy, distribute, save or otherwise use. Please notify the sender immediately at 

"eabrown@steptoe.com".
215.404-73 Alternate structured approaches. ( a ) The contracting officer may use an alternate structured approach under 215.404-4(c).
( b ) The contracting officer may design the structure of the alternate, but it shall include— ( 1 ) Consideration of the three basic components of profit—performance risk, contract type risk (including working capital), and facilities capital employed. However, the contracting officer is not required to complete Blocks 21 through 30 of the DD Form 1547.
( 2 ) Offset for facilities capital cost of money. ( i ) The contracting officer shall reduce the overall prenegotiation profit objective by the amount of facilities capital cost of money under Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 414, Cost of Money as an Element of the Cost of Facilities Capital (48 CFR 9904.414). Cost of money under CAS 417, Cost of Money as an Element of the Cost of Capital Assets Under Construction (48 CFR 9904.417), should not be used to reduce the overall prenegotiation profit objective. The profit amount in the negotiation summary of the DD Form 1547 must be net of the offset.
( ii ) This adjustment is needed for the following reason: The values of the profit factors used in the weighted guidelines method were adjusted to recognize the shift in facilities capital cost of money from an element of profit to an element of contract cost (see FAR 31.205-10) and reductions were made directly to the profit factors for performance risk. In order to ensure that this policy is applied to all DoD contracts that allow facilities capital cost of money, similar adjustments shall be made to contracts that use alternate structured approaches.
[63 FR 55040, Oct. 14, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 20692, Apr. 26, 2002; 71 FR 69494, Dec. 1, 2006]
#### Eileen Passaretti, Appellant, v Ping Kwok Yung, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 224]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated February 28, 2006, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury with the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s physician established that the plaintiffs spinal injuries were not causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident, were degenerative and osteoarthritic in nature, and existed prior to the subject accident *(see Fryar v First Student, Inc.,*21 AD3d 525, 526 [2005]; *Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion,*20 AD3d 456 [2005]). The MRI reports prepared by the plaintiffs radiologist upon which the defendant’s physician relied *(see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45, 47 n 1 [2005]; *Meely v 4*G’s *Truck Renting Co., Inc.,*16 AD3d 26, 29 [2005]; *Pagano v Kingsbury,*182 AD2d 268, 271 [1992]) provided support for these conclusions *(cf. Beyel v Console,*25 AD3d 636 [2006]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s physicians failed to address the findings of degenerative and osteoarthritic changes noted in the MRI reports *(see Khan v Finchler,*33 AD3d 966, 967 [2006]). Under these circumstances, their opinions that the plaintiffs injuries were causally related to the subject accident were speculative *(see Tudisco v James,*28 AD3d 536, 537 [2006]; *Giraldo v Mandanici,*24 AD3d 419, 420 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Crane, J.E, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3693 DATE 5/23/2012

CASE

TITLE

Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motion by plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] and motion for appointment of

counsel [4] are denied. Civil Case Terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Martin Padilla’s (Padilla) motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. . . .” Id. Since Padilla is proceeding pro se, the court has

liberally construed his complaint. Padilla contends that he was incarcerated, and that at his

place of incarceration (Prison), he was given an incident report relating to attempts by him to

mail certain items from the Prison (Incident Report). Padilla also contends that he requested

that the Incident Report be reviewed, and that during the review process, he was denied certain

privileges such as the use of email and the telephone, and visitation privileges. Padilla asserts

that he appealed the Incident Report, and that the Incident Report was ultimately expunged. 

Padilla contends, however, that he did not receive notice of the expungement until after he was

12C3693 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

released from the Prison, when he was residing in a halfway house. Padilla asserts that he was

harmed because during the period when his privileges were suspended, his family was worried

about him, he was worried about his family, and they were not able to communicate with each

other. The court notes, however, that even if Padilla’s allegations are true, he does not indicate

that he and his family would have been unable to communicate via standard mail. Padilla has

not stated any valid claim for relief. His own allegations show that he was accorded an

administrative process by which he could seek a review of the Incident Report, and that the

Prison ultimately expunged the Incident Report. Although Padilla alleges that the Incident

Report was ultimately expunged, Padilla’s allegations do not plausibly suggest that any of his

constitutional rights were violated by the issuance of the Incident Report or by the subsequent

appeal process. Nor do the allegations that, during the appeals process, Padilla was denied

certain privileges plausibly suggest a constitutional violation. Padilla’s allegations fail to state

any valid federal basis for relief. Based on the above, the instant action is dismissed. The

motion for an appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

12C3693 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al Page 2 of 2
211.274-5 Contract clauses. ( a ) Use the clause at 252.211-7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, for supplies, and for services involving the furnishing of supplies, unless the conditions in 211.274-2(b) apply. ( 1 ) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the clause the contract line, subline, or exhibit line item number and description of any item(s) below $5,000 in unit acquisition cost for which DoD item unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent is required in accordance with 211.274-2(a)(2).
( 2 ) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the clause the applicable attachment number, when DoD item unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent is required in accordance with 211.274-2(a)(3)(i) through (v).
( b ) Use the clause at 252.211-7008, Use of Government-Assigned Serial Numbers, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that— ( 1 ) Contain the clause at 252.211-7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation; and
( 2 ) Require the contractor to mark major end items under the terms and conditions of the contract.
[72 FR 52298, Sept. 13, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 70908, Nov. 24, 2008. Redesignated and amended at 75 FR 59103, Sept. 27, 2010; 77 FR 52257, Aug. 29, 2012; 78 FR 37984, June 25, 2012; 78 FR 76072, Dec. 16, 2013; 79 FR 44313, July 31, 2014; 80 FR 51750, Aug. 26, 2015; 88 FR 6581, Jan. 31, 2023. Redesignated and amended at 88 FR 88536, Dec. 22, 2023]
#### 22.1405 Collective bargaining agreements.

If performance under the clause at 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities, may necessitate a revision of a collective bargaining agreement, the contracting officer shall advise the affected labor unions that the Department of Labor will give them appropriate opportunity to present their views. However, neither the contracting officer nor any representative of the contracting officer shall discuss with the contractor or any labor representative any aspect of the collective bargaining agreement.

[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 34074, June 22, 1998; 79 FR 43578, July 25, 2014]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

G AND G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL RETO, DBA The Lab, individually,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 56055

D.C. No.

2:19

- cv

- 07915

- WDK

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 10, 2022 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS, ** * District Judge.

G and G Closed Circuit Events, LLC

, appeals the district court’s order

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

granting summary judgment on its 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 claims and declining

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over i ts state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

This is one of three appeals brought by G and G that implicate the

application of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 to commercial programs that are

broadcast over the internet. All three appeals raise identical issues, the substance

of which we addressed in our opinion in G and G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v.

Liu

, No. 21

- 56047, __ F.4th __ (9th Cir. 2022). For the reasons explained in our

opinion, we affirm the district court’s order.

In this case , as in Liu

, the district court granted G and G ample opportunity

to conduct discovery on the method by which the commer cial program was

broadcast. And here, as in Liu , G and G declined to take advantage of this

opportunity and instead relied on conclusory statements regarding the method of

transmission. It was G and G’s burden at summary judgment to come forward

with evi dence establishing a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322

– 23 (1986). Because G and G failed to carry this

burden, summary judgment was appropriate.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ted W. Owen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TED W. OWEN                                    
|Ted W. Owen                                        
|Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
|August 6, 2010
#### Ceferino Geigel, Respondent, v. Harry Liebovits et al., Appellants.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $10,185, reversed, on the law and on the facts, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, with $50 costs to appellants, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $2,500 in lieu of the award by verdict, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs to appellants. In this personal injury action the jury verdict is excessive in its award of damages and a verdict in excess of $2,500 is not warranted by the record. *(Geigel*v. *Leibovitz,*19 A D 2d 590.) The evidence produced by plaintiff falls short of establishing permanent injury and disability causally related to the accident. Concur — Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., and Bastow, J., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.