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

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on January 28, 2021.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC, (This meeting will be a virtual meeting).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-01573 Filed 1-19-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
');
	document.write('

Leadership Biographies

## Biography

Jessica Ramakis serves as the Acting Chief Privacy Officer and the Chief of Staff for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) at the U.S. Department of Education. In these capacities, she leads, and provides strategic advice for, large-scale efforts that affect the Department’s policy, evidence, and privacy work. Prior to this role, Ms. Ramakis served as Deputy Chief of Staff in OPEPD, and before that was an analyst in the Department’s Budget Service. Ms. Ramakis has also worked at the Office of Management and Budget’s Education Branch and at the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. She began her federal career as a Presidential Management Fellow at the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service. Prior to her government service, she was a research assistant with the Los Angeles Unified School District and with UCLA. Ms. Ramakis has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from UCLA where she graduated magna cum laude, and a Master’s in Public Policy also from UCLA. She lives in the Washington, D.C. area with her husband and two young children.

### Leadership Biographies

- Michael Hawes, Director, Student Privacy Policy and Assistance Division (SPPAD), Acting Director, Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO)
- Gregory Smith, Director, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center

line

Home | Leadership | Organization | Outreach | Other Useful Links

  | FOIA | FPCO |
1814.302 Bid submission. (NASA supplements paragraph (b)) ( b ) NASA contracting officers shall not consider telegraphic bids communicated by the telephone.
241.501 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( d ) ( 1 ) Use a clause substantially the same as the clause at FAR 52.241-7, Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services, when the utility services to be provided are subject to an independent regulatory body.
( 2 ) Use a clause substantially the same as the clause at FAR 52.241-8, Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Unregulated Services, when the utility services to be provided are not subject to a regulatory body or are subject to a nonindependent regulatory body.
[71 FR 3418, Jan. 23, 2006]
232.072-1 Required financial reviews. The contracting officer shall perform a financial review when the contracting officer does not otherwise have sufficient information to make a positive determination of financial responsibility. In addition, the contracting officer shall consider performing a financial review— ( a ) Prior to award of a contract, when— ( 1 ) The contractor is on a list requiring preaward clearance or other special clearance before award;
( 2 ) The contractor is listed on the Consolidated List of Contractors Indebted to the Government (Hold-Up List), or is otherwise known to be indebted to the Government;
( 3 ) The contractor may receive Government assets such as contract financing payments or Government property;
( 4 ) The contractor is experiencing performance difficulties on other work; or
( 5 ) The contractor is a new company or a new supplier of the item.
( b ) At periodic intervals after award of a contract, when— ( 1 ) Any of the conditions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this subsection are applicable; or
( 2 ) There is any other reason to question the contractor's ability to finance performance and completion of the contract.
[63 FR 11535, Mar. 9, 1998]
#### In the Matter of Mathias Muller et al., Doing Business as South Columbia Inn, Petitioners, v. Martin C. Epstein et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. (Review of Determination of respondents, transferred by order of Herkimer Special Term, which cancelled the hotel liquor license of the petitioners.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THIS
FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,638
<SECURITIES>                                     2,149
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,568
<INVENTORY>                                     24,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,812
<PP&E>                                          52,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,238
<BONDS>                                         58,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,663
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,728
<SALES>                                        116,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,458
<CGS>                                           77,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   402
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,494)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,963
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

A. L. NELSON; R. SALDANA, AKA R.

Saldano,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16563

D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05935-AWISKO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Patrick Haney, a pro se prisoner litigant, appeals the district court’s

order granting a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by correctional officers

A.L. Nelson and R. Saldana. On appeal, Haney contends that the district court

FILED

AUG 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

abused its discretion by granting summary judgment in favor of the correctional

officers before allowing Haney to complete discovery. We agree. 

The district court’s refusal to permit further discovery is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Landmark Dev. Corp. v. Chambers Corp., 752 F.2d 369, 373

(9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). “[S]ummary judgment is disfavored where relevant

evidence remains to be discovered, particularly in cases involving confined pro se

plaintiffs.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). A timely pending

motion to compel further discovery should have alerted the trial court of the need

to first address Haney’s discovery motion before taking up the prison guards’

summary judgment motion. Garrett v. City of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518

(9th Cir. 1987).

Here, the court granted the prison guards’ summary judgment motion before

the prison guards complied with Haney’s discovery requests and before they

answered Haney’s interrogatories. The magistrate judge had earlier issued an order

compelling Nelson and Saldana to in good faith respond to Haney’s interrogatories

(as modified by the district court) and to come forth with the records Haney

requested. In response to Nelson’s and Saldana’s Motion for Reconsideration of

the order compelling further discovery, the magistrate judge stayed enforcement of

the discovery order until the parties could fully brief the prison guards’ Motion for
3

Reconsideration. Significantly, the magistrate judge never ruled on Nelson’s and

Saldana’s Motion for Reconsideration before they successfully moved for

summary judgment. 

The record shows that Haney sought discovery diligently. The district court

abused its discretion in granting Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment before

allowing Haney to complete discovery. 

The district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of

correctional officers Nelson and Saldana is AFFIRMED with respect to its finding

that Haney’s request for injunctive relief is now moot, and VACATED in all other

respects. The matter is REMANDED with instructions to allow Haney to

complete discovery. The parties shall each bear their own costs on appeal.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Cesare, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 31, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The most serious error in this record is the failure of the trial court to adequately explain to the jury the effect of intoxication on criminal liability or to relate the relevant section of the Penal Law (§ 15.25) to the facts (cf. *People v Valentine,*54 AD2d 568). While the evidence against the defendant was very strong, a properly charged jury might have found that he was too intoxicated to have acted knowingly or with intent. The error deprived the defendant of a fair trial and the judgment of conviction must therefore be reversed. While it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised on this appeal, certain comments are in order. While the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s *Sandoval*motion, it would have been better practice to set forth the grounds for the denial on the record in sufficient detail to show that it balances all of the relevant factors in arriving at a decision (see, generally, *People v Mayrant,*43 NY2d 236, 240). We also note that a photograph need not perfectly represent the scene of a crime as it existed on the day the crime occurred in order to be admissible into evidence. It need only be relevant and accurately represent those aspects of the crime scene that are material (cf. *Saporito v City of New York,*14 NY2d 474, 476-477). Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | FOIA Reading Rooms | **Making a Request** | FAQs | Contacts | Links

----

## Privacy Act Request Instructions

Privacy requests may be submitted online or via fax or mail. Instructions for all methods are listed below.

- Privacy Act Request Form  (PDF, 1.78MB)

### Submit Online

Privacy Act Requests may be submitted easily and securely through the Department's online FOIA portal located here.

### Submit Via Fax or Mail

- Be as specific as possible with regard to names, dates, places, events, subjects, etc. If known, you should include any file designations or descriptions for the records that you want. Review the Privacy Act Request Checklist for a list of items we require and recommend that you include in your request letters. 
-  Send requests via **fax to**: (202) 401-0920
- 		Send requests via  mail to :    U.S. Department of EducationFOIA Service CenterOffice of the Secretary400 Maryland Ave, SW, LBJ, 7C104Washington, DC 20202-4500 
- To  avoid delay , be sure to display "Privacy Act Request" prominently on the envelope or fax cover sheet.

### How Information About You is Collected and Shared With Other Organizations

*All physical access to the Department site, and the sites of Department contractors where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building for his or her employee or visitor badge.*

*The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a "need to know" basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. All licensed users of this system of records are given a unique user ID with personal identifiers. All interactions by individual users within the system are recorded.*
214.503-1 Step one. ( a ) ( 4 ) Include an evaluation factor regarding supply chain risk (see subpart 239.73) when acquiring information technology, whether as a service or as a supply, that is a covered system, is a part of a covered system, or is in support of a covered system, as defined in 239.7301.
#### 2452.237-70 Key personnel.

As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(1), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when it is necessary for contract performance to identify the contractor's key personnel:

# Key Personnel (FEB 2006)

(a) *Definition.* “Personnel” means employees of the contractor, or any subcontractor(s), affiliates, joint venture partners, or team members, and consultants engaged by any of those entities.

(b) The personnel specified below are considered to be essential to the work being performed under this contract. Prior to diverting any of the specified individuals to other projects, the contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance and shall submit justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No diversion shall be made by the contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer. Key personnel shall perform as follows: [*List Key Personnel and/or positions, and tasks, percentage of effort, number of hours, etc., for which they are responsible, as applicable.*]

(End of clause)

[71 FR 2440, Jan. 13, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 73537, Dec. 10, 2012]
237.172 Service contracts surveillance. ( a ) Ensure that quality assurance surveillance plans are prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the statement of work or statement of objectives for solicitations and contracts for services. These plans should be tailored to address the performance risks inherent in the specific contract type and the work effort addressed by the contract. (See FAR subpart 46.4.) Retain quality assurance surveillance plans in the contract file. See *http://sam.dau.mil ,* Step Four—Requirements Definition, for examples of quality assurance surveillance plans.
( b ) See PGI 216.505-70 for guidance regarding minimum labor category qualifications for orders issued under multiple award services contracts.
[80 FR 58632, Sept. 30, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 48510, Sept. 13, 2019]
FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T May 31 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1602 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00281 -CV -T -26-MSS BIL LYRA Y P HI LL IPS , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CITY OF SARASOTA, a m uni ci pa l c or

por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 31, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Billy Ray Phillips, an Af

rican-A m erican m ale, appeals a district court order gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the Ci ty of S ar as ota ( “ Ci ty ”) , P hil lip s’2

fo rm er e m plo y er , ba se d onhis c la im of unl aw fu l di sc ri m inatio n, pur suant t o T itl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et s eq . Phillips argues that the district court erre d when it granted sum m ary j udgm ent in favor of the City based on its d eterm ination that because only he had vio la te d ar es tr ai nin g or de r, he c oul d pr es en t no e vid en ce sho w ing that the Ca uc as ian of

fi ce rs in his de partm en t w er e sim ilarl y sit ua te d f or pur pose s of showing di sparate tre atm ent. S pecifically , P hillip s argues that the district court shou ld h av e ev al ua te d th e “ co m parativ e se ri ousn es s” of

the und er ly ing inc ide nts inv olv ing the Ca

uc as ian of

fi ce rs be ca

use the e vid en ce sho w s th at se ve ra l of

the Ca uc as ian of

fi ce rs e nga ge d inm isc ondu ct , suc h a s a tte m pte d m ur de r an d ag gr av at edba tt ery, th atwas m uc h m or e se rio us th an hi s “ m in ordo m es ti c sp at .” W e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, vie w ing al l e vid en ce and f

ac tua l i nf er en ce s r ea sona

bly dr awn f ro m the e vid en ce in the li ght
m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . B urtonv. T am

paH ousi ng Auth or ity , 271 F.3 d 1 27 4, 1 27 6- 77 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d, an d upo n c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we find no reversible error. W e conclude that the district court properly granted
summ ary j udgm ent in favor of the City because Phillips was fir ed for, am ong o ther thi ngs, vio la tin g ate m

por ar y inj unc tio n onanum

be r of se parate oc ca sio ns, and3

be ca use the e vid en ce sho w ed

that hi s f orm er Ca uc as ian c o- em

plo y ee s, non e of
w hom ha d vi olate d ate m

por ar y inj unc tio n, w er e not

in fa ct suf fi ci en tly sim ilarl y sit ua te d to be use d a s c om

parator s. AF FIRMED
.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1 – 54,

Defendants.

No. 12-CV-1532

Judge Chang

Magistrate Judge Cox

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY

IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

Now comes COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Objector herein, by its

attorneys, and move this Honorable Court for leave to cite additional authority. In support of this 

Motion, movant states:

1. In its Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance with 

Subpoena, Objector cited Pacific Century Int’l v. John Does 1-37, et al., 2012 WL 1072312 

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2012). When citing it, Objector noted that a plaintiff in that case, also a

plaintiff in the instant case, had moved Judge Holderman to alter or amend the judgment reported 

in that opinion.

2. On May 21, 2012, Judge Holderman denied the motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. A copy of his order is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

WHEREFORE, Objector moves that this Court grant Objectors leave to cite this 

additional authority.

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 25 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:191
2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Mark W. Wallin

Paul F. Stack

Mark W. Wallin

STACK & O’CONNOR CHARTERED

140 S. Dearborn St., Suite 411

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 782-0690

Of counsel: 

John D. Seiver 

Leslie G. Moylan 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 973-4200

Counsel for Non-Party Comcast Cable 

Communications, LLC 

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 25 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:192
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of May 2012, true and correct copies of the 

foregoing document was served via ECF upon all counsel of record:

Paul A. Duffy 

PRENDA LAW INC. 

161 N. Clark Street 

Suite 3200 

Chicago, IL 60601

/s/ Mark W. Wallin

Mark W. Wallin

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 25 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:193
#### 2401.601 General.
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-04155 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00 199

- CV

WILLIAM WINDSOR

, Appellant

v.

JOEYISALITTLEKID, ET AL

, Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for rehearing filed on July 27, 2015 is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed August 6, 2015