alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2433.104 Protests to GAO. ( a ) ( 1 ) *General.* When advised by GAO of the receipt of a protest, the Office of General Counsel shall immediately inform the contracting activity. The Contracting Officer shall notify the Office of General Counsel upon receipt of the copy of the protest from the protestor.
( 2 ) Upon receipt by the Department of a written request for a formal report relating to a protest, the Office of General Counsel, with appropriate assistance from the Contracting Officer, shall prepare and file the report in accordance with GAO requirements at 4 CFR part 21.
( c ) *Protests after award.* Protests received after award shall be treated in the same manner as those filed with GAO before award in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
( d ) *Findings and notice.* When the Contracting Officer makes a determination to award a contract notwithstanding a protest as authorized by FAR 33.104(b)(1)(i-ii), or to continue contractor performance as authorized by FAR 33.104(c)(2), that determination of the intent to make an award or to continue contract performance shall be approved by the HCA after consultation with the Office of General Counsel.
( g ) *Notice to GAO.* If the HCA proposes not to comply with a GAO recommendation concerning the resolution of a protest of a procurement award, prior to reporting to the Comptroller General concerning that decision, the HCA shall obtain the concurrence of the Office of General Counsel and the Senior Procurement Executive.
[50 FR 46578, Nov. 8, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 40333, Nov. 6, 1986; 57 FR 59790, Dec. 15, 1992]
#### 1842.7201 General.

(a) [Reserved]

(b) Reporting requirements.

(1) Use of the NASA Contractor Financial Management Reports, the NASA form 533 series, is required on cost-type, price redetermination, and fixed-price incentive contracts when the following dollar, period of performance, and scope criteria are met:

| Contract value/scope | Period of performance | 533M | 533Q |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $500K to $999K | 1 year or more | Required | Optional. |
| $1,000,000 and over | Less than 1 year | Required | Optional. |
| $1,000,000 and over | 1 year or more | Required | Required. |

(2) When it is probable that a contract will ultimately meet the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section through change orders, supplemental agreements, etc., the reporting requirement must be implemented in the contract based on the estimated final contract value at the time of award.

[62 FR 14017, Mar. 25, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 44609, July 27, 2004]
**ED Programs Supporting Veterans
**Program Office:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

**CFDA Number:** 84.116G**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants**Also Known As:** CEVSS

Program Description
This program encourages model programs to support veteran  student success in postsecondary education by coordinating services to address  the academic, financial, physical, and social needs of veteran students.
Types of Projects
Grant are awarded under this program for a period of three years.

Required grant activities include:
- Establishing a Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on the campus of the institution to provide a single point of contact to coordinate comprehensive support services for veteran students;
- Establishing a veteran student support team, including representatives from the offices of the institution responsible for admissions, registration, financial aid, veterans benefits, academic advising, student health, personal or mental health counseling, career advising, disabilities services, and any other office of the institution that provides support to veteran students on campus;
- Providing a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program;
- Monitoring the rates of veteran student enrollment, persistence, and completion; and
- Developing a plan to sustain the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success after the grant period.

Other authorized activities for support of veteran students:
- Outreach and recruitment of such students;
- Supportive instructional services for such students, which may include--   - personal, academic, and career counseling, as an ongoing part of the program;
  - tutoring and academic skill-building instruction assistance, as needed; and
  - assistance with special admissions and transfer of credit from previous postsecondary education or experience.  Assistance in obtaining student financial aid;  Housing support for veteran students living in institutional facilities and commuting veteran students;  Cultural events, academic programs, orientation programs, and other activities designed to ease the transition to campus life for veteran students;  Support for veteran student organizations and veteran student support groups on campus;  Coordination of academic advising and admissions counseling with military bases and national guard units in the area; and  Other support services the institution determines to be necessary to ensure the success of veterans in achieving educational and career goals.   FIPSE Home            Last Modified: 05/02/2022    

**
EXHIBIT 10(w)

SEALRIGHT CO., INC.
9201 Packaging Drive
DeSoto, Kansas 66018



Mike Lappa

Dear Mike:

          The Board of Directors of Sealright has approved
supplementary benefits for key executives.  The Benefits include
a Retention Payment and Severance Enhancements, but do not
otherwise modify your existing agreements or benefits.

Retention Payment

          If you remain in the continuous employment of Sealright
and perform your present duties through May 29, 1998, you will
receive a one time payment of $60,000.  However, if you are asked
to leave before this date without cause, you will receive this
payment.

Severance Enhancements

          If your employment with Sealright or its successor is
terminated without cause you will receive the benefits under the
Severance Pay Plan or your individual agreement plus the
following:

          1.   Payment of COBRA costs for as long as you desire
               such insurance coverage up to 12 months.
          2.   Payment for outplacement services for as long as
               the services are needed up to 12 months.
          3.   Payment of your base salary for 12 months
               following the effective date of the termination in
               place of your existing arrangement.

In the event no transaction involving Sealright has been
consummated by December 31, 1998, the Board will review the
Severance Enhancements as well as all other benefits in the
normal course.

          If you have any questions about the foregoing, please
contact Carl Walker or me.


                                   Sincerely,


                                   /s/ Charles F. Marcy
## FY 2023

Appropriation: $3,347,402New Fellowships: 86Average Fellowship Award: $38,923

## FY 2022

Appropriation: $3,375,392New Fellowships: 90Average Fellowship Award: $37,504

## FY 2021

Appropriation: $4,274,500New Fellowships: 100Average Fellowship Award: $42,745

## FY 2020

Appropriation: $4,265,723New Fellowships: 112Average Fellowship Award: $38,087

## FY 2019 

## FY 2018 

## FY 2017 

## FY 2016

Appropriation: $3,011,504New Fellowships: 90Average Fellowship Award: $33,461

## FY 2015 

Appropriation: $3,011,567New Fellowships: 90Average Fellowship Award: $33,462

## FY 2014

Appropriation: $3,029,176New Fellowships: 83Average Fellowship Award: $36,496

## FY 2013

Appropriation: $3,036,237New Fellowships: 80Average Fellowship Award: $37,953

## FY 2012

Appropriation: $3,239,776New Fellowships: 90Average Fellowship Award: $35,998

## FY 2011

No new awards.

## FY 2010

Appropriation: $6,368,000New Fellowships: 164Average Fellowship Award: $38,829

**Note:** This is one of four Fulbright-Hays programs; see also Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad- Bilateral Projects (# 84.018), Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program (# 84.019), and Fulbright-Hays-Group Projects Abroad Program (# 84.021), all under topical heading "International Education."

IFLE Home
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4810

EVERTON BARTLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-210)

Submitted: April 18, 2003

Decided: May 15, 2003

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

David H. Rogers, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J.

Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Everton Bartley appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C.

§ 963 (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Bartley contends he was denied his rights under the Speedy Trial

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (2000), and his constitutional right to a speedy

trial. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and

its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Stoudenmire, 74 F.3d

60, 62 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 770 (4th

Cir. 1995). We find no error in the district court’s decision to deny

Bartley’s motion to dismiss for denial of his statutory speedy trial

rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), (8)(A); United States v. Sarno, 24

F.3d 618, 622 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tedder, 801

F.2d 1437, 1450 (4th Cir. 1986). Bartley also asserts that the delay in

proceedings violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This

claim is likewise meritless. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530

(1972); United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 149 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, Bartley’s conviction is affirmed. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. BARTLEY
§ 935.60 Wake Island Judicial Authority. ( a ) The judicial authority under this part is vested in the Wake Island Court and the Wake Island Court of Appeals.
( b ) The Wake Island Court and the Wake Island Court of Appeals shall each have a seal approved by the General Counsel.
( c ) Judges and Clerks of the Courts may administer oaths.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

1:12-cv-04693 Ellen Kaufman, Intervenor Rusty A. Payton Payton Legal Group 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 6201771 773-682-5210 info@payton.legal January 21, 2020 ✔

✔

✔

✔

Rusty A. Payton

Fifth Third Mortgage Company, Plaintiff,

v. Ira Kaufman, et al., Defendant;

Morgan Stanley & Co., Third Party Respondent
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

May 13, 2016 

Kerri A. Hinton 

Director, Airworthiness & Quality Assurance 

Kestrel Aircraft Company 

1401 Tower Avenue 

Superior, Wisconsin 54880 

Dear Ms. Hinton, 

800 Independence Ave .. SW. 

Washinglon. 0 C 20591 

This is in response to your May 12, 2016 letter requesting an extension of the comment 

period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, Part 23 Reorganization 

(Docket FAA-2015-1621). The NPRM comment period closes May 13,2016. We believe 

sufficient time has been given for interested persons to submit comments. Therefore, the 

Federal Aviation Administration does not find it in the best interest of the public to 

extend the comment period. Your request for an extension of the comment period is 

denied. However, as stated in 14 Code of Federal Regulations § 11.45, we will consider 

comments filed late if at all possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 

We have placed this response with your request in the rulemaking docket. 

Sincerely, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking 

Aviation Safety
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:145
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 20, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00965-CV JANE DOE, Appellant V. BILLY JACK WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-03946-2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Goldst ein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the trial court’s gran ting of appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s negligence claim for failure to s erve the expert report required in a health care liability claim. 1 See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74.351(a) (requiring report), (b) (providing for dismissal of c laim where report not served). The appeal was filed pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 51.014(a)(9), which authorizes an appeal from an inter locutory order

1 The trial court denied the motion as to appellant’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.–2– denying in whole or in part a mo tion to dismiss for failure to serve an expert report, and (a)(10), which authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory o rder granting a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report. See id. §§ 51.014(a)(9),(10). Because an appeal from an interlo cutory order may only be taken if authorized by statute, see Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.3d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992), and neither of the relied upon sections nor any other statute appea red to authorize this appeal, we questioned our jur isdiction over the appeal. At our direction, the parties f iled letter briefs addressing ou r concern. Appellant asserts generally in he r letter brief that the appeal is authorized because the negligence claim is not a health care liability claim and t herefore, a report was not required and the dismissal was improper. Our jurisdiction over an appeal, however, does not arise because the trial court may have commit ted error. Rather, in the context of an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is conferred by statute. See
id. The only interlocutory order granting a motion in a health care liability claim that is authorized by statute to be appealed is an order granti ng a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(a) & (a)(10). The order here is not such an order. Acc ordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

200965F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JANE DOE, Appellant
No. 05-20-00965-CV V. BILLY JACK WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-03946- 2019. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Billy Jack Williams recover his costs, if any, o f this appeal from appellant Jane Doe.
Judgment entered April 20, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL METAL ) 

AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL ) 

UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND ) 

PENSION FUNDS, ) No. 12 CV 4545 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Castillo 

 ) 

 v. ) Magistrate Judge Cole 

 ) 

INNOVATIVE METAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ) 

a Michigan limited liability company, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

 NOW COME the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, DONALD D. SCHWARTZ, 

ANDREW S. PIGOTT and ARNOLD AND KADJAN, and in their Motion for Judgment 

in Sum Certain, state as follows: 

 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant on June 12, 2012 based 

on ERISA fringe benefit contribution audit findings in excess of $500,000.00. 

 2. Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, Defendant challenged the audit 

findings. 

 3. Plaintiffs accepted Defendant’s challenges. 

 4. According to the affidavit of Richard J. Wolf, Plaintiffs’ auditor, 

Defendant presently owes the Plaintiffs $1,175.30 in delinquent contributions, liquidated 

damages, prior late payment assessments and discrepancies, and audit costs. See Ex. A. 

 5. Per the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Andrew S. Pigott, Plaintiffs have 

incurred $5,400.00 in the prosecution of this action so far. See Ex. B. 
 6. On August 13, 2012, the Court sua sponte entered a default against 

Defendant. 

 7. Defendant has still failed to appear and defend in this litigation. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter the order attached to this Motion 

as Exhibit C. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, 

 ARCHIECTURAL METAL AND 

 GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION 

 NO. 27 WELFARE AND 

 PENSION FUNDS 

 By: s/Andrew S. Pigott 

One of their Attorneys 

Donald D. Schwartz 

Andrew S. Pigott 

ARNOLD AND KADJAN 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1650 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 236-0415
#### 246.101 Definitions.

*Discipline Working Group,* as used in this subpart, is defined in the clause at 252.246-7004, Safety of Facilities, Infrastructure, and Equipment for Military Operations.

[75 FR 66685, Oct. 29, 2010]
#### 225.504 Evaluation examples.

For examples that illustrate the evaluation procedures in 225.502(c)(ii), see PGI 225.504.

[70 FR 73154, Dec. 9, 2005]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEE MOMIENT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 12-CV-04453

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC.,
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
d/b/a GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK,
and CAC FINANCIAL CORP.,

Defendants.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
NOW COME Plaintiff, Lee Momient, and Defendant, CAC Financial Corp.,

pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and hereby stipulate to the
dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice as to Defendant CAC Financial Corp. with each

party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

fa)

Lee Moni Amir R/Fahmassebi

P.O. Box 608082 Konicek & Dillon, P.C
Chicago, IL 60660 21 W. State Street

Email: leemomient@live.com Geneva, IL 60134
Plaintiff Telephone: (630) 262-9655

Facsimile: (630) 262-9659
amir@konicekdillonlaw.com

And



$:\10017.021\(38865).DOC

DAVID A. CHEEK, OBA #1638
dcheek@cheekfalcone.com

CHEEK & FALCONE, PLLC

6301 Waterford Boulevard, Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118-1168
Telephone: (405) 286-9191
Facsimile: (405) 286-9670
dcheek@cheekfalcone.com
rgrau@cheekfalcone.com

Attorneys for Defendant,

CAC Financial Corp.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 

www.ilnd.uscourts.gov

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY ADDRESS OR NAME 

Instructions:Complete thisformand e-file it in each case you list below. Next, use the CM/ECF “Utilities”

menu to update your address information in CM/ECF. Updating this information is critical. Instructions for 

this procedure can be found on the Court’s website in the CM/ECF User Guide section entitled “Managing 

Your CM/ECF Account.” For assistance, please call the CM/ECF Help Desk at 312-582-8727.

NAME: Jeffrey Antonelli

FIRM: Law Office of Jeffrey J. Antonelli dba Antonelli Law Ltd.

STREET ADDRESS: 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400

CITY/STATE/ZIP: Chicago, IL 60602

PHONE NUMBER: 312-201-8310

E-MAIL ADDRESS: Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com

ARDC NUMBER (ILLINOIS STATE BAR MEMBERS): 6271875

If you have previously filed an appearance with

this Court using a different name, enter that name:

List all active cases below in which you currently have an appearance on file.

Case Number Case Title Assigned Judge

12-cv-02886 Barnabee, et al v. Alta Colleges Ruben Castillo 

12-cv-07933 Merz v. Target Corporation James Zagel

11-cv-07188 Anderson v. Holy See, et al Ruben Castillo

02-cv-08700 Adams v. Catrambone Maria Valdez

April 24, 2013

Attorney’s Signature Date

Case: 1:12-cv-02886 Document #: 9 Filed: 04/24/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:61
|
|
|
|

1. What is the purpose of the Demonstration Projects To Ensure Students With Disabilities Receive A Quality Higher Education Program?
2. Who is eligible to apply for a grant under this program?
3. What kinds of activities can be supported with grant funds?
4. How often are new grant competitions generally held?
5. What is the duration of the grants under this program?
6. What is the average annual grant amount?
7. Does this program have a matching requirement?
8. What are the reporting requirements for grantees?
9. Does this program have any priorities?
10. What are the performance measures for the program?

The purpose of this program is to support innovative grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) to improve their ability to provide a quality postsecondary education for students with disabilities.

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) are eligible to apply for program funds.

The activities allowed under this program are:

- In-service training;
- Professional development;
- Customized and general technical assistance workshops;
- Distance learning;
- Training in the use of assistive and educational technology; and
- Dissemination of project related information, etc.

There is no set funding cycle for this program. In the past, new grant competitions have taken place every two to three years.

Grants under this program have a three-year grant performance period.

During the most recent grant competition that was held in 2008, the average grant award amount was $293,696.

No.

Grantees are required to submit performance reports annually, as well as a final performance report.

No.

The performance indicators for this program are:

- the difference between the rate at which students with documented disabilities complete courses taught by faculty trained in project activities and the rate at which other students complete those courses; and
- the percentage of faculty trained in project activities that incorporate elements of training into their classroom teaching.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 09/30/2014
|-------------------------