alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Rehabilitation Act*

### As amended through P.L. 114–95, enacted December 10, 2015

The Rehabilitation Act replaces the Vocational Rehabilitation Act: 
      - to extend and revise the authorization of grants to states for vocational rehabilitation services, with special emphasis on services to individuals with the most severe disabilities,
      - to expand special federal responsibilities and research and training programs with respect to individuals with disabilities,
      - to create linkage between state vocational rehabilitation programs and workforce investment activities carried out under title I of the *Workforce Investment Act* of 1998,
      - to establish special responsibilities for the Secretary of Education for coordination of all activities with respect to individuals with disabilities within and across programs administered by the federal government,
      - and for other purposes

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by title IV of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (PDF 791KB) establishes programs and initiatives administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, 

LLC,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-3516

Judge: 

 

PLAINTIFF’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1 AND

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LOCAL RULE 3.2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of

record, hereby submits that AF Holdings LLC does not have a parent corporation that owns 10% 

or more of its stock.

Respectfully submitted,

AF Holdings, LLC,

DATED: May 8, 2012

By: By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

Prenda Law Inc. 

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 880-9160

Facsimile: (312) 893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:11
**Overview**

While OCR continues to handle a significant number of complaints, the agency has devoted an increasing amount of its resources to assisting parents, students, schools and colleges in preventing civil rights problems and in addressing civil rights concerns at the local level. By providing guidance and resource information  to the public, we believe that students, parents, schools and colleges will better understand civil rights requirements and will have the tools to address these  issues locally in many instances.

To assist in prevention of civil rights problems, OCR has developed self-evaluation materials   that will enable schools and colleges to learn how they may be able to improve their approach to issues such as harassment and services to English language learners. We recommend approaches to self-evaluation that includes parents, students, members of the community and a cross section of the education community.

Also, local solutions to civil rights problems depend on effective implementation of complaint procedures. We provide resources for developing such procedures based on our experience working with school districts, colleges and universities.

Encouraging Resolutions at the Local Level-  Developing policies of nondiscrimination
-  Developing effective grievance procedure requirements
-  Partnerships and Parental Empowerment
-  Self-evaluation materials on education civil rights issues	   -   	Title IX Coordinator Resources
  -  Racial Harassment Resources
  -  Sexual Harassment Resources
  -  Resources Related to Race Discrimination
  -  Athletic Equity Resources
  -  English Language Learner Resources
  - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Resources 
Top  Last Modified: 01/10/2020
#### 1332.501 General.
| **EXHIBIT 32** |
|----------------|

 

|                                                                     | **CERTIFICATION**                       |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                     | **Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,** |   |
| **as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002** |
|                                                                          |                                         |        |  |  |

 

 

We, the undersigned, certify that, to the best of our knowledge, this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, of CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and containing the financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in        all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small business issuer.

 

CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-II LIMITED

| PARTNERSHIP |
|-------------|

(Small Business Issuer)

 

| by: | C.R.I., Inc. |
|-----|--------------|

Managing General Partner

 

 

|                       | By:                 |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| DATE:  March 26, 2009 | William B. Dockser, |
|                            |                     |        |  |

Director, Chairman of the Board,

and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

|                       | by:                    |   |
|----------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| DATE:  March 26, 2009 | H. William Willoughby, |
|                            |                        |        |  |

Director, President, Secretary,

Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer

 

This certification accompanies this annual report and is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose, and shall not be deemed filed by the small business issuer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Steven M. Besbeck, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB ofAspyra, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:

(a)           All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: April 16, 2007 |   | /s/ Steven M. Besbeck                 |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                 |   | Steven M. Besbeck                     |   |   |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

 

----
213.106-1 Soliciting competition. ( a ) *Considerations.* ( 2 ) ( i ) 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.
( ii ) See 215.101-2-70 for limitations and prohibitions on the use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process, which are applicable to simplified acquisitions.
( iii ) See 217.7801 for the prohibition on the use of reverse auctions for personal protective equipment and aviation critical safety items.
[84 FR 50788, Sept. 26, 2019]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON ALICIA BURKE ANZALDI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2987

)

RACHEL MARIE CANNON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi (“Anzaldi”) continues her

extraordinarily bizarre (and often regrettably misleading) course

of conduct in this pro se action brought by her (see this Court’s

July 19, 2012 memorandum order (“Order”) for a short description

of some of her earlier conduct in the case). This time she has

tendered another bulky filing (needlessly bulky, as will be

explained here) on July 30.

That new filing (Dkt. 25) begins with a photocopy of a

letter addressed to the “Freedom of Information Office, U.S.

District Court Clerk, Thomas G. Bruton,” bearing a May 10, 2012

verification. It simply doesn’t belong in this case, and it is

stricken.

Next comes a so-called Affidavit of Fact signed and verified

by Anzaldi on July 30, which states that she had attempted to

file an “Answer” on July 18 but that the document “did not appear

to be on Record with the Clerk of Court.” That is simply

false--as Order at 3 stated, “On July 18 Anzaldi showed up with a

Case: 1:12-cv-02987 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:176
bulky document that she said she had just filed,” and that

document is indeed of record--it is Dkt. 23. Hence Anzaldi’s

current refiling of that thick submission is stricken--indeed,

the original filing is retained, even though it contains a welter

of improprieties, simply because it reveals so much about

Anzaldi’s distorted approach in this litigation.

Just one addition before this Court closes to await

Anzaldi’s previously-ordered August 3 response. In her Affidavit

of Fact she states in part:

I would further like to mention that I will be Amending

my original Complaint, as I have the understanding the

[sic] Judge Ashman passed away in early June.

Anzaldi would be well advised to hold off on any such action (at

least briefly) until this Court has the opportunity to deal with

the case as forecast in the Order.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 2, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02987 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:177
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY SECTION
906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert E. Rout, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (First Commonwealth), certify that the Annual Report of First Commonwealth
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of First Commonwealth at the end of such period and the results of operations of First Commonwealth for such period.



|                     |  |                                                      |  | 
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|DATED: March 3, 2011 |  | /s/ Robert E. Rout                                   |  | 
|                     |  | Robert E. Rout                                       |  | 
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 8020.

#### King et al. *v.*The Toledo Loan Co. et al.

(Decided October 20, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. A. W. JDdkert*and *Mr. John A. King,*for plain-stiffs in error.

*Messrs. King Tracy*and *Mr. Samuel N. Young,*(for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

-Burket, (C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Willie Jones, Appellant, v. Warden of Manhattan House of Detention for Men et al., Respondents.

Order entered on April 26, 1962 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—• Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: 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.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

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

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

Case: 1:12-cv-04669 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:134
#### 204.470-1 General.

Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol (U.S.-IAEA AP), the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes.

[74 FR 2412, Jan. 15, 2009]
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTONIO LOPEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 0 3 9

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120 D0 4452 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no

later than June 4 , 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 0 th day of April , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsAppendix Figure 8. General topography of the area at RKm 148.1 (Sauvie Island), Columbia River, selected for observation during the juvenile salmonid stranding survey, 1992 and 1993.
#### Frank D’Agostino et al., Plaintiffs, v Malcolm Watt, Defendant, and Herbert B. Kuhn, Sr., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. A. Paul King, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

— Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 28, 1977 in Rensselaer County, which granted a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiffs as the result of an automobile accident which occurred in the State of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs ánd defendants are residents of New York State. After commencement of this action, the third-party plaintiff brought a third-party action against third-party defendant. The latter is a resident of Pennsylvania. Concededly, he had no contacts, as far as this action is concerned, with the State of New York. Jurisdiction was secured by utilizing the concept enunciated in *Seider v Roth*(17 NY2d 111). The third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of jurisdiction was granted by Special Term. This appeal ensued. In urging affirmance the third-party defendant maintains that Special Term properly relied on *Shaffer v Heitner*(433 US 186) as overruling *Seider.*The third-party plaintiff contends otherwise and the narrow issue for our determination is whether the *Seider*concept is still viable in this State. Most recently the Court of Appeals emphatically determined the issue in the affirmative *(Baden v Staples,*45 NY2d 889). Consequently, there must be a reversal. Order and judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and third-party complaint reinstated. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7415-7416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01895]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery 
Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 08, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Subcutaneous Drug 
Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. (``Subcutaneous Drug 
Development &

[[Page 7416]]

Delivery Consortium, Inc.'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Sanofi, Paris, FRANCE, has been added as a 
party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Subcutaneous Drug Development & 
Delivery Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 26, 2020, Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery 
Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the 
Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 3, 
2020 (85 FR 78148).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01895 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
EXHIBIT 10.5



               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTY AGREEMENT



         This Amendment No. 1 to Supplemental Guaranty Agreement  ("Amendment"),
dated as of March  28,  1996 is by and  between  McDonnell  Douglas  Corporation
("Guarantor"), a Maryland corporation, and McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation
("MDFC"), a Delaware corporation.

                          W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS,  the Guarantor and MDFC entered into a  Supplemental  Guaranty
Agreement (the "Guaranty"), dated as of December 30, 1993; and

         WHEREAS,  Section 5 of the Guaranty  provides  that the  Guaranty  will
terminate on March 31, 1996 unless,  among other things,  the parties agree that
MDFC's  exposure on its TWA portfolio  justifies a continuation of the Guaranty;
and
         WHEREAS,  the parties  agree that MDFC's  exposure on its TWA portfolio
justifies a continuation  of the Guaranty and the parties deem it to be in their
mutual best interest to extend the termination date of the Guaranty;

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  premises  and for valuable
consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

        1.  The sixth line of Section 5 of the Guaranty is hereby amended to
            read in full as follows:

            "on June 30, 1997 unless (a) an Event of Default which could".

         2. As modified above, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and
            effect in accordance with its terms.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have caused  their duly  authorized
officers to execute this Amendment.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS                           MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
FINANCE CORPORATION                         CORPORATION

By       /S/ THOMAS J. MOTHERWAY            By:  /S/ JAMES F. PALMER
Its:     President                          Its: Senior Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer