alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
237.170-2 Approval requirements. ( a ) *Acquisition of services through a contract or task order that is not performance based.* ( 1 ) For acquisitions at or below $100 million, obtain the approval of the official designated by the department or agency.
( 2 ) For acquisitions exceeding $100 million, obtain the approval of the senior procurement executive.
( b ) *Acquisition of services through use of a contract or task order issued by a non-DoD agency.* Comply with the review, approval, and reporting requirements established in accordance with subpart 217.7 when acquiring services through use of a contract or task order issued by a non-DoD agency.
[70 FR 29643, May 24, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 14104, Mar. 21, 2006; 71 FR 75893, Dec. 19, 2006; 75 FR 45074, Aug. 2, 2010; 80 FR 36905, June 26, 2015; 80 FR 67255, Oct. 30, 2015; 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020]
209.505-4 Obtaining access to proprietary information. ( b ) ( i ) For contractors, other than litigation support contractors, accessing third party proprietary technical data or computer software, non-disclosure requirements are addressed at 227.7103-7(b), through use of the clause at 252.227-7025 as prescribed at 227.7103-6(c) and 227.7203-6(d). Pursuant to that clause, covered Government support contractors may be required to enter into non-disclosure agreements directly with the third party asserting restrictions on limited rights technical data, commercial technical data, or restricted rights computer software. The contracting officer is not required to obtain copies of these agreements or to ensure that they are properly executed.
( ii ) For litigation support contractors accessing litigation information, including that originating from third parties, use and non-disclosure requirements are addressed through the use of the clause at 252.204-7014, as prescribed at 204.7403(a). Pursuant to the clause, litigation support contractors are not required to enter into non-disclosure agreements directly with any third party asserting restrictions on any litigation information.
[78 FR 30238, May 22, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 28728, May 10, 2016; 81 FR 36473, June 7, 2016; 84 FR 58332, Oct. 31, 2019]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Harry Weingarten, Respondent, *v.*Democrat & Chronicle et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The employer and its carrier appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for a continuing causally related partial disability dated November 9, 1961 and from a decision of the board dated April 13, 1962. Claimant was employed on the first three days of each week as a relief district circulation manager, the duties of which required him to pick up newspapers at the employer’s publishing plant and to deliver them to newsboys, stores and individual subscribers along a charted route about six or seven miles in length in the traverse of which approximately 33 stops were made; in effecting the deliveries his own motor vehicle was used. For the services he was paid a daily wage of $5; for the use of his automobile he received an additional weekly allowance of $11 which the board included in the computation of his preaccidental average weekly earnings. Whether this was correct is the only issue presented upon appeal. Inevitably claimant incurred expenses in the operation of the vehicle used in connection with the hiring; the extent of their recoupment may not be regarded properly as wages within the contemplation of the statute. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 2, subd. 9; *Mailer of Le Voff*v. *Gompers é Blau,*278 App. Div. 878.) The residual financial advantage, if any, which he received from the employer by reason of the allowance the record does not disclose. Decisions and award reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further development of the record, the recomputation of claimant’s average weekly wage and an appropriate award. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
“Dear          Colleague” letter (May 6, 2011)

"Dear Colleague" letter (October  26, 2010)

OCR Racial Harassment Policy

Frequently Asked Questions about Racial Harassment

Checklist for Addressing Harassment

Success Stories

Fact Sheet: Combating Discrimination Against  Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) and Muslim,  Arab, Sikh, and South Asian (MASSA) Students  PDF (239.29K)

**Links to Other Resources**- US Department of Education Safe & Drug Free Schools Program  US Department of Justice Hate Crimes initiativesEquity Assistance Centers
  Last Modified: 01/10/2020
Appeal No. 74-143.

#### Chester W. Greenhalgh *v.*Edward Moretti *et al.*

*Howard I. Lipsey,*for plaintiff-appellee. *John G. Carroll, John H. McHugh,*for defendants-appellants.

Motion of defendants-appellants to vacate the order of court dismissing their appeal is denied. Motion of plaintiff-appellee is denied as being moot.
** **

**SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON,D.C. 20549**

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**FORM10-Q**

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Mark One) 

(x)   **QUARTERLY REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** 

 

For the quarterlyperiod ended June 28, 2008

 

OR

 

(  )  **TRANSITION REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** 

      Forthe transition periodfrom             to             

 

 

Commission filenumber 1-7138

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**CAGLES, INC.**

(Exact name ofRegistrant as specified in its charter)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

                                                  GEORGIA                                                          58-0625713  

                                                    (State or other jurisdictionof                                                          (I.R.S. employer

                                                    incorporation ororganization)                                                         identification no.)

 

    

                                     2000 Hills Ave., Atlanta,Ga.,                                              30318

                              (Address of principal executiveoffices)                                 (Zipcode) 

 

                                        Registrant’stelephone number, including area code: (404) 355-2820 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Indicate by check markwhether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file suchreports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.                                                                                                                          X   Yes           ____ No 

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or anon-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and largeaccelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.. (Check one): 

 

  Large acceleratedfiler   _____         Accelerated filer  _____            Non-accelerated filer    ___           Smallerreporting company   _ X__     ..

 

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the ExchangeAct).                           Yes         X   No  

 

 

The Registrant had4,664,198 shares of Class A Common Stock, outstanding as of June 28, 2008.
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Semir D. Sirazi, et al. 

Plaintiff(s)

v.

General Mediterranean Holding, SA, et al.

Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12 C 653

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Amended judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

9 in favor of plaintiff(s) 

 and against defendant(s) 

which 9 includes Enter amount pre–judgment interest. 

9 does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

9 in favor of defendant(s) Click here to enter text.

and against plaintiff(s)C 

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

: other: Amended judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs Semir D. Sirazi, Greenstone

Capital LLC. and Mardini, Inc. and against defendants General Mediterranean Holding, SA and Orifarm, SA in

the amount of $17,900,000 with costs (does not include pre-judgment interest).. Amended judgment is entered

in favor of defendant Nadhmi Auchi and against plaintiffs Semir D. Sirazi, Greenstone Capital LLC. and

Mardini, Inc. dismissing the cause of action as against defemdamt Nadhmi Auchi with prejudice. 

This action was (check one):

9 tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

9 tried by Judge Select Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

: decided by Judge William T. Hart on motions to set aside jury verdict, for pre-judgment interest, and for a new 

 trial.

Date: 11/5/2015 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s/ Carol Wing,, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-00653 Document #: 535 Filed: 11/05/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:26199
#### 1523.303-72 Use and care of laboratory animals.

Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 1552.223-72, Use and Care of Laboratory Animals, in all contracts involving the use of animals in testing, research or training.

[80 FR 4214, Jan. 27, 2015]
Exhibit
23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm


Center Bancorp, Inc.


Union , New
Jersey





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements on Form S-3 No. 333-100884, No. 333-110710,
No.333-157189, No. 333-165787, and No. 333-189210 and Form S-8 No. 333-37436,
No. 333-37434, No. 333-116174, No. 333-125747, No. 333-148323 and No. 333-160111
of Center Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 5, 2014, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Center Bancorp,
Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form
10-K/A, Amendment No. 1.





/s/
BDO USA, LLP


Philadelphia ,
Pennsylvania


April 10, 2014
BLUE THUNDER CORP.
           (INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE)

This certifies that ----------

is the registered owner of ----------------

fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock, $.001 par value each of

                               BLUE THUNDER CORP.

    Transferable  on the books of the Corporation in person or by  attorney upon
surrender of this  Certificate  duly endorsed or assigned.  This Certificate and
the shares represented hereby  are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware,
and to the Certificate of Incorporation  and By-laws of the Corporation,  as now
or hereafter amended.  This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the
Transfer Agent

     WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile  signatures
of its duly authorized officers.


Dated: ----------------


                               BLUE THUNDER CORP.
/s/Bridgette Vasile                CORPORATE SEAL            /s/Edward Reilly
------------------                    2000                 --------------------
  Secretary                         DELAWARE                 President


                                                                Countersigned:
                                        Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., Inc.
                                                                Transfer Agent


                                                          AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE


<PAGE>






     The following  abbreviations,  when used in the  inscription on the face of
this  certificate,  shall be  construed  as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:


TEN COM - as tenants in common
TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN -  as joint tenants with right of
        survivorship and not as tenants
        in common and not as community property


UNIFORM GIFTS TO MINORS ACT


( Custodian)                       (Minor)
under the Uniform Gifts of Minors Act of  the State of ------------------

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto:

Please insert social security
or other identifying number: -----------------

(Insert name and address, including zip code):

----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------- shares

of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint


----------------------------------------------------

to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named Corporation
with full power of substitution in the premises.




DATED: -------------                  ---------------------------------------



    NOTICE:  The signature to this  assignment must correspond with the name as
it is  written  upon the face of the  Certificate  in every  particular  without
alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.



SIGNATURE GUARANTEE:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Harris, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on August 18, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Lane and Silverman, JJ.
#### 2419.804 Evaluation, offering, and acceptance.
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries



Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



|                                                                                    |  |                          |     |  |      |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |  |   |     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | --- |  | ---- | - | --- | ---- |  | - | ---- |  |  | ---- | --- |  |  | - | --- | 
|                                                                                    |  | Years Ended December 31, |    
|(Dollars in millions)                                                               |  | 2010                     |     |  | 2009 |   |     | 2008 |  |   | 2007 |  |  | 2006 |    
|Earnings:                                                                           |  |                          |     |  |      |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |  |   |     | 
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax                   |  | $                        | 152 |  |      | $ | 126 |      |  | $ | 162  |  |  | $    | 234 |  |  | $ | 291 | 
|Fixed charges                                                                       |  |                          | 160 |  |      |   | 175 |      |  |   | 223  |  |  |      | 297 |  |  |   | 353 | 
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax and fixed charges |  | $                        | 312 |  |      | $ | 301 |      |  | $ | 385  |  |  | $    | 531 |  |  | $ | 644 | 
|                                                                                    | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                      |  |                          |     |  |      |   |     |      |  |   |      |  |  |      |     |  |  |   |     | 
|Interest expense                                                                    |  | $                        | 160 |  |      | $ | 175 |      |  | $ | 223  |  |  | $    | 297 |  |  | $ | 353 | 
|                                                                                    | 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                  |  |                          | 2.0 |  |      |   | 1.7 |      |  |   | 1.7  |  |  |      | 1.8 |  |  |   | 1.8 | 
|                                                                                    | 



43
No. 99-20272 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20272 Summary Calendar

FRANK E. VOTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAM FUGAZZI, ET AL,

Defendants,

CHARLES MARTIN, Warden, Corrections Corporation of America Houston Processing Center; GARY WEEBER, Classification and Transfer Manager for the (ODOC); JOHN KITZHABER, Governor for the State of Oregon; GEORGE W. BUSH, Governor of the State of Texas,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-2598

-------------------- February 21, 2000

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Frank E. Voth, Oregon prisoner # 6100632, appeals the district

court’s g rant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Charles

Martin and the Corrections Corporation of America and the district

court’s dismissal of his claims against defendants Gary Weeber,

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, and Texas Governor George W. Bush.

Particula rly, Voth contends that the district court erred in 1)No. 99-20272 -2-

failing to authorize service of process on defendants Weeber,

Kitzhaber, and Bush prior to the dismissal of Voth’s claims, 2)

denying Voth’s discovery request, and 3) granting CCA’s motion for

summary judgment.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sua sponte dismissing Voth’s claims against Weeber,

Kitzhaber, and Bush as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

prior to authorizing service of process on them. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(e)(2)(B)(I) and (ii); Humphries v. Various Federal USINS

Employees

, 164 F.3d 936, 941 (5th Cir. 1999); Warren v. Black

, 134

F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998); Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191,

193 (5 th Cir. 1997); A li v. Higgs

, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir.

1990). Similarly, there was no abuse of discretion in denying

Voth’s discovery request. Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 417

(5th Cir. 1990); Inte rnational Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc.

,
939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 1991). Finally, because the record

reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment

was proper. H anks v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
, 953

F.2d 996, 997 (5th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Voth’s unopposed motion to file his Reply Brief out of time is

GRANTED. Because of our disposition of the appeal, the Appellees’

requests to strike portions of the Reply Brief are DENIED as

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES TRASK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 4048

)

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY and AARP OPERATIONS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

James Trask Jr. (“Trask”) has filed a self-prepared Complaint against New York Life

Insurance Company (“New York Life”) and AARP Operations (“AARP”), advancing a claim

relating to New York Life’s insurance policies that had insured Trask’s now deceased wife

Wauconda Trask. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of a number of gaps

in the Complaint that need to be filled before it can be determined whether this District Court

has subject matter jurisdiction over Trask’s claim.

To begin with, this Court assumes that Trask is seeking relief in this District Court based

on diversity of citizenship – but if so, he has failed to identify the citizenship of any of the parties

(and as to “AARP Operations” he has failed to indicate what type of entity it is – that in turn will

tell what facts as to its state or states of citizenship may be relevant). Moreover, the Complaint

says nothing at all about the amount in controversy, which is also an essential element in

determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction.

In addition, Complaint ¶4 gives no indication of the date on which the previously-lapsed

policy (see Complaint ¶3) was reinstated, nor any indication as to the nature of the allegedly

false information that was given to Wauconda Trask at that time. That information is needed

Case: 1:12-cv-04048 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7
both to determine the timeliness of Trask’s claim and to see whether he has advanced a

colorable claim. 

With Trask having failed in his obligation to confirm the existence of federal subject

matter jurisdiction, this Court could well dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. But it has no

desire to impose on Trask the obligation to pay a second $350 filing fee if the defects spoken of

here prove to be curable. Accordingly Trask is granted until June 15, 2012 to amend the

Complaint (or to file a self-contained Amended Complaint), failing which this Court would be

obligated to dismiss this action because of the failure to establish federal subject matter

jurisdiction.

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 30, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-04048 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 635 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals 

from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual orientation or 

gender identity. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. MARKEY, 

and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on 

account of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jury Access for Capa5 ble Citizens and Equality in Service Selection Act of 

6 2017’’ or the ‘‘Jury ACCESS Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 635 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT 

2 OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDEN3 TITY PROHIBITED. 

4 Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘sexual orientation, gender iden6 tity,’’ after ‘‘sex,’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS