alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Harry Hu

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:12−cv−04987

Honorable Rebecca

R. Pallmeyer

University of Illinois Chicago Campus Board of

Trustees, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, January 28, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Plaintiffs' motion for

voluntary dismissal pursuant to settlement [22] granted. Case is dismissed without

prejudice with leave to reinstate within 45 days. Status hearing set for 1/30/2013 stricken.

Defendant's motion to dismiss [7] is stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed

notice(etv, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04987 Document #: 23 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:59
2021 Negotiated Rulemaking

Affordability and Student Loans Committee 

I. Introductions 

II. Proposed Regulatory Language 

a. Issue #1: Total and permanent disability discharge 

b. Issue #2: Closed school discharge 

c. Issue #3: Eliminate interest capitalization for non-statutory 

capitalization events

d. Issue #11: False certification discharge

e. Issue #10: Creating a new income-drive repayment plan 

f. Issue #12: Pell grant eligibility for prison education 

programs 

g. Issue #4: Improving the Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

(PSLF) Application Process 

h. Issue #5: PSLF employer eligibility and full-time 

employment 

i. Issue #6: Borrower defense to repayment – adjudication 

process

j. Issue #7: Borrower defense to repayment – postadjudication 

k. Issue #8: Borrower defense to repayment – recovery from 

institutions

l. Issue #9: Pre-dispute arbitration

III. Public Comment 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CLARK, Officer, Metropolitan Police; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17243 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00414-APG-PAL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

James Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s 

dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-17243 

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’s

action because Williams failed to comply with court orders, including filing a pretrial order, despite being ordered twice to do so. See id. at 130-32 (discussing the 

five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to 

comply with a court order). 

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s action for 

failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Williams’s challenges to 

the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 

1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final 

judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the 

failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2... See State v. $7,616.00 in U.S. Currency & One Suitcase, No. S-5908

(372nd Dist. Ct., Tarrant County, Tex. Feb. 18, 2000).

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-448-CV

$7616 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND APPELLANT

ONE SUITCASE

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Raymond Joseph Serrano attempts to appeal the trial court’s

judgment, entered in the State’s favor after a civil forfeiture hearing.2 Because
3... There are exceptions to the thirty-day requirement, but none apply

here. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1)–(4), 26.1(c), 26.3, 30.

2

Serrano’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction.

The trial court signed the judgment at issue on February 18, 2000.

Accordingly, Serrano’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days of February

18, 2000. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing that the notice of appeal must

be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed).3 Serrano filed his

notice of appeal on November 10, 2008.

Because Serrano’s notice of appeal appeared to be untimely filed, we

notified him on November 26, 2008, of our concern that this court might not

have jurisdiction over his appeal. We informed him that unless he or any party

desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before Monday,

December 8, 2008, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this

appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a), 44.3. 

Serrano filed a response on December 10, 2008, but he failed to show

any grounds for continuing the appeal. Times for filing a notice of appeal are

mandatory and jurisdictional, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal or
4... In his response, Serrano requested a thirty-day extension to secure a

copy of the rules of appellate procedure so that he could proceed pro se with

his appeal. Had we granted Serrano such an extension, this dismissal still

would have resulted, as he filed his notice of appeal over seven years late.

3

extension request, we must dismiss the appeal.4 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b),

26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because

Serrano’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss his appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED: January 8, 2009
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43804

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KENNETH RICHARD PAGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 566

Filed: June 15, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Kenneth Richard Page pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child, 

felony, Idaho Code § 18-1507, and one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, 

felony, I.C. § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified thirty-year sentence, with ten years 

determinate, for each count to run concurrently. Page appeals, contending that his sentences are

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Page’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
## Award Year

2011-12 download filesMS Excel (150K)

2010-11 download filesMS Excel (157K)

2009-10 download filesMS Excel (112K)

2008-09 download filesMS Excel (91K)

For additional information contact mary.miller@ed.gov

Program Data | OPE Policy Initiatives

|Last Modified: 10/23/2013
|-------------------------
# Jornal Oficial C 394A/27 d

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 394A |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 58.° ano27 de novembro de 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 394A

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

58.° ano27 de novembro de 2015

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Eurojust |
| 2015/C 394A/01 | Notificação de aviso de abertura da vaga de Diretor Administrativo (grau AD 14) da Eurojust — Haia (Países Baixos) — 15/EJ/04 | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Eurojust

2015/C 394A/01

Notificação de aviso de abertura da vaga de Diretor Administrativo (grau AD 14) da Eurojust — Haia (Países Baixos) — 15/EJ/04

1

---

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Eurojust

| 27.11.2015 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 394/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2015

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 394/1

---

NOTIFICAÇÃO DE AVISO DE ABERTURA DA VAGA DE DIRETOR ADMINISTRATIVO (GRAU AD 14) DA EUROJUST

Haia (Países Baixos) — 15/EJ/04

(2015/C 394 A/01)

A Eurojust convida à apresentação de candidaturas para o cargo de Diretor Administrativo desta organização. A Eurojust foi criada em 2002 para reforçar a eficácia das autoridades competentes dos Estados-Membros na luta contra a criminalidade grave transnacional e organizada. A Eurojust é formada por um coletivo de procuradores, juízes ou oficiais de polícia — o colégio –, que são responsáveis pela sua organização e funcionamento. Dispõe de uma estrutura administrativa dirigida pelo Diretor Administrativo. O Diretor Administrativo que é responsável, sob a supervisão do Presidente do Colégio da Eurojust, pela gestão diária desta organização e pela gestão do pessoal. Para informação detalhada do aviso de abertura de vaga e procedimento para apresentação de candidaturas, consulte o nosso sítio Internet:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

A data-limite para apresentação de candidaturas é o dia 31 de janeiro de 2016, à meia-noite, hora de Amesterdão.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Reynolds C. Faulkner, Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of The CatoCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification: 1. the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended April 29, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition andresults of operations of the Company.Dated: June 6, 2006         /s/ Reynolds C. Faulkner   Reynolds C. Faulkner   Executive Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BUTLER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015840
<NAME> BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          25,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,859
<PP&E>                                         245,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 413,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,112
<BONDS>                                         68,301<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,623
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,066<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   413,855
<SALES>                                        432,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,952<F3>
<CGS>                                          359,312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  359,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,604<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,091
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,077
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,077
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $30.8 million cost
of treasury stock
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less net
other expense
<F4>Consists of selling, general and administrative expense
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class RYAN T. CLARK

United States Air Force

ACM S32201 (f rev)

08 December 2014

Sentence adjudged 2 October 2013 by SP CM convened at Dyess Air Force
Base, Texas . Military Judge: Matthew S. Ward (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months

, forfeiture of $1,010.00 per month for 3 months, and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Nicholas D. Carter

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Katherine E.

Oler

.

Before

MITCHELL, WEBER, and CONTOVEROS Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under Air Force Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM:

This case is before our court for further review because the original action was

erroneous. See United States v. Clark , ACM S32201 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 11 September 2014) (unpub. op.). This court returned the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General for remand to the convening authority for withdrawal of the erroneous action and

substitution of a corrected act ion. On 9 October 2014, the convening authority withdrew

the erroneous action in accordance with our decision and issued a corrected action. A

corrected court

- martial order followed.ACM S32201 (f rev) 2 

### The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the findings and sentence

a re AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
```

[111th Congress Public Law 185]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 1270]]

Public Law 111-185
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson 
          Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2010 -  [H.R. 4214]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROY WILSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roy Wilson 
Post Office''.

    Approved June 9, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4214:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Mar. 17, 18, considered and passed House.
            May 25, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### 204.7604 Solicitation provision.

Except for supplies or services exempted by DoDI 5000.79, use the provision at 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, in solicitations for supplies and services, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 66 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 

Qatar of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2018 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the 

Government of Qatar of certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to any 

4 of the following proposed exports to the Government of 

5 Qatar (described in the certification Transmittal No. 18– 

6 43, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

7 and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

8 of the Senate pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms 

9 Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)) on November 

10 28, 2018), is hereby prohibited: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 66 IS 

1 (1) The proposed sale of 40 AIM–120C–7 Ad2 vanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles 

3 (AMRAAM) (Transmittal Numbered 18–43). 

4 (2) The proposed sale of 1 spare AIM–120C– 

5 7 AMRAAM Guidance Section (Transmittal Num6 bered 18–43). 

7 (3) The proposed sale of 1 spare AIM–120C– 

8 7 control section (Transmittal Numbered 18–43). 

9 (4) The proposed sale of 8 AMRAAM Captive 

10 Air Training Missile (CATM–120C) (Transmittal 

11 Numbered 18–43). 

12 (5) The proposed sale of missile containers, 

13 classified software for the AN/MPQ–64F1 Sentinel 

14 Radar, spare and repair parts, cryptographic and 

15 communication security devices, precision navigation 

16 equipment, other software, site surveys, weapons 

17 system equipment and computer software support, 

18 publications and technical documentation, common 

19 munitions and test equipment, repair and return 

20 services and equipment, personnel training and 

21 training equipment, integration support and test 

22 equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor, 

23 engineering, technical and logistics support services, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SJ 66 IS 

1 and other related elements of logistical and program 

2 support (Transmittal Numbered 18–43). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cr-00446 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
#### David Steuerman, Respondent, v. J. Martin Feinman et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 15, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to open his default in failing to serve a complaint within the time prescribed (former Civ. Prae. Act, § 257) and extended such time. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, the explanation of plaintiff’s counsel that his file of the case had been misplaced, is insufficient to excuse the unreasonable delay of nearly two years in serving the complaint (cf. *Gallagher*v. *City of New York,*19 A D 2d 623). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Frank T. Flood, an Attorney, Respondent. Office of Grievance Committees, Petitioner.

— Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys. Present — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ. (Order entered Dec. 29, 1978.)