alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary T. Martocci, Appellant, v Emil V. Martocci, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff was granted a divorce, she appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 29, 1978, as (1) after a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion for a downward modification of the alimony provision of the judgment of divorce from $300 per week to $210 per week, and (2) in granting plaintiff’s cross motion for a judgment for arrears in alimony, stayed enforcement thereof provided that defendant pay the sum of $25 per week on account. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, defendant’s motion is denied and the matter is remitted to Special Term for computation of present arrears and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment therefor. In our opinion the defendant failed to establish a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of the alimony provision of the judgment of divorce. In addition, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to stay enforcement of the judgment for the arrears on condition that defendant pay only $25 per week on account since it appears that his financial condition is sufficient to permit payment of those arrears in a lump sum. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

VIRGIL SAVAGE, )

 )

Plaintiff )

 )

v. ) CIVIL NO. 2:11 cv 100 

 )

DR. LEON D. FINNEY, JR.; )

GEORGETTE FINNEY; WOODLAWN COMM.)

DEV. CORP.; OFFICERS and BOARD )

COLLECTIVELY and INDIVIDUALLY; )

THE WOODLAWN ORG.; CLARENCE )

NIXON; CLARENCE NIXON CONSULTING)

MANNING & SILVERMAN CO.; MOARIJ )

KHAN & RESNIK GROUP, )

 )

Defendants )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply [DE 38] filed by the defendants on August

1, 2011. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively to transfer venue, on March 31, 2011. The plaintiff,

Virgil Savage, responded on June 25, 2011, and the defendants

filed their reply brief on July 8, 2011. On July 19, 2011,

Savage filed a document captioned "Plaintiff Surrebutter to

Defendant Clarence’s and CNC Group, LLC’s Reply in Support of

Motion to Dismiss, Or In The Alternative to Transfer Venue and

For a More Definite Statement." The document addresses the same

arguments he raised in his response brief and the defendants

responded to in their reply. Savage did not seek leave of court
prior to filing the sur-reply, and the defendants now move to

strike Savage’s sur-reply. Savage did not respond to the

defendants’ motion to strike. 

Local Rule 7.1(a) permits parties to file an initiating

brief, a response, and a reply, but it does not contemplate the

filing of a sur-reply or response to the reply brief. The court

generally does not permit litigants to file a sur-reply brief. 

Hall v. Forest River, Inc., 2008 WL 1774216, *n.3 (N.D. Ind.

April 15, 2009); Runkle v. United States, 1995 WL 452975, *1

(N.D. Ind. May 9, 1995). However, "[a] surreply brief is occasionally allowed when it raises or responds to some new issue or

development in the law." Merril Lynch Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln

Nat. Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3762974, *1 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2009)

(citing Hall, 2008 WL 1774216 at *n.3). The court's decision to

permit or deny a sur-reply brief is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard. Cleveland v. Porca Co., 38 F.3d 289, 297

(7th Cir. 1994). 

The rules do not contemplate the filing of a sur-reply

brief, and Savage was not entitled to file a sur-reply brief

without seeking leave of court. Savage, however, filed his surreply without seeking permission. By failing to seek leave of

court or to respond to the defendants’ motion to strike, Savage

has not demonstrated why his sur-reply was warranted, nor does

2
review of his sur-reply brief justify its necessity. Savage’s

sur-reply does not address new developments in the law nor does

it respond to arguments that could not have been addressed in his

initial response. Savage’s sur-reply reiterates the position he

took in his response brief and attempts to put forth more evidence to support the same. For this reason, his sur-reply brief

is unnecessary, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply

[DE 38] filed by the defendants on August 1, 2011, is GRANTED.

ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2011

s/ Andrew P. Rodovich

 United States Magistrate Judge

3
### Resource Materials for Planning and Self-Assessments

-  Title Page  NoticesTable of Contents
-  Overview  **Developing a Program**-  Introduction
-  Goal s
-  Plan Development
-  Plan Outline
Ed Approach
Identification
Assessment
Services
Staffing
Transition
Other Programs
Evaluation

Program Evaluation
-  Glossary  Other ResourcesCharts
Part II: Developing ELL Programs
**Identification of Potential ELL Students**
This section of the ELL plan addresses and describes the district's procedures for identifying students enrolled in the district who may be ELL. The following questions may be used in preparing this section of the plan:
- Does the plan contain a detailed description of the district's procedures for identifying potential ELL students? Are the procedures designed to ensure that all students potentially needing ELL services are identified for assessment?
Is the person(s) responsible for each step in the identification procedures specified in the plan? (
For example, the school secretary may be responsible for distributing and collecting home language surveys during enrollment, and the school principal may be responsible for forwarding the surveys to the district's English language assessment specialist.)
Are the timeframes for each step in the identification procedures set forth in the plan? 
(For example, completed home language surveys will be forwarded to the English language assessment specialist within ___ school days of a student's enrollment in the district. Surveys will be evaluated within ___ school days.)
If the district's identification procedures require participation by staff with special skills, such as an interpreter to communicate with ELL parents or students during the enrollment process, does the plan describe how this special staff person is integrated into the identification process? 
Do the identification procedures state the criteria that will be utilized to classify a student as a potential ELL student and, therefore, in need of assessment for English language proficiency?
Does the ELL plan contain a statement of how the district will maintain documentation of the following: the identification results; determination of the potential ELL status of students; and, referrals of such students for language proficiency assessment?
Top
  Last Modified: 01/16/2020
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 276 

Designating September 2017 as ‘‘Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. 

HATCH) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2017 as ‘‘Pulmonary Fibrosis 

Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas pulmonary fibrosis is a debilitating and ultimately 

fatal lung condition that causes progressive scarring in 

the lungs and has no definitive cause; 

Whereas as many as 200,000 individuals in the United States 

are known to suffer from pulmonary fibrosis, the majority of whom are between the ages of 50 and 75; 

Whereas the average life expectancy from the diagnosis of the 

idiopathic form of pulmonary fibrosis is just 2.8 years, 

and as many as 80 percent of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients die within 5 years of diagnosis; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 276 ATS 

Whereas pulmonary fibrosis takes the lives of 40,000 or more 

individuals in the United States each year—approximately 1 individual every 13 minutes; 

Whereas many patients afflicted with pulmonary fibrosis are 

misdiagnosed for 1 year or longer after the patients are 

presenting with pulmonary fibrosis symptoms; 

Whereas, as of July 2017, there are no confirmed biomarkers 

for screening and testing for pulmonary fibrosis; 

Whereas a cure, treatment, or drug to halt the fibrotic process in pulmonary fibrosis does not yet exist; 

Whereas the symptoms of pulmonary fibrosis vary from person to person and include shortness of breath, a dry 

cough, fatigue, weight loss, and aching muscles and 

joints; 

Whereas volunteers, researchers, caregivers, and medical professionals are working to improve the quality of life for 

individuals with pulmonary fibrosis and for the families 

of those individuals; and 

Whereas developing more effective treatments for pulmonary 

fibrosis and providing access to quality care to individuals 

with pulmonary fibrosis requires increased research, education, and community support services: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 2017 as ‘‘Pulmonary 

3 Fibrosis Awareness Month’’; 

4 (2) supports the goals and ideals of Pulmonary 

5 Fibrosis Awareness Month; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 276 ATS 

1 (3) continues to support more robust and accel2 erated research to develop more effective treatments 

3 for pulmonary fibrosis and to ultimately find a cure 

4 for the disease; 

5 (4) recognizes the courage and contributions of 

6 individuals with pulmonary fibrosis who participate 

7 in vital clinical trials to advance the knowledge of 

8 the disease; and 

9 (5) commends the dedication of organizations, 

10 volunteers, researchers, and millions of individuals in 

11 the United States and abroad working to improve 

12 the quality of life for individuals with pulmonary fi13 brosis and the families of those individuals. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Josh Bidzinski 

From: Matthew P. McCue <mmccue@massattorneys.net > 

Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:30 AM 

To: Jeff Becker; Catherine J. Maclvor 

Cc: ted@broderick-Iaw.com; aburke@burkelawllc.com; ’Anthony Paronich’ 

Subject: RE: Charvat v Travel Services 

Jeff and Catherine: 

We will be filing an Opposition to your Motions to Dismiss by tomorrow evening. We will not contest dismissal of the ID 

Count and will focus solely on the 227(b) count. 

We will need to amend the complaint again. The amendment, however, will only more specifically identify Travel 

Services- which I assume you already know is a d/b/a for various corporate entities controlled by Elizabeth Valente. The 

amended complaint would also drop the ID Count. 

I will send over a draft complaint once it is complete. I would prefer to file the motion with assent if possible. 

Matthew McCue 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 52-1 Filed: 11/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:724
**Program Office:  Elementary and Secondary Education/**Office of Academic Improvement

**CFDA Number:** 84.362A**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants**Also Known As:** Native Hawaiian Education Program, Education for Native Hawaiians

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this program is to develop innovative education programs to assist Native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand programs and authorities in the area of education.

TYPES OF PROJECTS

Authorized activities include, among others: early education and care programs; family-based education centers; beginning reading and literacy programs; activities to address the needs of gifted and talented Native Hawaiian students; special education programs; professional development for educators;and activities to enable Native Hawaiian students to enter and complete postsecondary education programs.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Herbert Ely.

Motion by defendant for an order reinstating criminal appeal. By notice of appeal filed June 18, 1958, defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction rendered by the Court of General Sessions on May 28, 1958. By order of this court dated April 9, 1959 the appeal was dismissed on motion of the District Attorney for failure to prosecute. By notice of appeal filed November 15, 1963 defendant appealed from denial of *comm nobis*relief by the Supreme Court, New York County on October 31, 1963. By order of this court dated April 7, 1964 defendant was granted leave to appeal as a poor person and attorney Michael Klein was assigned. The prior motion was granted to the extent of remanding this matter in Part XXX, Supreme Court, New York County, for hearing with subsequent report to this court. That report is now before us. It does not appear that appellant was deprived of his rights by reason of his claimed indigence. Moreover, the acts complained of, even if we assume they did occur and there was some misunderstanding on the part of the appellant, were not the acts of the State. “ The court does not stand as surety for the proper performance of assigned counsel’s professional duties”. *(People*v. *Kling,*19 A D 2d 750; *People*v. *Tomaselli,*7 N Y 2d 350.) Not is it claimed that there was any error or such error committed at the trial as would warrant the intervention of this court. We find no merit in the arguments of the appellant, and accordingly the motion is denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Yalente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02276]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID New Innovators Awards (DP2 
Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 2-3, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F52, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jennifer H. Meyers, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F52, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-6602, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a202f2424232c2f3864272f332f38390a242322642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c16191212151a190e52111905190e0f3c121514521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 26, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02276 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2017023EN.01000101.xml

| 24.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 January 2017

(2017/C 23/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0715 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86148 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5113 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0727 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9940 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,027 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,82 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3719 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4978 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0574 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4157 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4266 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3124 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4893 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5229 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 251,67 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5258 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3436 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5058 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 319,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7553 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,514 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,7875 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,824 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3873 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,9436 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,0330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0715

JPY

Japanese yen

121,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86148

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5113

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0727

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9940

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,027

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,82

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3719

RON

Romanian leu

4,4978

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0574

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4157

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4266

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3124

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4893

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5229

KRW

South Korean won

1 251,67

ZAR

South African rand

14,5258

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3436

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5058

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 319,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7553

PHP

Philippine peso

53,514

RUB

Russian rouble

63,7875

THB

Thai baht

37,824

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3873

MXN

Mexican peso

22,9436

INR

Indian rupee

73,0330

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-00346, 33-06609,
33-50692, 33-59937, 333-24139, 333-52990, 333-52139, 333-65338, 333-65336 and 333-65798) of Media
100 Inc. of our report dated November 3, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Digital Origin, Inc. (not presented separately therein),
included in the Media 100 Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2001 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



San
Jose, California
February 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### 26.202-2 Evaluation preference.

The contracting officer may use an evaluation preference, when authorized in agency regulations or procedures.

[73 FR 53996, Sept. 17, 2008]
## Legislation

- Title V, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.  (20 U.S.C. 1102-1102c) 

## Regulations

*Applicable  Regulations:* (a) The  Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension  (Non procurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as  regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative  Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as  regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) Supplemental Priorities.”
Institutional Service Home
  Last Modified: 10/04/2022
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/S/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                  
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

June 30, 2006
16.406 Contract clauses. ( a ) Insert the clause at 52.216-16, Incentive Price Revision—Firm Target, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract is contemplated. If the contract calls for supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and the prices are to be subject to the incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its *Alternate I.*
( b ) Insert the clause at 52.216-17, Incentive Price Revision—Successive Targets, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price incentive (successive targets) contract is contemplated. If the contract calls for supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and the prices are to be subject to incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its *Alternate I.*
( c ) The clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, is prescribed in 16.307(a) for insertion in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract or a cost-plus-award-fee contract is contemplated.
( d ) The clause at 52.216-10, Incentive Fee, is prescribed in 16.307(d) for insertion in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is contemplated.
( e ) Insert an appropriate award-fee clause in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract is contemplated, provided that the clause— ( 1 ) Is prescribed by or approved under agency acquisition regulations;
( 2 ) Is compatible with the clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment; and
( 3 ) Expressly provides that the award amount and the award-fee determination methodology are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 12696, Mar. 17, 1997; 64 FR 72449, Dec. 27, 1999]