alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dr. Dallas Martin
          President
          National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
          1129 20th Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036-3489

Dear Dr. Martin:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of the National Association of            Student Financial Aid Administrators concerning guidance on the applicability            of the prohibition on incentive compensation payments under the Higher            Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the implementing regulations.            In your letter, you request that the Department thoroughly review the            issue and publish comprehensive guidelines to address the variety of            practices being used and the diverse inquiries being made by the higher            education community.

Over the last several months, Departmental staff has been reviewing            this issue and the guidance that has been developed and disseminated            since publication of the regulations in 1994. We understand and appreciate            the concerns and questions raised by the higher education community            with respect to incentive compensation payments. We also recognize that            this is an issue that needs to be reexamined and clarified in light            of changing circumstances and the interpretations the Department has            issued since 1994. I welcome the involvement and participation of institutions            of higher education and their representatives as we undertake a fundamental            review of this policy. As a result of this review and consultation process,            I would hope that we could determine cooperatively whether there is            a need for further guidance, either through policy interpretation or            regulation.

I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------
#### In re SIMONDS FURNACE CO. In the matter of the *1146application of a majority of the directors of the Simonds Furnace Company for a dissolution.

*1145(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

*1146No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


   (i) SVG Lithography Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (SVGL),

  (ii) Tinsley Laboratories, Inc., a California corporation ("TLI"),

 (iii) Silicon Valley Group, Japan Ltd., a Japanese corporation,

  (iv) SVG International Service, a California corporation ("SVG
       International"),

   (v) Silicon Valley Group FSC Incorporated, a Barbados corporation,

  (vi) SVG Israel, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

 (vii) SVG Thailand, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

(viii) Silicon Valley Group Korea, Inc., (SVG Korea) a Korean corporation,

  (ix) SVG Taiwan, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

   (x) Silicon Valley Group, Thermal Systems LLC, a Delaware company and

  (xi) Watkins-Johnson International Taiwan, a Taiwan corporation.

       Silicon Valley Group B.V., a Netherlands corporation, SVG France
       S.A.R.L., a French corporation, and SVG Lithography Systems FSC, Inc., a
       Barbados corporation are wholly-owned by SVGL.

       Lehrer Pearson, Inc., a Barbados corporation and Tinsley International
       FSC, a Barbados corporation are wholly-owned by TLI.

       SVG Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation (SVG Europe), Silicon
       Valley Group Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation, SVG Systems (Asia)
       Pte. Ltd (SVG Singapore), a Singapore corporation, Thermco Systems (Far
       East) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation and SVG China Tianjin, a Peoples
       Republic of China corporation are wholly-owned by SVG International.

       UK Systems Limited, an English corporation, and Watkins-Johnson Europe
       Limited, an English corporation are wholly-owned by SVG Europe.

       Watkins-Johnson International Singapore Pte. Ltd., is wholly owned by SVG
       Singapore.

       Watkins-Johnson International Korea, Ltd., is wholly owned by SVG Korea.

       The Registrant owns 59% of Axiomatic Design Software, Inc., a Delaware
       corporation.
exv10w8






Exhibit 10.8




CA, Inc.




Summary of Lump Sum Payment to Interim Lead Independent Director




     On September 14, 2009, the Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors of CA,
Inc. (the “Company”) approved a one-time lump sum payment under the Company’s 2003 Compensation
Plan for Non-Employee Directors of $10,000 to Gary Fernandes as a fee for his service as interim
Lead Independent Director.
#### 227.675-1 International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Pursuant to section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1934), the Department of State controls the exportation of data relating to articles designated in the United States Munitions List as arms, ammunition, or munitions of war. (The Munitions List and pertinent procedures are set forth in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR, *et seq.*) Before authorizing such exportation, the Department of State generally requests comments from the Department of Defense. On request of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), each Department shall submit comments thereon as the basis for a Department of Defense reply to the Department of State.
#### 2401.106-70 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.201-70, Coordination of Data Collection Activities, in solicitations and contracts where the Contractor is required to collect information from ten or more public respondents.

[77 FR 73525, Dec. 10, 2012]
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Russell
A. Evans, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |                                           
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|February 16, 2007 |  | /s/ RUSSELL A. EVANS                      
|                  |  | Russell A. Evans                          
|                  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



48
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          650271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2895947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     419557
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4757951
<PP&E>                                         1860333
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1280384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7714669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3266930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       6028594
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1580855)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7714669
<SALES>                                        8901044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8911741
<CGS>                                          4550239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8106575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               41080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 764086
<INCOME-TAX>                                     80000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             684086
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    684086
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
September 17, 2015

Mr. David J. Robi chaux

5015 Echo Falls

Kingwood, TX 77345

Dear Mr. Robi chaux :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121,

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explain s why we cannot process your request and

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 25, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2625

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

LEE MOMIENT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 12 C 4540 

Judge Virginia Kendall 

 

HARRIS AND HARRIS, 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Defendant. 

JOINT STATUS REPORT

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

The plaintiff, Lee Momient, is appearing Pro se at this time.

Lee Momient

P.O. Box 608082

Chicago, IL 60660

773‐712‐3989

Attorney for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”):

Ellenna V. Berger1

JONES DAY

77 W Wacker

Chicago, IL 60601

312‐269‐1573

BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action because the claims alleged against

defendants arise under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681‐1681u, and the Fair Debt

                                                           

1 The trial attorney for Experian has not been designated at this time.

Case: 1:12-cv-04540 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:70
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692‐1692p. Thus, this court has original subject matter

jurisdiction over the above‐captioned action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1681p and 1692k.  

NATURE OF CLAIMS

The Defendant Harris requested and received the Plaintiff’s consumer credit report from Defendant

Experian. The plaintiff asserts various FCRA claims against both defendants; FDCPA claims against

defendant Harris and various state law claims against each.

PRINCIPAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES

The principal legal and factual issues are whether Defendant Harris had a permissible purpose to acquire

plaintiff’s credit report; and whether Experian has proper procedures in place with respect to the FCRA

and releasing the plaintiff’s credit report to defendant Harris.

JURY

The plaintiff has demanded a trial by Jury.

DISCOVERY

No discovery has taken place to date. The parties anticipate that discovery shall take less than 6 months.

TIME FOR TRIAL

The parties anticipate that they will be ready for trial by April 2013

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The parties have not consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.

SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff has reached a settlement agreement with Harris.

Plaintiff and Experian have discussed settlement, but have not been able to reach an agreement.  It is

unclear whether the parties will be able to settle the dispute.

Case: 1:12-cv-04540 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:71
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF INCOME, AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      287
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,242
<PP&E>                                          57,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              812
<BONDS>                                         34,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,914
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,004
<SALES>                                          6,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,654
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    596
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                596
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       596
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
On April 9, 2012, OCR resolved a complaint filed  against Pitt County Schools (the District). The complaint alleged that the  District had a program, which it called MEASURE, during the 2008-2009 academic  year at its Conley High School (the School), and that this program was aimed,  in part, at increasing ‘“non-Caucasian’ participation in AP [Advanced  Placement] classes.” OCR determined that there were no indications that there  had been a violation of Title VI and stated that it would not open the case for  investigation. OCR further stated that an allegation that a school district has a goal of increasing the  participation of minority students in advanced academic programs such as AP  classes does not in itself raise an issue of noncompliance with Title VI.  This is particularly so where, as is  undisputed here, minority student participation in AP classes had been  substantially less than that of non-minority students.  As the District  stated, the program was “intended to encourage more participation from minority  students in AP courses, but does not in any way prevent Caucasian students from  taking AP courses.  
     ***Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF (298K)
Top  Last Modified: 01/15/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 64 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 64

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Treasury relating to ``Returns by Exempt Organizations and Returns by 
                  Certain Non-Exempt Organizations''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2018

 Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Treasury relating to ``Returns by Exempt Organizations and Returns by 
                  Certain Non-Exempt Organizations''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Treasury relating to ``Returns 
by Exempt Organizations and Returns by Certain Non-Exempt 
Organizations'' (Rev. Proc. 2018-38 (July 16, 2018)), received in the 
House of Representatives on July 26, 2018, and received in the Senate 
on July 30, 2018, and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
## In the Court of Appeals Se cond Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00066

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- GD00186

- 2 Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum O pinion 

### I N THE 

### G UARDIANSHIP OF 

### H ANNAH 

### C HRISTINA 

### M ARIE 

### T ILTON 

### , AN 

### I NCAPACITATED 

### P ERSON2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appella nt Ka thl een Kienit z, in her capacity as Trustee of the Hannah Tilton Supplemental Needs Trust , filed a notice of appeal from the probate court ’s “ Order Overruling Spe cial Appearance. ” T his court then learned that the probate court had vacated th e app ealed

- from o r der. This court not ified Appellant that “ it appear [ed] that there is no longer an order from which to appeal, and the appeal is moot ” and would be dismissed unless this court received a response stating grounds for continuing it
. We have not receive d a re sp onse. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 4 3
. 2( f ) ; Khorrami v. Torres , No. 02

- 14

- 00242

- CV, 2014 WL 530719 6, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 16, 2014, no pet.) ( mem. op.) (dismissing appeal

as m oot after tri al co urt vac ated a pp ealed

- from ord er)
.

P er Curiam Delivered: March 21, 2024
## Organizations and Government Agencies

Disclaimer

- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—Administration on Developmental Disabilities
- U.S. Department of Justice—Disability Rights Section
-  U.S. Department of Education—Office for Civil Rights
- Federal Student Aid Eligibility
- U.S. Department of Education—Federal Student Aid (FSA) Approved Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP) Programs
- ThinkCollege.net
- DisabilityInfo.gov  is an online Federal resource with information of interest to people with disabilities, their families, employers, service providers, and other community members.
- Association on Higher Education and Disability
- The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights pamphlet entitled, "Students With Disabilities: Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities." 
- Best Buddies International, Inc.
- The Work Site—Social Security Administration's Office of Employment Support Programs 
- HEATH Resource Center

## Merlot

MERLOT is a leading-edge, user-centered, searchable collection of peer-reviewed higher education, online learning materials created by registered members and a set of faculty development support services. MERLOT's vision is to be a premier online community where faculty, staff, and students from around the world share their learning materials and pedagogy.

MERLOT's strategic goal is to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning by increasing the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed online learning materials that can be easily incorporated into faculty-designed courses.

## Publications and Legislation

- Auxiliary Aids and Services for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities, Higher Education's Obligations Under Section 504 and Title II of the *Americans with Disabilities Act*
- *Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004*
- *The Americans with Disabilities Act*
- *Rehabilitation Act of 1973*

## Other Resources

- Report to Congress Covering Fiscal Years 1999-2008      MS Word  (522K)  
- Forecast of Funding Opportunities Under the Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs
-  Field Reader or Peer Reviewer Registration:   The OPE Field Reader Application Form is available if you would like to review applications for the Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students With Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education program grant competitions. The registration form can be obtained at  http://www.g5.gov/ .
- Office of Postsecondary Education Applicant and Grantee Resources

[ Institutional Service Home ]
#### 2809.405-2 Restrictions on subcontracting.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 9.405-2.
#### 252.222-7005 Prohibition on use of nonimmigrant aliens—Guam.

As prescribed in 222.7302, use the following clause:

# Prohibition on Use of Nonimmigrant Aliens—Guam (SEP 1999)

The work required by this contract shall not be performed by any alien who is issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)). This prohibition does not apply to the performance of work by lawfully admitted citizens of the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.

(End of clause)

[64 FR 52673, Sept. 30, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 20764, Apr. 26, 2007]