alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Program Office:**Student Service

**CFDA Number:**  84.378A**Program Type:**  Formula Grants**Also Known As:**  CACGP

Program Description

The purpose of the College Access Challenge Grant Program (CACGP) is to foster partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and philanthropic organizations through matching challenge grants that are aimed at increasing the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.

Types of  Projects

Projects are authorized to: provide information to students and families regarding postsecondary education and career preparation; promote financial literacy and debt management; conduct outreach activities; assist students in completing the Free Application for Federal Student Financial Aid (FAFSA); provide need-based grant aid; conduct professional development for guidance counselors at middle and secondary schools, financial aid administrators, and college admissions counselors; and offer student loan cancellation or repayment or interest rate reductions for borrowers who are employed in a high-need geographical area or a high need profession.  (Funds cannot be used to promote any lender's loans.)
#### Sidney Hoffman, Appellant, v August J. Guisti, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 19, 1978, as denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. There are issues of fact in this case, and thus the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Titone, J. P., Shapiro, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ:, concur.
#### 204.1700 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the requirement to report certain contracted services in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4505.

[86 FR 36236, July 9, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### 225.7101 Definitions.

“Component” and “domestic manufacture,” as used in this subpart, are defined in the clause at 252.225-7025, Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings.

[74 FR 68384, Dec. 24, 2009]
#### Henry Homberg *vs.*August Kikhaffer.

April 28, 1890.

Action on Destroyed Note. — The plaintiff, suing upon a promissory note made by defendant to him, is entitled to recover’ thereon although it appear that the plaintiff had delivered the note to a third party, offering to transfer it to him for a stated consideration; that such offer was refused; but that such third party had destroyed the note.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for McLeod county, *Edson,*L, presiding, refusing a new trial of an action on a promissory note for $200.

*R. H. McClelland,*for appellant.

*Ed. H. Huebner,*for respondent.

*206Dickinson, J.

This is an action to recover the amount of a promissory note admitted to have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer put in issue the plaintiff’s title, and alleged payment. It appeared by the evidence on the part of the plaintiff that he had caused the note, to be delivered to a third party, — the defendant’s son, — the plaintiff offering to transfer the note to him as payment *pro tanto*of a debt due him from the plaintiff; that this offer was refused, nor was anything credited to the plaintiff on account of the note, and the plaintiff afterwards paid the debt referred to. The note was never returned to the plaintiff, but the defendant’s son destroyed it.

Such being the case presented by the plaintiff at the trial, the court dismissed the action. This was error. The plaintiff made a *prima facie*case, which at least should have gone to the jury. The fact that the note had been destroyed would not preclude a recovery against the maker. The court seems to have considered that, upon the showing thak a third party had wrongfully destroyed the note, the action must be prosecuted -against him, and cannot be maintained against the maker. This is not the law. The destruction of the note, under the circumstances stated, did not -extinguish the obligation of the maker expressed in it, nor divest the plaintiff of his cause of action against the maker.

Order reversed.
-1-

NOTICE OF MOTION TO REASSIGN RELATED CASES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

NOTICE OF MOTION TO REASSIGN RELATED CASES

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as I may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras, or any judge 

sitting in his stead in Courtroom 1719 of the United States District Court of the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois and shall present the 

following motion attached hereto: John Doe’s Motion to Reassign Related Cases (ECF No. 15).

_/s/ Morgan E. Pietz__________ /s/ Erin Kathryn Russell (with permission)

Pro Hac Vice

Morgan E. Pietz (Cal. Bar No. 260629)

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com

Telephone: (310) 424-5557

Facsimile: (310) 546-5301

Local Counsel

Erin Kathryn Russell

233 South Wacker Drive

84th Floor

T: 312-994-2424

F: 312-706-9766

erin@russellfirmchicago.com

Attorney for: 

Putative John Doe “X” in 1:12-cv-6675

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOES 1 through 7,

Defendants.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-04669

Assigned to Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Case: 1:12-cv-04669 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:949
-2-

NOTICE OF MOTION TO REASSIGN RELATED CASES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 15, 2012, the above document was submitted to the 

CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing(s) to the Plaintiff which is registered for 

electronic service.

Check if Applicable:

[ ] Copies of these documents were also served via U.S. Mail, on this date, to the 

following parties, who are not registered for electronic service:

N/A

DATED: November 15, 2012 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz

Morgan E. Pietz

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

Attorney for Putative John Doe(s) 

E-mail: mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04669 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:950
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7758
ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES MASSENBURG; BRYON HERBEL, Dr., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-883-5-BO) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Morris Cochran, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action as frivolous pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cochran v. Massenburg , No. CA-95-883-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 62 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:144
Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 62 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:145
Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 62 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:146
Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 62 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:147
28.301 Policy. Contractors shall carry insurance under the following circumstances: ( a ) ( 1 ) The Government requires any contractor subject to Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 416 (48 CFR 9004.416) to obtain insurance, by purchase or self-coverage, for the perils to which the contractor is exposed, except when ( i ) the Government, by providing in the contract in accordance with law, agrees to indemnify the contractor under specified circumstances or
( ii ) the contract specifically relieves the contractor of liability for loss of or damage to Government property.
( 2 ) The Government reserves the right to disapprove the purchase of any insurance coverage not in the Government's interest.
( 3 ) Allowability of the insurance program's cost shall be determined in accordance with the criteria in 31.205-19.
( b ) Contractors, whether or not their contracts are subject to CAS 416, are required by law and this regulation to provide insurance for certain types of perils (e.g., workers' compensation). Insurance is mandatory also when commingling of property, type of operation, circumstances of ownership, or condition of the contract make it necessary for the protection of the Government. The minimum amounts of insurance required by this regulation (see 28.307-2) may be reduced when a contract is to be performed outside the United states and its outlying areas. When more than one agency is involved, the agency responsible for review and approval of a contractor's insurance program shall coordinate with other interested agencies before acting on significant insurance matters.
( c ) Contractors awarded nonpersonal services contracts for health care services are required to maintain medical liability insurance and indemnify the Government for liability producing acts or omissions by the contractor, its employees and agents (see 37.400).
[48 FR 42286, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 5056, Jan. 31, 1989; 59 FR 67043, Dec. 28, 1994; 68 FR 28083, May 22, 2003; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]
225.871-7 Congressional notification. ( a ) Congressional notification is required when DoD makes a determination to award a contract or subcontract to a particular entity, if the determination was not part of the certification made under 22 U.S.C. 2767(f) before finalizing the cooperative agreement. ( 1 ) Departments and agencies shall provide a proposed Congressional notice to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy in sufficient time to forward to Congress before the time of contract award.
( 2 ) The proposed notice shall include the reason it is necessary to use the authority to designate a particular contractor or subcontractor.
( b ) Congressional notification is also required each time a statutory waiver under 225.871-4 is incorporated in a contract or a contract modification, if such information was not provided in the certification to Congress before finalizing the cooperative agreement.
[68 FR 15621, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 88 FR 73236, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60831, July 29, 2024]
## Key Staff

Don CrewsTelephone: (202) 453-7920E-mail: don.crews@ed.gov

**Mailing Address:**U.S. Department of Education, OPEInstitutional  ServiceNative American-serving Nontribal Institutions Program400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 4C140Washington, DC 20202

Institutional Service Home
#### 2819.810 SBA appeals.

The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 19.810(c).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0070

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR RAY PEOPLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for

oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on

Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court,

Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M. R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument

times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Appellant and thirty (30)

minutes for the Appellee.

Counsel should be mindful of the provisions of M. R. App. P. 17(6).

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the

Honorable Robert B. Allison, District Judge.

DATED this Alay of May, 2021.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

MAY 2 0 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Slerk of Supreme Cour.

State of Fv1c-,t:-Inp

05/20/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0070
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rita A. Borella, Respondent, v. Leonard Borella, Appellant.

Judgment, entered June 2, 1964, misdescribed as an order (CPLR, 411, 7010) in a special proceeding in the nature of habeas corpus under article 70 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, providing for the custody and rights of visitation between the married parents of two infant children of the marriage, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, *872and the proceeding remanded and referred for investigation, hearing, and determination to the Family Court, held in and for the County of Bronx, pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 115 and section 651 of the Family Court Act. Pending such determination, but subject to the further order of the Family Court, the custody of the two children should remain in the father with full right of visitation in the mother during reasonable hours at the father’s residence. In view of the factors of the mother’s health and her imputed relationships it was not proper to determine the issues on the simple testimonial record before the hearing court. Nor are sister and brother to be separated, unless the necessity is clear. In this delicate family situation a sensitive investigation is required. The Family Court is equipped and competent to handle a matter of this nature. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERORPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report, on Form 10-K, of Sun Bancorp,Inc. (the “Company”), for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert J. McCormack,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       To my knowledge,the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
|        | /s/ Robert J. McCormack                 |   |
|-------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|        | President & Chief Executive Officer |
|        |                                    |
| Date:  | July 24, 2003                           |   |   |
|             |                                         |        |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 10.53


 


Confidential Treatment Requested.


 


Certain material
(indicated by asterisks) has been omitted from this document and filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment.


 


EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT CARD PROGRAM AGREEMENT


 


This Eighth Amendment to Credit
Card Program Agreement (the “Eighth Amendment”) is entered into this 17th day of October, 2008, by and among The Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc. and Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. on the one hand, and
HSBC Private Label Corporation (formerly, Household Corporation) and HSBC Bank
Nevada, N.A., on the other hand, to that certain Credit Card Program Agreement,
dated June 8, 2005 (as amended, the “Agreement”), among the foregoing
parties.  All capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the
Agreement.


 


1.             Schedule 3.3 (Program Relationship Managers; Partner
Program Team) of the Agreement is amended by striking the existing Subsection
3(a), only, of said schedule and replacing it with the following:


 


“3.           Bank’s Program Team Requirements
and Specifications


 


(a)           Fully-Dedicated Team
Members and Payment:  Bank shall
ensure that the following full-time employees, in each case having the
experience and skills referred to below shall devote 100% of their work efforts
to the Program:


 


(i)  Two (2) marketing strategies with
cumulative experience in the credit card or retail marketing industry of at
least 15 years, or such other experience acceptable to NMG; and


 


(ii)  One (1) fully-trained data mining
analyst.


 


The
foregoing dedicated employees shall devote substantially all of their efforts
to performing Bank’s obligation pursuant to Section 5.4


 


Further, in lieu of maintaining an additional data mining analyst to the
one noted above, Bank shall twice pay [***] to NMG, with each payment being
made separately and in accordance with the September 2008 and September 2009
Monthly Settlement Sheets, as contemplated in Schedule 7.1(b).  The September 2009 payment shall be
prorated accordingly given the existing Term of the Agreement.”


 


2.             Except as otherwise modified herein, the terms and
conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


AGREED TO AND EXECUTED on this the 17th day of October 2008.


 


	
  HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.

  	
   

  	
  HSBC PRIVATE LABEL CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Brian D. Hughes

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Brian D. Hughes

  
	
   

  	
  Title:  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Executive Vice President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  THE NEIMAN MARCUS
  GROUP, INC.

  	
   

  	
  BERGDORF GOODMAN, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/  William S. Hough

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Nelson A. Bangs

  
	
   

  	
  Title:  VP Credit Services

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Vice President
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Date: July 24, 2003                                  /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Marvin F. Romanow
                                                     Executive Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 8092.

#### Frey, Exrx., etc. *v.*Stewart, Treasurer.

(Decided December 15, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Clark county.

*Messrs. Keifer & Keifer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Stafford & Arthur*and *Messrs. Bowman & Bowman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.

Burket, C. J., Spear and Davis, JJ!, dissent.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 238 

Recognizing the 10th anniversary and honoring the victims of the collapse 

of the Interstate 35W Mississippi River bridge. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. FRANKEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 10th anniversary and honoring the victims 

of the collapse of the Interstate 35W Mississippi River 

bridge. 

Whereas, on August 1, 2007, the Interstate 35W Mississippi 

River bridge (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘I–35W 

bridge’’) collapsed, killing 13 people and injuring 145 

people; 

Whereas the I–35W bridge was one of the busiest bridges in 

the State of Minnesota, carrying more than 140,000 vehicles each day; 

Whereas first responders and commuters collectively responded quickly and effectively to provide help and ensure safety; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 238 IS 

Whereas, during the first 2 hours after the I–35W bridge collapsed, the Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center received and processed more than 500 calls, 51 of 

which came directly from the scene of the disaster; 

Whereas, after the collapse, there was a bipartisan effort to 

pass legislation that provided emergency funding to replace the I–35W bridge; 

Whereas construction of the Interstate 35W Saint Anthony 

Falls bridge (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘new I– 

35W bridge’’) to replace the I–35W bridge began on November 1, 2007; 

Whereas the new I–35W bridge opened to traffic on September 18, 2008, which was 3 months ahead of schedule; 

Whereas residents, businesses, community members, and 

local government officials contributed to the design of the 

new I–35W bridge; 

Whereas the new I–35W bridge— 

(1) has a 100-year lifespan; 

(2) is 189 feet wide; and 

(3) accommodates 10 lanes of traffic; 

Whereas the new I–35W bridge won the America’s Transportation Awards Grand Prize on October 30, 2009; and 

Whereas, on September 11, 2009, the new I–35W bridge was 

named one of the 10 best transportation projects in the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the 10th anniversary of the trag3 ic Interstate 35W Mississippi River bridge collapse; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 238 IS 

1 (2) honors the victims of the bridge collapse 

2 and their families; 

3 (3) commemorates the bravery and commitment 

4 of the public safety personnel that effectively re5 sponded to the collapse; and 

6 (4) acknowledges the successful community7 wide effort to design, plan, and construct the Inter8 state 35W Saint Anthony Falls bridge. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30881

Summary Calendar

MARSHALL LEE RAWLINS, JR.;

MARY E. RAWLINS; SHELIE D. TAPPIN;

PENNY JOHNSON; DEMETRIUS DAVIS;

CECIL JOE JENKINS; ANTIONA JENKINS;

RANDY WALL; MARCIA WALL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ITT ENGINEERED VALVES, a Unit of

ITT Fluid Technology Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(92-CV-320 & 92-CV-363)

March 12, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Marshall Lee Rawlins, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, appeal an adverse

summary judgment in their claims against ITT Engineered Valves, a Unit of ITT

Fluid Technology Corporation. Having reviewed the record and briefs and finding

no reversible error, on the basis of the facts found, authorities cited and analysis

made by the district court in its Memorandum Ruling and Order filed on July 31,

1996, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.