alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10986

Summary Calendar

 

HARUN NASSOR TALIB,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; THE STATE OF TEXAS;

JANICE WARDER, Judge of the 291st Judicial District,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

HARUN NASSOR TALIB,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-419-T

- - - - - - - - - -

May 20, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 96-10986

- 2 -

Harun Nassor Talib, #689194, appeals from the district

court’s dismissal of his mixed civil rights/habeas corpus action.

Talib argues that the district court abused its discretion in

denying his motion to dismiss from his habeas corpus petition his

unexhausted claim of an unconstitutional search and seizure. 

Talib also argues the merits of his habeas corpus claim that his

offense was misclassified as a second degree felony.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the

parties and conclude that the district court abused its

discretion in implicitly denying Talib leave to dismiss from his

habeas corpus petition his unexhausted claim of an

unconstitutional search and seizure. See Hernandez v. Garrison,

916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,

520 (1982). The portion of the district court’s judgment denying

Talib’s civil rights claims for damages as barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994) is AFFIRMED. The portion of the

judgment denying Talib’s motion to dismiss from his habeas

petition his unexhausted claim is VACATED and the case is

REMANDED to the district court for the dismissal of Talib’s

unexhausted habeas claim and for consideration of any remaining

habeas claims.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
The application package in MS Word and Adobe Acrobat PDF formats will be available here:

 www.ed.gov/fund/data/award/idea
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>  0000018540
<NAME>  CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORTION
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 001
<NAME> CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     Sep-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>             8,275
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>             449
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,169
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>              1,251
<OTHER-ASSETS>                        2,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       14,431
<COMMON>                                744
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>             1,051
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                   1,882
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>        3,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                             176
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                  4,099
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                        0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                40
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        2,008
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>           221
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                          2
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>        4,208
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>        14,431
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>             4,162
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                    162
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>            3,310
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>            3,472
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                 690
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       24
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>          714
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                336
<NET-INCOME>                            370
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               6
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>           370
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                277
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>               149
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                  452
<EPS-BASIC>                          1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.74


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.

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 Quarterly Report of CDI Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) the 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 Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Roger H. BallouRoger H. BallouPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 6, 2006



By:

/s/ Mark A. KerschnerMark A. KerschnerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: November 6, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CDI Corp. and will be retained by CDI Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Home |
|                                                              |

## Program Authority

20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), and 1418(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

----

## Applicable Regulations

                  -  The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
                  - The Education Department debarment and suspension regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. 
                  - The regulations in 34 CFR part 300.702.
                  - The notice of final priorities for this program as published in the *Federal Register*. 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
# First in the World Program

# Hayward-Willett Study Summary

� Individual findings have not been reported in a What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single study review and may or may not have WWC confirmed statistical significance for all findings listed.
# C_2019004EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 004/01)

Last publication

OJ C 455, 17.12.2018

Past publications

OJ C 445, 10.12.2018

OJ C 436, 3.12.2018

OJ C 427, 26.11.2018

OJ C 408, 12.11.2018

OJ C 399, 5.11.2018

OJ C 392, 29.10.2018

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES GENERAL
BUSINESS, INC.,

Plaintiff,
v.

INTEGRATED FREIGHT
CORPORATION,

)
)
)
\
)
)
) 12-2302
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TURNOVER ORDER AGAINST THIRD PARTY
Judgment creditor Chapman Associates General Business, Inc. hereby
requests that this Court enter an Order directing Bank of America to turn over the
funds held in the bank account held in the name of judgment debtor Integrated
Freight Corporation (‘IFCR”) and that have been frozen pursuant to a Third Party
Citation to Discover Assets directed to Bank of America. In support of its motion,
Chapman states as follows:
1. On June 12, 2012, Chapman obtained a judgment against Integrated
Freight Corporation in the amount of $835,907.91.
2. Thereafter, Chapman initiated supplementary proceedings by issuing
citations to discover assets, including a citation to Bank of America, attached as

Exhibit A.


3. On June 5, 2015, Bank of America answered the citation, indicating that
that it was holding $10,828.48 in a bank account belonging to IFCR. A copy of Bank
of America’s answer is attached as Exhibit B.

4. Pursuant to 785 ILCS 5/2-1402(c), Chapman is entitled to entry of an
order entering judgment in favor of Chapman Associates General Business, Inc. and
Against Bank of America for $10,828.48, and directing Bank of America to turn over
$10,828.48 in partial satisfaction of the judgment against IFCR.

WHEREFORE, Chapman Associates General Business, Inc., respectfully
requests that this Court enter a judgment against Bank of America and for the
benefit of Chapman Associates General Business, Inc. in the amount of $10,828.48

and directing Bank of America to turn over that amount to counsel for Chapman.

Dated: June 19, 2015 Chapman Associates General Business, Inc.

By:/s/ Wesley E. Johnson
One of its attorneys

Wesley E. Johnson (6225257)

Goodman Tovrov Hardy & Johnson LLC
105 West Madison Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 752-4828

Fax: (312) 264-2535
wjohnson@goodtov.com


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorncy, certifies that on June 19, 2015, I will serve a
copy of the attached Plaintiff's Motion for Turnover, on all parties in the

manner indicated below.

TO: Via Personal Delivery Via US Mail

Bank of America Integrated Freight Corporation
105 W. Madison, Ste. 101 c/o Henry P. Hoffman

Chicago, IL 60602 8374 Market Street, #478
Bradenton, FL 34202

By:/s/ Wesley E. Johnson
|Photo of Secretary Margaret SpellingsBeth Stephens, Artist
|----------------------------------------------------------

Color photoSmall

Color photoLarge

Color photoPrint quality

Black and white photoSmall

Black and white photoLarge

For additional photos, visit the Press Room's photo area.

|Last Modified: 04/11/2008
|-------------------------
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21--SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

     First Financial Bank N.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant.
It is an national banking association. It is an Indiana corporation. The bank
conducts its business under the name of First Financial Bank N.A.

     The Morris Plan Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It
is an Indiana corporation. The company conducts its business under the name of
The Morris Plan Company of Terre Haute, Inc.

     Forrest Sherer, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It is
an Indiana corporation. It is a full-line insurance agency and conducts its
business under the name Forrest Sherer, Inc.
223.7103 Procedures. ( a ) ( 1 ) Storage, treatment, or disposal of toxic or hazardous materials not owned by DoD on a DoD installation is prohibited unless— ( i ) One or more of the exceptions set forth in 223.7104(a) is met including requisite approvals; or
( ii ) Secretary of Defense authorization is obtained under the conditions set forth in 223.7104(b).
( 2 ) When storage, treatment, or disposal of toxic or hazardous materials not owned by DoD is authorized in accordance with this subpart, the contract shall specify the types and quantities of toxic or hazardous materials that may be temporarily stored, treated, or disposed of in connection with the contract or as a result of the authorized use of a DoD facility or space launch facility. All solicitations and contracts shall specify the conditions under which storage, treatment, or disposal is authorized.
( b ) If the contracting officer is uncertain as to whether particular activities are prohibited or fall under one of the exceptions in 223.7104, the contracting officer should seek advice from the cognizant office of counsel.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Ventas Realty, Limited Partnership

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−03107

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

ALC CVMA, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 9, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to Order dated

5/9/12, Plaintiffs' emergency motion for expedited appointment of a receiver [13] is

denied. Mailed notice (cjg, )

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-03107 Document #: 21 Filed: 05/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Served: November 19

, 20 1 3

NOTICE

On November 19

, 2013, United Airlines, Inc. (United) and Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

(Hawaiian), filed a joint motion seeking to modify the procedural schedule set forth in

Order 2013

- 11

- 9. They also request that we shorten the answer period for responses to

the joint motio n to two days

.

In the interest of reaching an expedited decision, we have decided to shorten the answer

period

. Therefore, answers to the joint motion of United and Hawaiian shall be due on

November 2 1 , 2013.

This action was effective when taken and the filing of a petition for review will not alter

such ef fectiveness.

We will serve this notice by electronic mail on all certificated U.S. combination carriers

operating large aircraft; the U.S. Department of State (Office of Aviation Negotiations);

the Federal Aviation Administration; and the Ambassador of Japan in Washington, D.C. 1

By:

PAUL L. GRETCH

Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

1 Please s end an electronic copy of all pleadings to Esta.Rosenberg@dot.gov , and Brett.Kruger@dot.gov

. U.S.

- Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0018
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Leonard Guyette, Appellant, v. Electrolux Corporation et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs. (See *Matter of Bolton*v. *City of New York,*264 App. Div. 964.) Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### 252.233-7000 [Reserved]
(September 28, 1964)

#### Gerald J. Fine, as Administrator of the Estate of Toby Fine, Deceased, Respondent, v. Joseph Gorelick, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for alleged malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 4, 1964, which: (a) *971granted plaintiff’s motion to open his default; (b) vacated a prior order of dismissal made pursuant to rule 302 of the former Rules of Civil Practice (now CPLR 3404); and (c) restored the action to the pretrial calendar. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 509 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 509

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2018

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected members of the following joint committees of Congress:
    Joint Committee on Printing: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Wicker, 
Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Udall.
    Joint Committee of Congress on the Library: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Roberts, 
Mr. Shelby, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Leahy.
                                 <all>
```
#### Marilyn L. Jennings, Respondent, v Donald F. Jennings, Appellant.

— In an action to enforce the terms of a separation agreement, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered August 15, 1977, which was in favor of the plaintiff following the granting of her motion for summary judgment. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, arid plaintiff’s motion is denied. There are questions of fact in this case which should not have been disregarded on a motion for *963summary judgment. Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
# C_2017148EN.01000302.xml

| 12.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8293 — 3i/APG/ATP/Eiser Infrastructure Portfolio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 148/03)

On 5 April 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8293. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8293. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
(January 18, 1979)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jackie Yopp, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County, rendered December 27, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree. While defendant was confined to the Coxsackie Vocational Institute, a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correctional Services, he and his codefendant, one Prince Brannon, were charged with assaulting a correction officer. The incident that provided the basis for this charge occurred in a recreation room at the facility on January 19, 1977. Brannon pleaded guilty prior to defendant’s trial, but did not testify at that trial. Several correction officers testified to defendant’s participation in the assault while several inmates testified to his noninvolvement. The jury resolved the resulting question of credibility in favor of the People and there is sufficient evidence to sustain that finding beyond a reasonable doubt. In our view, however, there were certain trial errors of such substance that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. First, when one of the People’s witnesses, a former inmate present at the time of the incident in question and who had previously testified extensively before the Grand Jury, could not be produced, the prosecutor asked for a continuation. The court, in the presence of the jury, inquired if the testimony of that witness would add anything or just be repetitive. In response, the prosecutor stated: "It is my opinion, Your Honor, from the nature of the Grand Jury record that the testimony would be accumulative.” Such a statement clearly *775casts the prosecutor in the role of an unsworn witness offering testimony not subject to cross-examination. Second, the court improperly limited the defendant’s proof by failing to permit testimony from a correctional counselor who admittedly was not present on the date of the incident but who had conducted an investigation of it. Finally, the court in its charge to the jury referred to the defendant’s failure to testify on his own behalf and cautioned the jury not to draw any inference from that. Since such a charge was not requested, this was error (CPL 300.10, subd 2) which might be considered harmless if standing alone *(People v Vereen,*57 AD2d 768). However, under the circumstances of this case and after considering other errors and the record in its entirety, we believe the cumulative effect is such that the defendant was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
**FY 2020 Title III, Part A, TCCU Discretionary NCC Funding Slate**