alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vivian W. Eisenhart, as Administratrix of the Estate of William Henry Eisenhart, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 36699.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Williams, P. J., who dissents and votes to reverse and to dismiss the complaint in the following memorandum: The State has been held liable for the death of intestate, for failure to place a “ stop ” sign at the intersection where the accident occurred. I dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is no proof of any negligence on the part of the State. *(Applebee*v. *State of New York,*308 N. Y. 502; *Hicks*v. *State of Neiu York,*4 N Y 2d 1.) The plaintiff administratrix, the driver of the car in which the deceased was riding, was thoroughly familiar with the intersection and testified that she had always stopped there on previous occasions. There was no testimony that she did not stop on the night in question. She claimed a retrograde amnesia and loss of memory concerning the facts. The night was clear and the roads were dry. The State was not lacking in diligence. It had its experts consider sight distances and other factors. They determined that no “stop” sign was necessary. It appears that no other accident had ever occurred at that intersection. It is not the duty of the 'State to guard against the obvious and to place “ stop ” signs at every intersection where an accident might possibly occur because of negligent driving. If that were done, every intersection would be guarded by “stop” signs. The duty imposed upon the State by the Court of Claims Judge, and by this court in affirming, goes well beyond the duty of ordinary care. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in favor of claimant in a negligence action.) Present —Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ,
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Postsecondary Education

2024 Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee

Session 2, February 5-8, 2024

Agenda

Day 1 Monday, February 5, 2024

• Announcements/Updates (Facilitator)

• Cash Management (Issue Paper 1)

• Lunch Break

• Cash Management (Issue Paper 1)

• Public Comment

Day 2 Tuesday, February 6, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• State Authorization (Issue Paper 2)

• Lunch Break

• State Authorization (Issue Paper 2)

• Distance Education (Issue Paper 3)

• Public Comment

Day 3 Wednesday, February 7, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• R2T4 (Issue Paper 4)

• Lunch Break

• R2T4 (Issue Paper 4)

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Public Comment

Day 4 Thursday, February 8, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Lunch Break 

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Public Comment

• Facilitator Closing Remarks
3006.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources. ( b ) ( 1 ) The HCA is delegated authority to approve a D&F in support of a contract action award under the authority of (FAR) 48 CFR 6.202(a). Submit D&F in the format per (HSAR) 48 CFR 3001.704.
# C_2017396EN.01000201.xml

| 23.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 396/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 396/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 November 2017

(2017/C 396/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1749 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4420 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8818 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1609 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6723 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,469 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,54 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2155 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6525 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,6557 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5503 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4969 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1775 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7183 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5885 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 280,17 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3090 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7755 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5770 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 879,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8292 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,499 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,9476 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,466 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8288 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0985 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,2510 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1749

JPY

Japanese yen

131,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4420

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88810

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8818

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1609

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6723

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,469

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,54

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2155

RON

Romanian leu

4,6525

TRY

Turkish lira

4,6557

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5503

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4969

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1775

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7183

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5885

KRW

South Korean won

1 280,17

ZAR

South African rand

16,3090

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7755

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5770

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 879,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8292

PHP

Philippine peso

59,499

RUB

Russian rouble

68,9476

THB

Thai baht

38,466

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8288

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0985

INR

Indian rupee

76,2510

---

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

1

Source

---
#### 2809.405 Effect of listing.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 9.405.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00689-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.K.W., A Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-12915

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 6, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant Donnell L. Weary Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgment signed October 26, 

2010. After the clerk’s record was filed, the court reporter filed a notice in this court stating 

appellant had not paid for the reporter’s record and was not entitled to the reporter’s record 

without prepayment. We therefore ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court that 

he had either paid for the reporter’s record or was entitled to the reporter’s record without 

prepayment of the court reporter’s fee. We advised appellant that if he did not timely provide the 

requested written proof, his brief would be due in this court on May 2, 2011, and he would be 

permitted to raise only those issues or points that did not require a reporter’s record. Appellant 

did not respond. Accordingly, on May 18, 2011, we ordered appellant to file, on or before June 
04-10-00689-CV

- 2 -

17, 2011, his brief, raising only those issues or points not requiring a reporter’s record, and a 

written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. We advised appellant 

that if he failed to file the brief and the written response by the date ordered, we would dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). Appellant has not filed a brief 

or the written response ordered by the court.

We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that 

appellee Constance Irene Davis recover her costs in this appeal from appellant Donnell L. Weary 

Jr.

PER CURIAM
#### 1815.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
Current regulatory review information is available here.

As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," [**PDF,** 144KB] issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Education (Department) issued its final "Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Regulations." Executive Order 13563 recognized the importance of maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis of regulations throughout the executive branch, consistent with law and each agency's resources and regulatory priorities. The Department's plan was designed to create a defined policy, method, and schedule for identifying significant regulations, as determined under Executive Order 12866, that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, as well as regulations that can be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to be more effective and efficient, achieve better outcomes for students, and be easy to understand.

### The Plan

- Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, 8/23/11 PDF (164KB)  |  MS Word (128KB)
- Federal Register Notice  PDF (214KB)
- Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules PDF (52KB)  |  MS Word (124KB)

### Status Reports

You can view the Department's reports on the status of its efforts in implementing its plan and anticipated efforts at:

- Retrospective Review Report (July 8, 2016)  [ MS Excel,  61KB]
- Retrospective Review Plan Report (January 11, 2016)  [ PDF,  217KB]
- Retrospective Review Report (July 13, 2015)  [ MS Excel  52 KB]
- Retrospective Review Report (March 17, 2015)  [ MS Excel  53 KB]
- Retrospective Review Report (July 14, 2014)  [ MS Word  75 KB]
- Retrospective Review Report (January 14, 2014)  [ MS Word  70 KB]
- Retrospective Review Report (July 8, 2013)  [ MS Word  64 KB].
- Retrospective Review Plan Report (January 14, 2013)  [ MS Word,  54KB]
- Retrospective Review Plan Report (September 10, 2012)  [ MS Word,  52KB]
- Retrospective Review Plan Report (May 14, 2012)  [ MS Word,  70KB]
- Retrospective Review Plan Report (January 9, 2012)  [ MS Word,  48KB]
Deny and Opinion Filed August 30, 2021 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00730-CV 

IN RE LANDELL SHECKLES, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-08491 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

In his August 25, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus, relator challenges the 

trial court’s failure to comply with relator’s request to rule on his motion for 

default judgment in his original petition for divorce. Entitlement to mandamus 

relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and 

that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 

124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 
Based on our review of the petition, we conclude that relator has failed to 

demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ 

of mandamus. 

210730F.P05 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re: Michael Leron Dowden

No. 06-14-00048-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED APRIL 9, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2019035EN.01000101.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/1

---

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

(2019/C 35/01)

Last publication

OJ C 25, 21.1.2019

Past publications

OJ C 16, 14.1.2019

OJ C 4, 7.1.2019

OJ C 455, 17.12.2018

OJ C 445, 10.12.2018

OJ C 436, 3.12.2018

OJ C 427, 26.11.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### Town of Greenburgh, Respondent, v Victor S. Bahou et al., Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

In a declaratory judgment action to declare certain positions within the Town of Greenburgh to be in the exempt class of the State civil service, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 9, 1977, which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since rules relating to the classification of positions within the State civil service have the force and effect of law (Civil Service Law, § 20, subd 2), plaintiff properly tested the constitutionality of a reclassification by commencing this declaratory judgment action (see *Matter of Kovarsky v Housing & Dev. Admin, of City of N. Y.,*31 NY2d 184; *Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany,*28 NY2d 449; *Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth.,*24 NY2d 400). A full hearing is necessary to determine whether the use of competitive examinations to fill the positions in question is "practicable” (see NY Const, art V, § 6). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.
3.103-1 Solicitation provision. The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, in solicitations when a firm-fixed-price contract or fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment is contemplated, unless— ( a ) The acquisition is to be made under the simplified acquisition procedures in part 13;
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) The solicitation is a request for technical proposals under two-step sealed bidding procedures; or
( d ) The solicitation is for utility services for which rates are set by law or regulation.
[48 FR 42108, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1727, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 55 FR 25526, June 21, 1990; 60 FR 34744, July 3, 1995]
Exhibit
32.6








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF


CENTRAL
ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY


(required
by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)








In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2008 of Central Illinois Light Company (the “Registrant”) as filed by
the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.








Date:  November
10, 2008








/s/ Scott A.
Cisel


Scott A.
Cisel


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)











/s/ Warner L.
Baxter


Warner L.
Baxter


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)
Order entered April 29, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00894

- CV
ERIC DRAKE, Appellant

V.

KRISTINA KASTL , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 09

- 01374

- E



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 14, 2014 motion requesting the Court to order the release
of sealed documents. We ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, on or before MAY 9, 2014 , a sealed supplemental clerk’s record containing Exhi bits A

- 1 and A

- 2 that were filed under seal as attachments to the defendants’ January 18, 2012 motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract counterclaim.
We GRANT appellant’s April 21, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appel lant shall file his brief on or before June 2, 2014

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to John Warren and all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### 2848.102 Policies.

The HCA is the agency head for purposes of FAR 48.102(a).
```

[111th Congress Public Law 186]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 1271]]

Public Law 111-186
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, as the ``W.D. Farr Post Office 
           Building''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2010 -  [H.R. 4238]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. W.D. FARR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W.D. Farr Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W.D. Farr 
Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 9, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4238:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Feb. 22, considered and passed House.
            May 25, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
235.017 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. ( a ) *Policy.* ( 2 ) No DoD fiscal year 1992 or later funds may be obligated or expended to finance activities of a DoD Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) if a member of its board of directors or trustees simultaneously serves on the board of directors or trustees of a profit-making company under contract to DoD, unless the FFRDC has a DoD-approved conflict of interest policy for its members (section 8107 of Pub. L. 102-172 and similar sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts).
[58 FR 28471, May 13, 1993]
28.106-2 Substitution of surety bonds. ( a ) A new surety bond covering all or part of the obligations on a bond previously approved may be substituted for the original bond if approved by the head of the contracting activity, or as otherwise specified in agency regulation.
( b ) When a new surety bond is approved, the contracting officer shall notify the principal and surety of the original bond of the effective date of the new bond.
[48 FR 42286, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 39213, July 26, 1996]
EXHIBIT 23.1


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
US Airways Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
nos. 2-98828, 33-26762, 33-39896, 33-44835, 33-60618, 33-60620, 333-62029
and 333-82003 on Form S-8 and the registration statement nos. 33-41821, 33-
50231 and 333-79825 on Form S-3 of US Airways Group, Inc. of our report
dated March 10, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of US
Airways Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999 which appear in the December 31,
1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company and US Airways, Inc.



                                                                   KPMG LLP


McLean, VA
March 15, 2000
#### 252.237-7019 Training for Contractor Personnel Interacting with Detainees.

As prescribed in 237.171-4, use the following clause:

# Training for Contractor Personnel Interacting With Detainees (JAN 2023)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—

*Combatant Commander* means the commander of a unified or specified combatant command established in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 161.

*Detainee* means a person in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of Defense on behalf of the United States Government as a result of armed conflict or other military operation by United States armed forces.

*Personnel interacting with detainees* means personnel who, in the course of their duties, are expected to interact with detainees.

(b) *Training requirement.* This clause implements Section 1092 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375).

(1) The Combatant Commander responsible for the area where a detention or interrogation facility is located will arrange for training to be provided to contractor personnel interacting with detainees. The training will address the international obligations and laws of the United States applicable to the detention of personnel, including the Geneva Conventions. The Combatant Commander will arrange for a training receipt document to be provided to personnel who have completed the training.

(2)(i) The Contractor shall arrange for its personnel interacting with detainees to—

(A) Receive the training specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause—

(*1*) Prior to interacting with detainees, or as soon as possible if, for compelling reasons, the Contracting Officer authorizes interaction with detainees prior to receipt of such training; and

(*2*) Annually thereafter; and

(B) Provide a copy of the training receipt document specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause to the Contractor for retention.

(ii) To make these arrangements, the following points of contact apply:

*[Contracting Officer to insert applicable point of contact information cited in PGI 237.171-3(b).]*

(3) The Contractor shall retain a copy of the training receipt document(s) provided in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this clause until the contract is closed, or 3 years after all work required by the contract has been completed and accepted by the Government, whichever is sooner.

(c) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial services, that may require subcontractor personnel to interact with detainees in the course of their duties.

(End of clause)

[70 FR 52034, Sept. 1, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 53049, Sept. 8, 2006; 78 FR 37991, June 25, 2013; 88 FR 6596, Jan. 31, 2023]
M. P. No. 75-6.

#### John Infantolino *v.*James W. Mullen, *Warden.*

*Schreiber, Abe-don & Jessup, Richard Jessup, Jr.,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Respondent is directed to file his answer to the petition for habeas corpus and therein to *show cause,*if any, why the writ should not issue as prayed, said answer to be made in compliance with the provisions of Rule 14.
3003.1003 Requirements. ( a ) *Contractor requirements.* Contractors making written disclosures under the clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.203-13 must use the electronic Contractor Disclosure Form at *http://www.oig.dhs.gov* or *https://www.oig.dhs.gov/reports/publications/annual/contractor-disclosure*. Contractors making disclosures under contracts which do not contain the clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.203-13 are encouraged to also use this electronic form.
[77 FR 50633, Aug. 22, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 17315, Apr. 2, 2021]