alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.b.


           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 Interim Report of CDI Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the three-month period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 respect, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the
Report.



                                        By:  /s/ Jay G. Stuart
                                             -----------------------------------
                                            Jay G. Stuart
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  May 8, 2003



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.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Jeffrey Gordon, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J., at suppression hearing and trial), rendered August 19, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J., at suppression hearing and trial), rendered August 19, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (<i>see People v Prochilo</i>, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The credited police testimony satisfied the elements of a valid vehicle checkpoint stop. The testimony established that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was roadway safety and enforcement of vehicular laws and regulations (<i>see City of Indianapolis v Edmond</i>, 531 US 32, 41 [2000]), that the degree of intrusion on drivers' liberty and privacy interests was minimal (<i>see People v Scott</i>, 63 NY2d 518, 526-527 [1984]), and that the procedure followed, namely stopping every third vehicle and those with identifiable equipment violations, was "uniform and not gratuitous or subject to individually discriminatory selection" (<a href="../2008/2008_09726.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dugan</i>, 57 AD3d 300</a>, 301 [2008], <i>lv denied </i>11 NY3d 924 [2009], quoting<i> People v Serrano</i>, 233 AD2d 170, 171 [1996], <i>lv denied </i>89 NY2d 929 [1996]). Moreover, even if the checkpoint stop was not legal, Department of Motor Vehicle records, including defendant's driving abstract, are not suppressible as fruits of an unlawful search (<a href="../2010/2010_02643.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Tolentino</i>, 14 NY3d 382</a>, 385-386 [2010],<i> cert dismissed</i> 563 US 123 [2011]; <a href="../2018/2018_50030.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Felder</i>, 58 Misc 3d 146</a>[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50030[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2018], <i>lv denied </i>31 NY3d 983 [2018]), nor are the police officer's observations of defendant driving on a public highway (<a href="../2009/2009_03762.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Weaver</i>, 12 NY3d 433</a>, 440 [2009]). </p><p>The DMV abstract was properly admitted into evidence and did not violate the Confrontation Clause (<a href="../2014/2014_04523.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Smith, </i>118 AD3d 920</a> [2014], <i>lv denied </i>24 NY3d 1089 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 24, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# C_2018394EN.01000201.xml

| 30.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 394/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 394/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 October 2018

(2018/C 394/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1381 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4614 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88788 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3910 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1384 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5130 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,849 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 324,40 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3182 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6647 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,3105 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6061 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4917 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9270 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7401 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5737 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 297,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,4761 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9195 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4316 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 320,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7538 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,101 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,6394 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,796 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1231 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,3632 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,5595 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1381

JPY

Japanese yen

127,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4614

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88788

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3910

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1384

ISK

Iceland króna

137,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5130

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,849

HUF

Hungarian forint

324,40

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3182

RON

Romanian leu

4,6647

TRY

Turkish lira

6,3105

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6061

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4917

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9270

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7401

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5737

KRW

South Korean won

1 297,35

ZAR

South African rand

16,4761

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9195

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4316

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 320,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7538

PHP

Philippine peso

61,101

RUB

Russian rouble

74,6394

THB

Thai baht

37,796

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1231

MXN

Mexican peso

22,3632

INR

Indian rupee

83,5595

---

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

---
# C_2018420EN.01000101.xml

| 20.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 420/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 420/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 November 2018

(2018/C 420/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1427 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4625 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89083 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2815 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1391 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6493 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,013 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 321,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3293 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6666 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,0735 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5660 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5055 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9491 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6740 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5684 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 287,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0122 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9349 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4253 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 672,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7848 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,020 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,2885 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,623 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2907 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1660 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,8825 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1427

JPY

Japanese yen

128,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4625

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89083

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2815

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1391

ISK

Iceland króna

140,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6493

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,013

HUF

Hungarian forint

321,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3293

RON

Romanian leu

4,6666

TRY

Turkish lira

6,0735

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5660

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5055

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9491

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6740

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5684

KRW

South Korean won

1 287,63

ZAR

South African rand

16,0122

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9349

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4253

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 672,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7848

PHP

Philippine peso

60,020

RUB

Russian rouble

75,2885

THB

Thai baht

37,623

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2907

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1660

INR

Indian rupee

81,8825

---

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

---
# CCRAA HSI Grants 2008

# Ineligible Apps

# Sheet3
#### 34.101 Definitions.

*Item of supply,* as used in this subpart, means any individual part, component, subassembly, assembly, or subsystem integral to a major system, and other property which may be replaced during the service life of the system. The term includes spare parts and replenishment parts, but does not include packaging or labeling associated with shipment or identification of an “item.”

[48 FR 42351, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 2132, Jan. 10, 2001]
PROJCS["NAD_1983_StatePlane_Massachusetts_Mainland_FIPS_2001",GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",200000.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",750000.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-71.5],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_1",41.71666666666667],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_2",42.68333333333333],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",41.0],UNIT["Meter",1.0]]
#### (A) The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Williams, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Correction et al., Respondents. (B) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Douglas E. Drake, Appellant.

[In each action] Permission to prosecute appeals as poor persons granted. Appeals may he perfected upon one typewritten copy of the records and five typewritten copies of the briefs. Motions in all other respects denied. Present — Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 02/10/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2004
Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 02/10/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2005
Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 02/10/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2006
Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 02/10/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2007
Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 02/10/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2008
#### Thomas U. HUGHES, Claimant-Appellant, v. Gordon H. MANSIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7081.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 9, 2007.

Before DYK and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and COTE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Denise Cote, District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

On May 5, 1997, Thomas U. Hughes (“Hughes”) filed a petition with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for a lower back injury. His petition was denied. Following several appeals, he contends here that the VA was required, under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (“VCAA”), 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c), to assist him in collecting government records in connection with his petition.

Hughes’s claim must be rejected in accordance with our decision in *Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs,*345 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2003), in which we held that “the VCAA does not require VA to provide assistance to claimants attempting to reopen previously disallowed claims.” *Id.*at 1352. Hughes’s assertion that this rule should not be applied where a veteran’s service medical records are missing is unavailing in light of the analysis of the VCAA presented in *Paralyzed Veterans.*In addition, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) relating to claims to reopen a previously denied claim are inapplicable because those provisions apply only to claims received by the VA on or after August 29, 2001. Duty to Assist, 66 Fed.Reg. 45,620, 45,620 (Aug. 29, 2001). This Order, however, is issued without prejudice to Hughes’s right to file a new petition to reopen his previously denied claim, in connection with which Hughes would be entitled to the assistance provided for under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, *Hughes v. Nicholson,*No. 05-1840, 2006 WL 3006722 (Vet.App. Oct. 12, 2006), is *affirmed.*
- 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 Vocational and Adult Education Home |
|                                               |

**Who May Apply: (specifically)** Awards are made to state eligible agencies for vocational education, which in turn award at least 85 percent of the funds on the basis of statutory formulas to eligible recipients.

To participate in the Basic State Grant program, States must: designate an eligible agency as a sole State agency responsible for the administration or supervision of career-technical education; prepare a five–year State Plan subject to the approval of the Secretary of Education, and submit annual revisions as necessary; and, establish a State performance accountability system to assess State effectiveness in achieving progress in career-technical education, and to optimize the return on investment of Federal funds appropriated for career-technical education.

----

 

 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEBOHANG MORAKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NANDI MORAKE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-55055 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07374-MWFPLA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Lebohang Morake appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart 

v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55055 

The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action on the basis of claim

preclusion because the claims involved the same primary right raised in a prior 

state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San Diego 

Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state’s preclusion rules to determine effect of 

a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under California 

law); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010) (under the 

primary rights theory, “a judgment for the defendant is a bar to a subsequent action 

by the plaintiff based on the same injury to the same right, even though he presents 

a different legal ground for relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellee’s request for an award of costs on appeal, set forth in the 

answering brief, is denied without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-40397 and 33-44776 on Forms S-8, andRegistration Statement No. 333-125113 on Form S-1 of our reports relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Flow International Corporation as of and for the years ended April 30, 2007 and 2006 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share Based Payment*) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting dated July 13, 2007, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Flow International Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2007. 

 

/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Seattle, Washington 

July 13, 2007
#### Branch *v.*Branch, for use, etc.

Hill, J.

1. Where a grantor conveyed property in fee simple to A, with parol direction that after the death of the grantor A should divide the property between the grantor’s heirs, and in carrying out the parol agreement A conveyed to B, as one of the heirs, property in excess of his distributive share, at the time orally stipulating that B should later pay him in money, for the benefit of another heir, C, a part of such excess to cover the amount still due her on account of her distributive share, A could maintain an action in his name for the use of C, against B, to recover such amount.

2. Where testimony is offered the great bulk of which is admissible, the fact that some small portion thereof may be inadmissible furnishes no good reason for sustaining an objection to the testimony in its entirety.

*376February 11, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. October *26,*1911.

*B. E. Dinsmore, J. T. Hill,*and *J. W. Dennard,*for plaintiff-in error. *Bidgdill & Eve,*contra.

3. Under the pleadings and the facts of this case, there was no error in any of the rulings allowing evidence to be admitted, which are the subject-matter of exception.

4. There was no error in refusing the written requests to charge, nor in giving the jury the instructions which are assigned as error.

5. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
- 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 Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 7614, 116th Congress (2020); the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 133 (Pub. L. 116-260).  

                - There are no program-specific regulations.
                - Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) , in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99.  Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

FIPSE Home

----

 

 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