alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 252.222-7006 Restrictions on the Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements.

As prescribed in 222.7405, use the following clause:

# Restrictions on the Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements (JAN 2023)

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

*Covered subcontractor* means any entity that has a subcontract valued in excess of $1 million, except a subcontract for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.

*Subcontract* means any contract, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 2.1, to furnish supplies or services for performance of this contract or a higher-tier subcontract thereunder.

(b) The Contractor—

(1) Agrees not to—

(i) Enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration—

(A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or

(B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or

(ii) Take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve through arbitration—

(A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or

(B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and

(2) Certifies, by signature of the contract, that it requires each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and not to take any action to enforce, any provision of any existing agreements, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, with respect to any employee or independent contractor performing work related to such subcontract.

(c) The prohibitions of this clause do not apply with respect to a contractor's or subcontractor's agreements with employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

(d) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability of the restrictions of paragraph (b) of this clause in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 222.7404.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 27948, May 19, 2010, as amended at 75 FR 40717, July 13, 2010; 75 FR 76297, Dec. 8, 2010; 88 FR 6591, Jan. 31, 2023]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.2--CERTIFICATION FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF FORM 10-K BY PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Michael A. Carty, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First Financial
Corporation;

2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
     being prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5) The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls
     over financial reporting.


Date: March 11, 2004

Michael A. Carty, Signed
------------------------
Michael A. Carty
Secretary, Treasurer and CFO
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

June 26, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00438

- CR

EX PARTE Misael MORENO

- MARTINEZ

From the County Court
, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 13213CR Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Misael Moreno

Martinez’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. We further consider Moreno

- Martinez’s appeal as a petition for wr it of mandamus and DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on June 26, 2024

.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of June, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada , Chief Deputy Clerk
- 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 |
|                                        |

Don E. Watson, Executive Directordonald.watson@ed.govTelephone: (202) 453-6166Fax: (202) 401-8466

**Mailing Address**

Institutional Service 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
#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Ray.

February 12, 1913.

Action for damages.' Before Judge Brand. Gwinnett superior court. January 19, 1913.

. *John J. & Boy M. Strickland, E. 0. Dobbs,*and *D. M. Byrd,*for plaintiff in error.

*Don K. Johnston*and N. *L. Hutchins,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for new trial in this ease; in regard to the admissibility of evidence, refusal to charge, and the charge of the court, are without merit, and do not require elaboration.

2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. *Green*v. *Central R. Co.,*130 *Ga. 375*(60 S. E. 861), and citations; *Southern R. Co.*v. *Williams,*113 *Ga.*335 (38 S. E. 744); *Georgia, Florida & Alabama R. Co.*v. *Summer,*133 *Ga.*135 (65 S. E. 381).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS )

OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND )

PENSION FUNDS, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

) No. 2012 C 5097

v. )

) Judge Bucklo

)

CASTILLO TRUCKING, OF BOURBONNAIS, )

INC., an Illinois corporation, and ) Magistrate Judge Denlow

FRANK M. CASTILLO, Individually, )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION FOR DEFAULT & JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF 

NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS, by and through their

attorneys, JOHN J. TOOMEY, and ARNOLD AND KADJAN, and, pursuant to FRCP 55,

move for entry of an order of default and judgment in sum certain. In support of their 

Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. Suit was filed on June 26, 2012 for collection of delinquent ERISA 

contributions, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(2). 

2. Service was made upon Castillo Trucking, of Bourbonanais, Inc., an Illinois 

corporation, on July 11, 2012, and a copy of the proof of service was filed with the court on 

July 18, 2012.

3. Service was made upon Frank M. Castillo, Individually, on July 11, 2012, 

and a copy of the proof of service was filed with the court on July 18, 2012.

4. More than 21 days have passed without any response to the Complaint by 

Defendants, so that Defendants are now in default. 
2

5. As supported by the attached Affidavits, the sums due on the Complaint 

are: 

 $13,257.55 Pension audit 

 $5,892.81 Welfare audit

 $2,507.76 Pension Fund installment note

 $1,974.23 Welfare Fund installment note

 $925.00 Attorneys fees

 $473.00 Court costs

 $25,030.35

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the entry of an Judgment Order in favor of the 

Plaintiffs Trustees of the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois Welfare and Pension 

Funds as follows:

A. Judgment against Defendant, Castillo Trucking, of Bourbonnais, Inc., an 

Illinois corporation in the amount of $25,030.35 on Counts I and II;

B. Judgment against Defendant, FRANK M. CASTILLO, Individually on 

Count III in the amount of $4,481.99, the balances due on the installments notes which he 

personally signed, jointly and severally with the corporation.

TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS

OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND 

PENSION FUNDS

s/John J. Toomey

ARNOLD AND KADJAN

203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1650

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone No.: (312) 236-0415

Facsimile No.: (312) 341-0438

Dated: August 6, 2012
# C_2016434EN.01000101.xml

| 24.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8151 — Naxicap/TimePartners)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 434/01)

On 11 November 2016, 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 32016M8151. 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 32016M8151. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2018022EN.01000101.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/1

---

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

Official Journal of the European Union

(2018/C 022/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 13, 15.1.2018

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 5, 8.1.2018

OJ C 437, 18.12.2017

OJ C 424, 11.12.2017

OJ C 412, 4.12.2017

OJ C 402, 27.11.2017

OJ C 392, 20.11.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         618,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,371,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                   141,500
<INVENTORY>                                    267,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,882,176
<PP&E>                                       2,064,198
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,505,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,915,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,023,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,092,144
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,199,834)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,915,863
<SALES>                                      7,224,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,247,303
<CGS>                                        4,270,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,859,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (618,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (618,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (618,979)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
#### Julius Grosse and others *vs.*Mary A. Cooley.

April 24, 1890.

Real-Estate Broker — Commission—Solvency of Purchaser Presumed. Where a real-estate broke.r has procured a purchaser for the property of his principal, the solvency and ability of such purchaser to perform the obligations of his contract will be presumed until the contrary is proved.

Action brought by plaintiffs in the municipal court of Minneapolis, to recover $500 as their commission on a sale of real estate negotiated by them for defendant. Upon trial by the court judgment was ordered and entered for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and the defendant appealed.

*E. E. Cooley,*for appellant.

*Gray & Pulliam,*for respondents.

Mitchell, J.

We fail to discover any prejudicial error in the rulings of the trial judge, and we think the evidence fully sustains the findings. It is sufficiently established that the defendant agreed with plaintiffs to pay them $500 commission if they would procure a purchaser for a certain tract of real estate at a specified price; that they did find such a purchaser at that price and on terms satisfactory to defendant; that such purchaser executed a written contract, agreeing to buy the land on those terms, and paid $200 earnest-money on the bargain. There is no evidence that this purchaser has ever refused to carry out his bargain, or that he was unable to do so. This was sufficient to establish plaintiffs’ right to recover. A real-estate broker is entitled to his commission under a contract like this when he produces a purchaser able, ready, and willing to buy on the owner’s terms. The main point urged by appellant is that the burden was on plaintiffs to show that the proposed purchaser was solvent, and able to carry out the bargain. The rule in this state is otherwise. Solvency is always presumed until insolvency is proved. The presumption is that the purchaser was able to perform the obligations assumed by his contract. *Goss*v. *Broom,*31 Minn. 484, (18 N. W. Rep. 290;) *Crevier*v. *Stephen,*40 Minn. 288, (41 N. W. Rep. 1039.) *189His willingness to do so in this case was evidenced by his executing a binding contract to that effect, and paying earnest-money. . The plaintiffs certainly made out a *prima facie*case.

There was no error in admitting in evidence the contract, Exhibit A. Although plaintiffs might have had no authority to sign such a contract of sale in behalf of defendant, yet, being also signed by the proposed purchaser, it was certainly competent evidence of the fact that plaintiffs had procured a purchaser for the property on defendant’s terms. The most that can be said against the admission of Exhibit B (the receipt of defendant’s agent and uncle to plaintiffs for the earnest-money) is that it was immaterial, but, if so, its admission was, under the circumstances, error without prejudice.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6658-6659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 6659]]

amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Institutional Training 
Grant Applications.
    Date: March 2, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 664, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jimok Kim, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite 664, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8559, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f09a999d9f9bde9b999db09e9998de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fe5e6e2e0e4a1e4e6e2cfe1e6e7a1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01264 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Charles R. Norgle Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2450 DATE 6/8/2012

CASE

TITLE

FAN ZHANG, et al. Vs. GROUPON, INC., et al. 

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Case Numbers 12 C 2450, 12 C 2460, 12 C 2547, 12 C 2791 and 12 C 3129 are hereby consolidated for all

purposes pursuant to Rule 41(a) as In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File no. 12 C 2450. The

Stipulation and Order Regarding scheduling [Document # 32] which was previously entered in Case No. 12

C 2791 applies to all cases. 

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

EF

12C2450 FAN ZHANG, et al. Vs. GROUPON, INC., et al. Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-02450 Document #: 98 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:852
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrel Smith, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered June 14, 1977, convicting defendant after jury trial of robbery, first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence by substituting for that imposed by the Trial Justice an indeterminate term not to exceed 10 years, and otherwise affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Fein and Sandler, JJ.