alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
32.1103 Applicability. The Government shall provide all contract payments through EFT except if— ( a ) The office making payment under a contract that requires payment by EFT, loses the ability to release payment by EFT. To the extent authorized by 31 CFR part 208, the payment office shall make necessary payments pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of the clause at either 52.232-33 or 52.232-34 until such time as it can make EFT payments;
( b ) The payment is to be received by or on behalf of the contractor outside the United States and Puerto Rico (but see 32.1106(b));
( c ) A contract is paid in other than United States currency (but see 32.1106(b));
( d ) Payment by EFT under a classified contract could compromise the safeguarding of classified information or national security, or arrangements for appropriate EFT payments would be impractical due to security considerations;
( e ) A contract is awarded by a deployed contracting officer in the course of military operations, including, but not limited to, contingency operations as defined in 2.101, or a contract is awarded by any contracting officer in the conduct of emergency operations, such as responses to natural disasters or national or civil emergencies, if— ( 1 ) EFT is not known to be possible; or
( 2 ) EFT payment would not support the objectives of the operation;
( f ) The agency does not expect to make more than one payment to the same recipient within a one-year period;
( g ) An agency's need for supplies and services is of such unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless payment is made by a method other than EFT;
( h ) There is only one source for supplies and services and the Government would be seriously injured unless payment is made by a method other than EFT; or
( i ) Otherwise authorized by Department of the Treasury Regulations at 31 CFR part 208.
[64 FR 10540, Mar. 4, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 6114, Feb. 8, 2002; 68 FR 13203, Mar. 18, 2003; 68 FR 56673, Oct. 1, 2003]
----

----

|                  | PHOTOMEDEX, INC. |                        |
|-----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
|                  |             |                        |   |
| Dated: March 31, 2011 | By:              | /s/  Dennis M. McGrath |   |
|                  |             | Dennis M. McGrath           |   |
|                  |             | Chief Executive Officer     |   |
|                  |             |                        |   |

----

----
#### 3022.101 Labor relations.
On October 28, 2013, OCR and Sun Prairie Area  School District (District) reached an agreement regarding the  overrepresentation of students of color in special education.  The agreement, entered into prior to the  conclusion of OCR’s investigation, resolved OCR’s compliance review.  The District agreed to retain an expert with expertise in addressing the  overrepresentation of students of color in special education to review the  district's procedures and make recommendations as to what measures the district  should take to ensure that it is making appropriate determinations and address  the root causes of the overrepresentation of students of color in special  education; develop and implement a plan for a universal screening process to  identify students in need of extra assistance as early as possible; ensure that  every school in the district has implemented a systematic, team-based means of  providing intervention strategies in the classroom for students experiencing  academic or behavior difficulties; provide additional professional development  to teachers and staff , including training on the intervention process and on  intervention strategies for students; review specific special education records  for current students in certain special education categories to assess whether  eligibility decisions were appropriate, and take appropriate action in  response; maintain and analyze data and other information to annually evaluate  the effectiveness of its screening, intervention, evaluation, and placement  processes and analyze data related to teacher referral and the provision of  team-prescribed interventions, to determine whether students of all races and  national origins were treated equitably.

Read the Press Release | *Read    the Resolution Letter*MS WORD (95K) PDF (127K) | *Readthe Resolution Agreement*MS WORD (75K) PDF (137K)

 

Top
#### In the Matter of Walter S. Forsyth.

Motion granted and order dismissing appeal vacated; ease set down for argument at March 1961 Term; respondent’s brief must be filed on or before March 16, 1961.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BYRDELL WALTON, WADIE MOREHEAD, )

and LOUISE MASON, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 12-cv-04493

v. )

) Judge Joan H. Lefkow

MARK S. DIAMOND; MATTHEW FEFFERMAN; )

UNITED RESIDENTIAL SERVICES & REAL ESTATE, )

INC.; URBAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; HARBOR )

FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD.; UNITED )

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.; )

DENNIS BOTH; SHAUN DONOVAN; UNITED )

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN )

DEVELOPMENT; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC )

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; REVERSE )

MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.; ABLE TITLE )

INSURANCE AGENCY, INC; and UNKNOWN )

ASSIGNESS, )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs Byrdell Walton, Wadie Morehead, and Louise Mason (“Plaintiffs”) and 

Defendants Urban Financial Group, Inc., Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., and Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“Defendants”), each hereby stipulate to the dismissal with 

prejudice of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against these Defendants only.

Case: 1:12-cv-04493 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:334
2

STIPULATED AND AGREED:

Dated: January 28, 2013

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION OF 

METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

_/s/ Michelle A. Weinberg___________

Michelle A. Weinberg

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION OF 

METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

120 South LaSalle Street, Ste. 900 

Chicago, IL 60603

Tele: 312.347.8363

Fax: 312.612.1463

mweinberg@lafchicago.org

Attorney for Plaintiffs Byrdell Walton, 

Wadie Morehead, and Louise Mason

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

_/s/ Andrea C. Halverson_______________

David C. Bohan

Andrea C. Halverson

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

525 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60661-3693

Tele: (312) 902-5200

Fax: (312) 902-1061

david.bohan@kattenlaw.com

andrea.halverson@kattenlaw.com

Attorney for Urban Financial Group, Inc., 

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., and 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Inc.

Case: 1:12-cv-04493 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:335
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 492 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Safe Digging Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. NELSON, Mrs. FISCHER, and Mr. PETERS) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Safe Digging 

Month. 

Whereas each year, the underground utility infrastructure of 

the United States, including pipelines, electric, gas, telecommunications, water, sewer, and cable television lines, 

is jeopardized by unintentional damage caused by those 

who fail to have underground lines located prior to 

digging; 

Whereas some utility lines are buried only a few inches underground, making the lines easy to strike, even during 

shallow digging projects; 

Whereas digging prior to locating underground utility lines 

often results in unintended consequences, such as service 

interruption, environmental damage, personal injury, and 

even death; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 492 ATS 

Whereas the month of April marks the beginning of the peak 

period during which excavation projects are carried out 

around the United States; 

Whereas in 2002, Congress required the Department of 

Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission to establish a 3-digit, nationwide, toll-free number to be used by State ‘‘One Call’’ systems to provide 

information on underground utility lines; 

Whereas in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission 

designated ‘‘811’’ as the nationwide ‘‘One Call’’ number 

for homeowners and excavators to use to obtain information on underground utility lines before conducting excavation activities; 

Whereas the 1,700 members of the Common Ground Alliance, who are dedicated to ensuring public safety, environmental protection, and the integrity of services, promote the national ‘‘Call Before You Dig’’ campaign to increase public awareness about the importance of homeowners and excavators calling 811 to find out the exact 

location of underground lines; 

Whereas the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 

Creation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–90; 125 Stat. 

1904) affirmed and expanded the ‘‘One Call’’ program by 

eliminating exemptions given to local and State government agencies and their contractors regarding notifying 

‘‘One Call’’ centers before digging; and 

Whereas the Common Ground Alliance has designated April 

as ‘‘National Safe Digging Month’’ to increase awareness 

of safe digging practices across the United States and to 

celebrate the anniversary of 811, the national ‘‘Call Before You Dig’’ number: Now, therefore, be it 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 492 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Safe Digging Month; and 

4 (2) encourages all homeowners and excavators 

5 throughout the United States to call 811 before 

6 digging. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### Johnson *vs.*The State of Georgia.

After suspension of sentence and several continuances thereof to allow time to prepare a motion for a new trial, on the day to which the cause was last continued, the recognizance of defendant was forfeited. Afterwards, during the term, defendant came in and was sentenced. Thereupon the following motion was made: “And now comes the defendant and moves the court to set aside the forfeiture of the bond given by defendant in said case on the following grounds, to-wit: Because after tlie verdict of guilty in said case, defendant’s counsel prepared a motion for a new trial, and defendant has been in attendance on said court several times ready to respond to and abide any order or judgment of the court on the disposition of said motion for a new trial except on the 21st day of January, 1879, when defendant was sick in bed and unable to attend court, and on which day the bond in said case was forfeited,” which was overruled, and defendant excepted.

*Held,*1. That the judgment overruling the motion to set aside the judgment forfeiting the recognizance is the only judgment excepted to and for consideration in this court, and not the refusal to hear the motion for a new trial. *Moreland vs. Stephens,*decided this term.

2. That *scire facias*may never issue upon the judgment *nisi*to forfeit the recognizance, as the party appeared and was sentenced, and *443that appearance and sentence would be a complete reply thereto should it be issued, so far as respects the final forfeiture of the recognizance; and in respect to the costs, if the payment thereof can be avoided by showing that defendant was prevented from attending by sickness, the time for making the showing is when some motion is made, or other proceeding is had, to charge him with the costs.

Jackson, Justice.
# C_2017121EN.01000101.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

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

(2017/C 121/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 104, 3.4.2017

OJ C 95, 27.3.2017

OJ C 86, 20.3.2017

OJ C 78, 13.3.2017

OJ C 70, 6.3.2017

OJ C 63, 27.2.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---
No. 99-20798 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20798 Conference Calendar

HENRY LEE SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus J. MICHAEL WILKINSON; DEREK A. ADAME; ALLEN GUITRY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-336

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henry Lee Sanders, Texas prisoner # 666939, appeals the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit seeking both damages and release from prison. The district court determined that Sanders’ damages claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey ** and that, to the extent he sought release from custody, he must first pursue habeas relief. In his appellate brief, Sanders renews the claims raised inNo. 99-20798 -2- the lawsuit but does not brief any argument regarding the district court’s dismissal or the reasons given therefor. Because he fails to brief any argument that the district court erred in dismissing his case, he has waived the sole ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Sanders’ appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. His “Motion of Transfer” is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
Overview | **Guidelines** | Information Correction Requests and Appeals | Contact



## Guidelines

|**You are here:** Guidelines > Information Quality > Influential Information
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government information that is particularly influential needs to meet higher
  quality standards, and in particular must be reproducible. Per the OMB guidelines,
  information is designated as influential if the Department determines that
  the information is reasonably likely to have a clear and substantial impact
  on public policies or private sector decisions if disseminated. Scientific,
  financial, and statistical information all may be considered influential. Individual
  programs within the Department of Education may designate certain classes of
  scientific, financial, and statistical information as influential.

For example, institutional data on the total number of student borrowers who
  enter repayment on Stafford loans during a specific fiscal year, and related
  data on the subset of students who default before the end of the next fiscal
  year are used in the calculation of cohort loan default rates of Stafford loan
  borrowers at each postsecondary institution. These default rates are compared
  to established thresholds for high and low default rates, resulting in sanctions
  for institutions with high default rates and reduced administrative burden
  for institutions with low default rates. Given this use, these data and the
  calculations used in computing the rates and in setting the thresholds are
  influential. Similarly, the data and formulas used in determining program allocation
  of funds in areas such as special education, adult education, and Title I are
  influential.

As specified in the OMB guidelines, influential information must be accompanied
  by supporting documentation that allows an external user to understand clearly
  the information and be able to reproduce it, or understand the steps involved
  in producing it. With respect to original and supporting data related thereto,
  the Department will assure reproducibility for such data according to commonly
  accepted scientific, financial, or statistical standards for that type of data,
  taking into account any ethical and confidentiality constraints. In the case
  of influential analytic results, the mathematical and statistical processes
  used to produce the report must be described in sufficient detail to allow
  an independent analyst to substantially reproduce the findings using the original
  data and identical methods. In situations where the public cannot access the
  data and methods due to other compelling interests such as privacy, intellectual
  property or other confidentiality protections, the Department will apply especially
  rigorous robustness checks to analytic results and document what checks were
  undertaken.

|        
|--------
|Previous

|Last Modified: 10/17/2005
|-------------------------
# C_2018134EN.01000101.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/1

---

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 134/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 123, 9.4.2018

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018

OJ C 104, 19.3.2018

OJ C 94, 12.3.2018

OJ C 83, 5.3.2018

OJ C 72, 26.2.2018

OJ C 63, 19.2.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### 3037.104-90 Personal services contracts (USCG).

The U.S. Coast Guard HCA may enter into medical personal services contracts in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1091.

[71 FR 25771, May 2, 2006]
#### 3009.507-2 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.209-73, Limitation of Future Contracting, in solicitations and contracts when a potential organizational conflict of interest exists and mitigation is not feasible.

[71 FR 25769, May 2, 2006]
#### 27.202 Royalties.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, C. Troy Woodbury, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of Wegener
Corporation (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended September 1, 2006 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:



| |  | fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.Name:

C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.Title:

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date:

November 30, 2006
Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Wegener Corporation
Duluth, Georgia

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements (File No. 33-45390,  No. 33-42007,  No. 333-08017,  No. 33-27527, No.
333-29887,  No.  33-51205,  and No.  333-29889) of our reports dated November 5,
2002, relating to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Wegener
Corporation and  Subsidiaries  appearing in the Company's  Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended August 30, 2002.



Atlanta, Georgia                          BDO Seidman, LLP
November 25, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 131 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 131

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
   Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2024

Mr. Clyde (for himself, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Jackson of 
Texas, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Donalds, Ms. Tenney, 
Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Guest, Mr. Mann, Mrs. Miller 
of Illinois, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Gooden of 
 Texas, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Burlison, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Estes, Mr. Norman, 
Mr. Harris, Mr. Moran, Mr. Sessions, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Roy, Mr. Crane, 
and Mr. Loudermilk) submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
   Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later 
Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles'' (89 Fed. Reg. 27842 (April 18, 
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Meanith Huon

The Huon Law Firm

PO Box 441

Chicago, Illinois 60690

312-405-2789

huon.meanith@gmail.com

November 26, 2012

Clerk of the Court

Northern District of Illinois

Re: Flava Works, Inc. v. John Does 1 to 26, et.

12-cv-5844

Request for Refund

Dear Sirs:

I am a requesting a refund of $46.00 that was inadvertently paid on October 24, 2012, 

Docket No. 17, receipt number 0752-7688951. 

I thought a motion to vacate a dismissal for want of prosecution required a filing fee.

Please refund the $46.00 by crediting the same card.

 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 22 Filed: 11/26/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:728