alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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 |
|                                        |

Dr. Pamela J. MaimerE-mail: FRA@ed.govTelephone: (202) 453-6891

Amy MarrionE-mail: FRA@ed.govTelephone: (202) 453-5628

Mailing Address:U.S. Department of Education, OPEInternational and Foreign Language EducationFulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Program400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202

IFLE 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
227.7200 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart— ( 1 ) Prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of computer software and computer software documentation, and the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose such software or documentation. It implements the following laws and Executive order: ( i ) 10 U.S.C. 3013.
( ii ) 10 U.S.C. 3208(d).
( iii ) 10 U.S.C. 3771-3775.
( iv ) 10 U.S.C. 3781-3786.
( v ) 10 U.S.C. 4576.
( vi ) Executive Order 12591 (subsection 1(b)(7)).
( 2 ) Does not apply to— ( i ) Computer software or computer software documentation acquired under General Services Administration (GSA) schedule contracts; or
( ii ) Releases of computer software or computer software documentation to litigation support contractors (see subpart 204.74).
( b ) See PGI 227.7200(b) for guidance and information in DoD issuances.
[88 FR 17344, Mar. 22, 2023]
#### 1852.216-87 [Reserved]
# C_2019363EN.01000101.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/1

---

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

(2019/C 363/01)

Last publication

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019

Past publications

OJ C 348, 14.10.2019

OJ C 337, 7.10.2019

OJ C 328, 30.9.2019

OJ C 319, 23.9.2019

OJ C 312, 16.9.2019

OJ C 305, 9.9.2019

These texts are available on:

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

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

VANESSA L. NAISHA

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

,

Defendant Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 295 , 2022

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. N 19C

- 07

- 083

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: June 23 , 2023

Decided: August 16 , 202 3

Before VALIHURA

, TRAYNOR

, and LEGROW

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the Superior Court record

, we

find it evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for

the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its July 15, 2022 bench ruling granting

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court be AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
#### 3414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

Authority is delegated to the HCA to make determinations under FAR 14.407-3(a) through (d).
86 So.2d 907

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jules CROVETTO and Claude Carbo.

No. 42669.

Feb. 20, 1956.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1956.

G. W. Gill and Andrew Búcaro, New Orleans, for appellants.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon D. Hubert, Jr., Dist. Atty., Malcolm V. O’Hara, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Jules Crovetto and Claude Carbo have submitted to us without oral argument their appeal from a conviction of gambling as denounced by Article 90 of the Criminal Code, R.S. 14:90. In brief filed in' this court counsel for appellants rely on seven bills of exception as grounds for a new trial. Although none of these bills has any merit, we will mention them briefly.

Bills Nos. 1 and 10 concern the admission in evidence of federal wagering tax returns; quarterly reports made to the State of Louisiana, Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security; and a certified check. The theory of this objection is that these documents are privileged and confidential, and also that their admission violates appellants’ constitutional priyilege against., self-incrimination. These arguments are refuted in our opinion in *795State v. Mills and Vernaci, La.Sup., 86 So. 2d. *895.*

Bill No. 2 was reserved to the overruling of Crovetto’s motion to quash the information charging him with gambling. As the information filed against Carbo and Crovetto in the present case is practically the same as that filed against Mills and Vernaci in State v. Mills and Vernaci, supra, our decision upholding the sufficiency of the information in Mills is controlling here.

Bills Nos. 5, 6, and *7*were reserved by defense counsel during the testimony of Lieutenant McDonnell, an expert on lottery operations. These bills are inconsequential and are without merit.

Bill No. 11 was reserved under the following conditions: At the close of the State’s case Crovetto moved for a directed verdict acquitting him of gambling in violation of Article 90. The court refused to grant the motion, and Crovetto reserved a bill of exception. The refusal to grant a directed verdict is something that we cannot review. Article 402.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, R.S. IS :402.1, which gives the accused in a criminal prosecution the right to move for a directed verdict after the evidence on either side is closed, also provides that “The judgment of the court in refusing to grant such motion by the defendant shall not be subject to review by any appellate court”.

During the trial Crovetto and Carbo reserved other bills of exception, but no mention is made of them in appellants’ brief here. Although we would be justified under the circumstances in considering these bills abandoned, we have examined them, and find them without merit.

The conviction and sentences are affirmed.

FOURNET, C. J., concurs in the decree.
- 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

Programs
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## Legislation

                - Title VII, Part A, Subpart 4, Section 723 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended MS Word (42K) | PDF (19K)  The Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program was authorized by the Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008, which reauthorized and extended the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

## Regulations

                - Education Department General Administrative Regulations  (EDGAR) 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99
                - e-CFR --  Part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards

Institutional Service Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

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

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

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

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### Loretta LUKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alexander BROWN, Jr., J. Clay, # 1662, et al., Defendants, *917DeKalb County, GA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-13068

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 15, 2007.

Craig Thomas Jones, Edmond & Jones, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Bruce R. Millar, Jonesboro, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark Ashland Thompson, Duane Dennis Pritchett, DeKalb County Law Office, Decatur, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DeKalb County, Georgia, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Loretta Luke, the mother of Stanley Bates, who was shot and killed by Officer Alexander Brown during a confrontation between Bates, Luke, and Officers Brown and Clay. Officer Brown shot Bates three times. The first two shots fired by Brown were fired in rapid succession using a technique known as “double-tapping” or shooting in control pairs. Luke contended in the district court that DeKalb County trains its officers to use the double-tap method and that, as a matter of policy, the double-tap method is unconstitutional.

After an investigation, an internal review board determined that Brown was not justified in firing the third shot. The board, therefore, found that there was a violation of the DeKalb County Police Department policy and permitted Officer Brown to resign from the police department in lieu of being terminated.

The DeKalb County Police Department’s policy under attack in this case is that deadly force can only be used when an officer or another person is being threatened with deadly force, and that the threat is imminent.

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment when all “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any *918material fact and ... the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

After reviewing the record, and reading the parties’ briefs, we agree with the district court’s finding that the policy in question is not unconstitutional regarding the use of force in dealing with suspects armed with weapons at close range. *See Tennessee v. Garner,*471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Although it is unfortunate that Officer Brown departed from the county’s policy, that departure does not mean that the policy itself was unconstitutional or that it was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the county.

AFFIRMED.
#### In re CROUCH. In the matter of George W. Crouch, deceased. In re BENTLEY. In the matter of the application of S. D. Bentley to fix attorney’s fees, etc.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

PER CURIAM.

Decree of Surrogate’s Court modified, by striking out the allowance of $250 for executor’s costs and disbursements upon last accounting, and, as so modified, affirmed. without costs. Held, that the costs and disbursements covered by said item of $250 were incurred in an accounting, after the executor had been removed, and which was rendered necessary by his misconduct and failure to obey the prior decree of the Surrogate’s Court. Therefore said expenses should uot be charged against the estate.

SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent and vote for affirmance of the entire decree.
Appropriations 

**Note:** This program received $400,000,000 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds; awards were made under CFDA# 84.392.
#### Mt. Zion Baptist Church of Port Chester, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Sylvester Brown et al., Defendants-Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. John H. Nichols et al., Third-Party Defendants.

On the call of the calendar, respondents’ oral motion to dismiss the appeal granted and appeal dismissed, there being no appearance for appellants and appellants having failed to comply with the order of this court, made October 10, 1960, requiring them to perfect their appeal for the December 1960 Term. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
# C_2018165EN.01000301.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 May 2018

(2018/C 165/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1879 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4495 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87445 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3473 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1895 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 122,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6045 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,564 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,12 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2656 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6448 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,0824 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5923 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5299 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3248 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6995 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5921 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 279,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9351 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5628 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3875 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 713,75 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7332 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,694 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,9194 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,078 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2451 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,2043 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,9010 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1879

JPY

Japanese yen

130,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4495

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87445

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3473

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1895

ISK

Iceland króna

122,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6045

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,564

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,12

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2656

RON

Romanian leu

4,6448

TRY

Turkish lira

5,0824

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5923

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5299

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3248

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6995

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5921

KRW

South Korean won

1 279,55

ZAR

South African rand

14,9351

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5628

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3875

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 713,75

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7332

PHP

Philippine peso

61,694

RUB

Russian rouble

74,9194

THB

Thai baht

38,078

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2451

MXN

Mexican peso

23,2043

INR

Indian rupee

79,9010

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Carole R. Cascio, Formerly Known as Carole R. Levine, Respondent, v Leonard S. Levine, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 22, 1978, which, *inter alia,*(a) granted that branch of the plaintiff’s application for a money judgment in her favor against defendant in the sum of $15,384 representing arrears in child support and maintenance under the judgment of divorce and (b) denied defendant’s cross motion for a downward modification of the child support payments and for a change in the visitation procedures, without prejudice to renewal of the cross motion upon proper papers and (2) a decision of the same court, dated July 5, 1978, upon which the judgment was made. Appeal from the decision dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from a decision. Judgment modified by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the action is remitted to Special Term for a hearing consistent herewith. Defendant alleges that he is not financially able to pay private school tuition or for summer camp for his daughter because of financial setbacks. He notes that the judgment of divorce premises those two payments upon his financial ability. Defendant states that he has lost or disposed of real estate interests because prime tenants have gone into bankruptcy; that he has sold his interest in the South Hills Mall and Lenrich Associates for only $100,000, evidently consid*923erably less than their former value; and that he has terminated his business arrangement with a management company from whom he has received no income since March, 1978. These are more than conclusory allegations and entitle him to a hearing, especially since the judgment of divorce provides that certain payments are required of him only so long as he is financially able to make them (see, e.g., *Sarnicola v Sarnicola,*50 AD2d 842). We do not imply any particular result by the direction that a hearing should be held. Upon the hearing, defendant may also raise the question of whether plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount of child support. Defendant may not, however, have his cross motion entertained unless he proceeds as Special Term directed. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Hannah Ford, Deceased. Aloysius L. McGarry et al., Appellants; Agnese C. Herrstrom, Respondent.

In a proceeding by the daughter of Nellie Ford (Cole), a deceased daughter of the testatrix, for a judicial construction of testatrix’ will, four children of Mary A. E. McGarry, another deceased daughter of the testatrix, and the three heirs of a fifth child of said Mary A. E. McGarry, appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County, dated March 20,1961, which construed the fourth paragraph of the will as not limiting the fee of the real property devised to said daughter Nellie Ford (Cole) pursuant to the first paragraph of the will. Decree affirmed, with costs to all parties filing separate briefs, payable out of the estate. The absolute gift of real property in the first paragraph of the will was not cut down by the fourth paragraph, since the words and phrases in the fourth paragraph are not as clear, definite, decisive and imperative as the words in the first paragraph devising an absolute fee *(Tillman*v. *Ogren,*227 N. Y. 495, 505; *Banzer*v. *Banzer,*156 N. Y. 429, 435). In any event, the language in the fourth paragraph is so confused and uncertain as to render it impracticable to say with any degree of certainty what the testatrix thereby intended insofar as such paragraph could be validly enforced under the rules of construction (see 7 Warren’s Heaton Surrogates’ Courts [6th ed.], § 16, par. 6, subd. [e]). If the testatrix intended to cut down the devise which she made in the first paragraph, the language of the fourth paragraph is inoperative and ineffectual because the court cannot find in such language any valid disposition that was intended by her (1 Davids, New York Law of Wills, p. 735; *Mann*v. *Mann,*1 Johns. Ch. 231, 235, affd. 14 Johns. 1). Moreover, appellants concede that, in view of the language in the fourth paragraph, the alternative devises therein specified are at least partially void, even under their construction, since they are in violation of the rule against perpetuities which was in effect in *6841894, when testatrix died. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [28 Misc 2d 394.]
Exhibit 31.1
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Vernon W. Hill, II , Chief Executive Officer of Commerce Bancorp, Inc.
certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed Amendment No. 2 of this Form 10-K of Commerce Bancorp,
          Inc.; and

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.





/s/ Vernon W. Hill, II                                    Date:  April 29, 2004
------------------------------------
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)


                             [END OF CERTIFICATION]