alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3004.804-570 Supporting closeout documents. ( a ) When applicable and prior to contract closure, the contracting officer shall obtain the listed DHS and Department of Defense (DOD) forms from the contractor for closeout. ( 1 ) DHS Form 700-3, Contractor's Release (e.g., see (FAR) 48 CFR 52.216-7);
( 2 ) DHS Form 700-2, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits and Other amounts (e.g., see (FAR) 48 CFR 52.216-7);
( 3 ) DHS Form 700-1, Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation Statement (e.g., see (FAR) 48 CFR 4.804-5(a)(13)); and
( 4 ) DD Form 882, Report of Inventions and Subcontracts (e.g., see (FAR) 48 CFR 52.227-14).
( b ) The forms listed in this section (see (HSAR) 48 CFR part 3053) are used primarily for the closeout of cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts. The forms may also be used for closeout of other contract types to protect the Government's interest.
[71 FR 25768, May 2, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 50634, Aug. 22, 2012]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11349]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Cubism in Color: The Still Lifes of Juan Gris” at the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, at the Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-02469 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Margaret Montalto, Respondent, v. Church of Our Lady of Grace, Appellant.

Appeal, by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from a determination of said court, entered June 22, 1961 which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, in favor of plaintiff.

Memorandum by the Court. Determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, affirmed, with costs to respondent. The complaint in this action alleged that defendant negligently allowed a rug *“to*become worn, defective and unsafe” and plaintiff “was caused to fall and sustain serious injuries ”. Similar statements as to the condition of the rug were repeated in the bill of particulars. Upon the nonjury trial, a sharp issue of fact was presented as to whether plaintiff was caused to fall by catching her foot in a torn or broken hole in the rug or by slipping thereon. The one witness called by defendant denied there was any tear “ two inches long ” in the rug but volunteered that “the strings were beginning to go very slightly”. It is not clear whether the witness was referring to the warp or woof of the rug or the fringe thereon. In any event defense counsel had the rug in court and did not offer it in evidence. The proof presented a fair question of fact and we conclude that the finding of the trial court upon this issue was not contrary to the evidence or the law.

McNally, J. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote to reverse.

Plaintiff testified there was a rug inside of the front door of the rectory entrance; that as she entered her foot was caught by the rug and she fell; and that there was a two-inch tear in the rug.

The rectory cook testified that plaintiff immediately after the accident told her that as she entered the door of the rectory the rug slipped from under her and there was no tear in the rug.

The pictures of the rug involved show no tear. The bill of particulars does not allege a torn rug. No factual findings concerning negligence were made by the Trial Justice.

The testimony of another rectory employee was stipulated without conceding its truth to the effect that plaintiff “ put her right foot forward and then she moved her left foot, and in so doing the rug placed on the floor, around the area, began to slide from under her ”,

The accident happened October 31, 1957. On April 3, 1958 plaintiff signed a statement in which there was no mention of a torn rug. The statement is in accord with the testimony given by the cook and the concession as to the testimony of the other employee to the effect that plaintiff put her right foot onto the rug and that the rug slipped causing plaintiff to lose her balance.

Plaintiff failed to prove actionable negligence.

Valente, J. P., Stevens and Bastow, JJ., concur in Memorandum; McNally, J., dissents in opinion in which Steuer, J., concurs.

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, affirmed, with costs to respondent.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

y0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

141902 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141902 

 COA: 297654 

Macomb CC: 1976-000436-FY 

ARTHUR LEE BURGESS, 1976-000440-FY 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Jet Age Knitwear Machinery Corp., as Assignee of Morris Kaplan and Another, Respondent, v. Morris Philip, Individually and Doing business under the Name of Philip Knitting Mills, Appellant.

Order, entered on July 10,1964, denying defendant Philip’s motion to dismiss the complaint against “ Philip Knitting Mills ” and for alternative relief, unanimously modified, on the law, .to delete all directions from the order except the denial of the motion, and the order, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to any party. The motion must have been denied (or dismissed) because the alleged partnership was not a party to the action, was not named as a partnership entity in .the complaint, and the motion was not made by - it. It was not proper to amend the caption or the allegations of the pleading to include the partnership as a party. If plaintiff claims any rights against the partnership, he must first obtain leave of the court on proper papers to add the partnership as a party, amend the caption, add appropriate allegations in the pleading, and to serve or reserve a partner in that capacity. The description in the caption and complaint of defendant Philip as doing business under a certain style is not equivalent to including the partnership entity, although the style happens to coincide with the name of the partnership. In consequence, there is nothing in the caption or pleading which relates -to the partnership. Concur—-Breitel, J. P., Val ente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
44.303 Extent of review. A CPSR requires an evaluation of the contractor's purchasing system. Unless segregation of subcontracts is impracticable, this evaluation shall not include subcontracts awarded by the contractor exclusively in support of Government contracts that are competitively awarded firm-fixed-price, competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment, or awarded for commercial products and commercial services pursuant to part 12. The considerations listed in 44.202-2 for consent evaluation of particular subcontracts also shall be used to evaluate the contractor's purchasing system, including the contractor's policies, procedures, and performance under that system. Special attention shall be given to— ( a ) The results of market research accomplished;
( b ) The degree of price competition obtained;
( c ) Pricing policies and techniques, including methods of obtaining certified cost or pricing data, and data other than certified cost or pricing data;
( d ) Methods of evaluating subcontractor responsibility, including the contractor's use of the System for Award Management Exclusions (see 9.404) and, if the contractor has subcontracts with parties on the Exclusions list, the documentation, systems, and procedures the contractor has established to protect the Government's interests (see 9.405-2);
( e ) Treatment accorded affiliates and other concerns having close working arrangements with the contractor;
( f ) Policies and procedures pertaining to small business concerns, including small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
( g ) Planning, award, and postaward management of major subcontract programs;
( h ) Compliance with Cost Accounting Standards in awarding subcontracts;
( i ) Appropriateness of types of contracts used (see 16.103);
( j ) Management control systems, including internal audit procedures, to administer progress payments to subcontractors; and
( k ) Implementation of higher-level quality standards.
[48 FR 42388, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 9039, Mar. 20, 1987; 54 FR 19827, May 8, 1989; 60 FR 33066, June 26, 1995; 60 FR 48264, Sept. 18, 1995; 62 FR 12719, Mar. 17, 1997; 63 FR 70288, Dec. 18, 1998; 69 FR 76349, Dec. 20, 2004; 70 FR 14955, Mar. 23, 2005; 75 FR 34278, June 16, 2010; 75 FR 53150, Aug. 30, 2010; 78 FR 37680, June 21, 2013; 79 FR 70347, Nov. 25, 2014; 86 FR 61030, Nov. 4, 2021]
Designated Magistrate Judge

Sidney I. Schenkier

Senior Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Dated:Thursday, November 15, 2012

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

In the Matter of

Lorenzie Humphreys

v. Case No. 12-CV-4671

Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

FINDING OF RELATEDNESS PURSUANT TO

LOCAL RULE 40.4

 In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 40.4 of this Court, I find the above captioned

case, presently pending on the calendar of Judge Virginia M. Kendall to be related to 11 C

8987 which is pending on my calendar. Accordingly, I request that the Executive Committee

order said case to be reassigned to my calendar as a related case.

________________________________

Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012

Judge Charles P. Kocoras

ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned case be reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Charles P. Kocoras

ENTER

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

_____________________________________

Chief Judge James F. Holderman

District Reassignment - Finding of Relatedness
#### 410.002 Procedures.

Market research must include obtaining information on the commercial quality assurance practices as an alternative for Government inspection and testing prior to tender for acceptance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q -
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                        85
<INVENTORY>                                      8,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,656
<PP&E>                                          31,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,268
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,222
<SALES>                                         22,847
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,847
<CGS>                                           16,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                        51
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,494
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

October 27, 2016

Ken Wagner

Commissioner

Rhode Island Department of Education

255 Westminster St.

Providence, RI 02903 

Dear Dr. Wagner:

On August 30, 2016, a team from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) (the Department) conducted a 

desk monitoring of the Rhode Island Department of Education’s (RIDE) implementation of its approved 

Preschool Development Grant (PDG). This monitoring aims to continue the collaborative relationship that 

began at the grant award and development of the scope of work. It provides the Department with a deeper 

understanding of each State’s overall performance; the successes, challenges, and strategies for the 

implementation of its plans for its PDG Expansion grant; and the fiscal management of the grant funds. It 

also helps us tailor technical assistance to each State’s specific needs.

Enclosed is a summary report based upon this review. The report includes highlights of Rhode Island’s

implementation of PDG and a snapshot of Rhode Island’s progress under each PDG key area. This report 

will be posted on the PDG website. The report includes “next steps” to ensure that Rhode Island

implements PDG consistent with its approved application, scope of work, and timelines identified in its 

project plans.

We want to thank you and your staff for your efforts in providing high quality preschool opportunities 

through the Preschool Development Grant. We hope you will continue to communicate any needs or 

concerns to your ED project officer(s). 

We look forward to continuing our work with you and supporting Rhode Island’s technical assistance 

needs to ensure successful implementation of PDG. Thank you for your commitment to Rhode Island’s

youngest children.

Sincerely,

/s/

Libby Doggett

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Early Learning

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

U.S. Department of Education

Enclosure
#### 4.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures relating to the administrative aspects of contract execution, contractor-submitted paper documents, distribution, reporting, retention, and files.

[60 FR 28493, May 31, 1995]
- Program Office: 
      -  Office of Special Education Programs 
      - CFDA Number: 
      -  84.373 
      - Program Type:
      -  Cooperative Agreements, Discretionary/Competitive Grants 

----

Program Description

The purpose of this program is to improve the capacity of states to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (**IDEA**) data collection and reporting requirements. 

Under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, the Secretary has the authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B to provide technical assistance (TA) activities authorized under section 616(i). 

Section 616(i) requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of states to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of states to meet the data collection requirements under IDEA.
- 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

About EDOVERVIEW
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Home |
|                                                   |

**FY 2014Estimated Available Funds:  $250,000,000**

----

 

 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

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Mission |  |
|  |
|  | Priorities |  |
|  |
|  | Welcome to ED.gov |  |
|  |

----

*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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 84 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 84

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to 
   the 23d Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133d Signal Services 
 Company, known collectively as the ``Ghost Army'', in recognition of 
      unique and highly distinguished service during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2024

    Ms. Kuster (for herself and Ms. Maloy) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to 
   the 23d Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133d Signal Services 
 Company, known collectively as the ``Ghost Army'', in recognition of 
      unique and highly distinguished service during World War II.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY TO PRESENT 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO ``GHOST ARMY''.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on March 21, 2024, for a ceremony to present 
the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the 23d Headquarters 
Special Troops and the 3133d Signal Services Company, known 
collectively as the ``Ghost Army'', in recognition of unique and highly 
distinguished service during World War II.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eligio OJEDA-GONZALEZ, also known as Miguel Reynosos-Gonzalez, also known as Javier Dominguez-Arias, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50514

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Eligio Ojeda-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.