alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office	of	the	President California	State	University	San	Marcos 333 S.	Twin	Oaks	Valley	Road San	Marcos,	CA	92096

- 0001

Tel: 760.75 0.4040 Fax: 760.750.4033								pres @csusm.edu www.csusm.edu/ president

The	California	State	University

Bakersfield | Channel	Islands | Chico | Dominguez	Hills | East	Bay | Fresno | Fullerton | Humboldt | Long	Beach | Los	Angeles | Maritime	Academy

Monterey	Bay | Northridge | Pomona | Sacramento | San	Bernardino | San	Diego | San	Francisco | San	Jose | San	Luis	Obispo | San	Marcos | Sonoma | Stanislaus 

# March	22,	2012

The	Honorable	Ray	LaHood

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

Re:		Alaska	Airlines’	application	for	SAN

- DCA,	Docket	No.	DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0029.

Dear	Secretary	LaHood:

California	State	University	San	Marcos	(CSUSM)	fully	supports	the	applicat ion	of	Alaska

Airlines	for	air	service	between	San	Diego	and	Washington	Reagan	National	Airport	(DCA).

San	Diego	is	the	largest	region	without	direct	service	to	DCA.		Additionally,	due	to	the

profound	community	of	interest	between	San	Diego	and	the	nation ’s	capital,	the	region

generates	the	largest	passenger	market	demand	without	nonstop	service	to	the	convenient

and	close

- in	airport	serving	our	nation’s	capitol.

San	Diego’s	sheer	market	size	to	Washington	coupled	with	the	fact	that	San	Diego	to	Dulles

average	airfares	are	the	highest	of	west	coast	cities,	should	qualify	for	the	limited	slots

available	for	this	flight.		The	high	airfare	is	exacerbated	when	factoring	in	taxi	fares	from	Dulles

to	Washington’s	city	center	that	average	about	$60	each	way.		T his	means	travelers	between

Washington’s	city	center	and	San	Diego	via	Dulles	can	pay	on	average	close	to	$400	one

- way.

There	are	also	countless	other	San	Diego

- based	and	Washington

- based	businesses	that	are

engaged	in	health	science, telecommunications,	and	national	defense	that	need	quick	and

convenient	access	to	Reagan	National	Airport.		CSUSM	has	an	immediate	need	for	additional

nonstop	air	service	to	our	nation’s	capital.		Alaska	Airlines	service	would	add	a	needed	nonstop

option	t o	a	primary	gateway	to	Washington,	DC.		CSUSM	joins	with	the	San	Diego	County

Regional	Airport	Authority,	the	San	Diego	Regional	Economic	Development	Corporation,	the

World	Trade	Center	San	Diego,	and	the	San	Diego	Regional	Chamber	of	Commerce	in	support

o f	Alaska	Airlines’	application	for	San	Diego

– Washington	Reagan	National	slots.

# We	thank	the	Department	of	Transportation	for	the	opportunity	to	comment	on	the	above

referenced	docket	and	we	hope	to	hear	of	a	favorable	review	of	Alaska	Airlines’	San	D iego

– DCA	proposal	soon.

Sincerely,

Karen	S.	Haynes,	Ph.D.

President

KSH: af
#### Rubin Rosenberg and D. Rosenfield, appellants, v. Maurice Novick et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 31,029.

Action for services as real estate broker. Judgment ¡for defendants. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert E. Gentzel, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1926.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 5, 1926.

Aaron Soble, for appellants.

Miles J. Devine and John J. Devine, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court¶s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT¶S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

AF HOLDINGS, LLC v. PERRY MILOGLOU

2012-cv-05077

PERRY MILOGLOU

Nicholas C. Kefalos

Nicholas C. Kefalos

Vernor Moran, LLC

27 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2000

Chicago, Illinois 60606-2800

6270051 (312) 264-4460

✔

✔

✔

✔

Case: 1:12-cv-05077 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/27/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:98
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 164 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 164

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce 
       relating to ``Revision of Firearms License Requirements''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

  Mr. Green of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. McCaul, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. 
 Hudson, Mr. Guest, Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. 
  Bost, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. 
 Burchett, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Roy, 
Mr. Cloud, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Cline, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Griffith, 
  Mr. Harris, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. 
 Moore of Alabama, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Bishop of 
North Carolina, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Mooney, Mr. 
 Murphy, Mr. Norman, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Moore of Utah, Mr. Posey, 
 Mr. Grothman, Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Fry, Mr. Yakym, Mr. Tony 
Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Timmons, Ms. 
   Tenney, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Mann, Mrs. 
  Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Hern, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. 
Hinson, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Steube, Mr. Mills, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Massie, Mr. 
Ezell, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Scott Franklin 
of Florida, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Self, Mr. Barr, Mr. Carl, Mr. 
 Baird, Ms. Lee of Florida, Mr. Feenstra, and Mr. Babin) submitted the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce 
       relating to ``Revision of Firearms License Requirements''.

    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 Department of Commerce relating to ``Revision of 
Firearms License Requirements'' (89 Fed. Reg. 34680), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
35.017-3 Using an FFRDC. ( a ) All work placed with the FFRDC must be within the purpose, mission, general scope of effort, or special competency of the FFRDC.
( b ) Where the use of the FFRDC by a nonsponsor is permitted by the sponsor, the sponsor shall be responsible for compliance with paragraph (a) of this subsection. ( 1 ) The nonsponsoring agency shall provide the documentation required by 17.503(e) to the sponsoring agency.
( 2 ) When a D&F is required pursuant to 17.502-2(c), the nonsponsoring agency shall prepare the D&F and provide the documentation required by 17.503(e) to the sponsoring agency.
( 3 ) When permitted by the sponsor, a Federal agency may contract directly with the FFRDC, in which case that Federal agency is responsible for compliance with part 6.
[55 FR 3886, Feb. 5, 1990, as amended at 75 FR 77737, Dec. 13, 2010; 77 FR 186, Jan. 3, 2012; 84 FR 19838, May 6, 2019]
# / / '\ ,.,/

Dave Heineman Governor 

### STATE OF NEBRASKA OFFICE OF TIIE GOVERNOR P.O. Box 94848 • Unco!n, Nebraska 68509-4848 Phone: (402) 471-2244 • dave.heineman@nebraska.gov June 27, 2013

' Karl Brooks 

## RECEIVED Regional Administrator 

### JUN 272013 EPARegion VII 11201 Renner Boulevard 

### Gov·s r'olicy Research Lenexa, KS 66219 

### RE: PCE/TCENortheast Contamination Site PCE Southeast Contamination Site ProposedNPL Listing NDEQ ID: 999632 Prog ID: NED086369981 DearMr. Brooks: This is inresponse to your May 29, 2013 request for a written statement ofmy position relating to the proposal to list the PCE/TCE Northeast Contamination site and the PCE Southeast Contamination site, bothlocated in York, Nebraska, onthe SuperfundNational Priorities List. I concur with EPA's proposal to list these sites on the National Priorities List. My recommendations are based on written comments received by York Mayor Charles Harris, as well as the information that 

### has been supplied to me by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Based on this information and local recommendations, I agree that this listing is the appropriate approach to address this situation. I appreciate EPA's efforts to seek concurrence from the.state and from local officials before making the final decision regarding this listing. This is a significant issue that requires a coordinated and effective response. The State ofNebraska will continue to provide cooperative support to resolve this significantcontamination situationin York. Thankyou for your involvementinthis important issue. Sincerely,

# 9~ Dave Heineman Governor

AnEqual OpportunitJ!AffirmativeActionEmployer Printed with soyinkonrecycled paper
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

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

**Program Office:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education**CFDA Number:** 84.116M**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants

The **Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) Program** is a grant program designed to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer (including successful transfer of completed credits), credit accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to inclusive student success.

FIPSE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

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

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

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

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
86 So.2d 916

#### Paul C. WEILBAECHER, Jr. v. Emery JEE.

No. 42719.

March 26, 1956.

Milton H. Cohen, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Herman & Herman, A. I. Kleinfeldt, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment.

Plaintiff brought his action predicated on a written contract, wherein, it was agreed that he would receive one-third of the net proceeds of a certain contracting *819business conducted by defendant in this city. He prayed for an accounting and for a rule nisi, which would order the defendant to show cause why an expert should not be appointed to audit the books to determine the exact amount due plaintiff. In order to obtain this objective, he asked that the books be sequestered. This rule to sequester was made absolute, and the books were sequestered.

After hearing, the court issued the following order:

> “It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the rule be made absolute to the extent of ordering a Judicial Sequestration of all books, vouchers and records and that same be delivered to the Civil Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, until the further orders of this Court;

> “It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant be allowed thirty (30) Days to answer.”

The result of a judicial sequestration is to place thé property under the eye of the court, and in the instant case the court properly determined that such books be delivered to the Civil Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, until further orders of the court itself.

There is no impropriety in this motion. In fact, it is the court wisely exercising its discretion in the matter. In order to determine the merits of this cause, the books must be audited and an accounting made. Placing the books in the custody of the Sheriff gives a fair deal and equal opportunity to both parties. A slight discomfort might be caused defendant, but no permanent injury could be inflicted upon him.

See Articles 538 and 539 of the Louisiana Code of Practice.

In the cases of In re Byrne, 193 La. 566, 191 So. 729; Reeves v. Barbe, 200 La. 1073, 9 So.2d 426; Three Way Finance Co., Inc., v. McDonald, 213 La. 504, 35 So.2d 31, 32, we held:

> “* * * ‘The law does not favor the interrupting of judicial proceedings by appealing from interlocutory decrees. Hence comes the rule that an appeal is not allowed from such a decree unless it is one which may cause irreparable injury.’ * * *”

In the case of Ludwig v. Calloway, 191 La. 1000, 187 So. 4, 6, the district judge, ex proprio motu, rendered an interlocutory order judicially sequestering certain movable property. Such was appealed to> this Court, and we held:

> “To have allowed the defendant a suspensive appeal would have defeated one of the purposes of the suit, and by the court maintaining custody and possession of the property, the matter was kept status quo so that neither party would gain advantage over the other.”

The mandate of the law will be followed by a dismissal of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed, at appellant’s cost.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 516 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 122 

[Report No. 118–618] 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection relating to ‘‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2024 

Mr. BARR (for himself, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. POSEY, and 

Mr. SESSIONS) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JULY 30, 2024 

Additional sponsors: Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. WOMACK, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. NUNN of Iowa, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. HILL, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. FINSTAD, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. BABIN, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

ROSE, and Mr. LAWLER

JULY 30, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 

to ‘‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 122 RH 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu4 reau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Credit 

5 Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 19128; 

6 published March 15, 2024), and such rule shall have no 

7 force or effect. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 516 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 122 

[Report No. 118–618] 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chap-

(Regulation Z)’’. Protection relating to ‘‘Credit Card Penalty Fees submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

JULY 30, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2020371EN.01000101.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/1

---

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

(2020/C 371/01)

Last publication

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020

Past publications

OJ C 348, 19.10.2020

OJ C 339, 12.10.2020

OJ C 329, 5.10.2020

OJ C 320, 28.9.2020

OJ C 313, 21.9.2020

OJ C 304, 14.9.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Integrative and Clinical Endocrinology and Reproduction Study Section, 
February 18, 2021, 09:00 a.m. to February 19, 2021, 07:00 p.m., 
National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on 
January 22, 2021, 86 FR 6659.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting date from 2/18/
2021--2/19/2021 to 2/18/2021. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 2, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02492 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2017063EN.01000101.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

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 063/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017

OJ C 38, 6.2.2017

OJ C 30, 30.1.2017

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017

OJ C 14, 16.1.2017

OJ C 6, 9.1.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### 332.703 Contract funding requirements.
#### Veronica B. Cinelli, Appellant, v M. Barnett Gillman, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) (And Another Action.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 18, 1978, denying plaintiff’s motion for consolidation, reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and motion for consolidation granted. This is a motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (subd [a]) to consolidate two libel actions. The first action was commenced in 1974 in *855Nassau County, and the second in 1976 in New. York County. Although the actions are based on letters written by the defendant at different times, it is apparent that both letters presented an adverse evaluation of how the plaintiff did business as a medical and surgical specialist plan and her treatment of the defendant, a dentist, in that capacity. CPLR 602 (subd [a]) provides in pertinent part that the court may consolidate actions where they involve "a common question of law or fact.” These two actions clearly present common questions of law and fact. Moreover, the separate trial of both would require a very substantial duplication of evidence. Nor is there any support in the record for the claim that a consolidation would in some way prejudice the defendant. Under all the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion to consolidate. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
# C_2020240EN.01000101.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/1

---

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

(2020/C 240/01)

Last publication

OJ C 230, 13.7.2020

Past publications

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020

OJ C 191, 8.6.2020

OJ C 175, 25.5.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### In the Matter of Donald Murray, Petitioner, v. Thomas M. Stark, as County Judge of Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, commenced in this court pursuant to CPLR 506: (a) to review and annul the determinations of the respondents, the County Judge, a Police Captain and the District Attorney of Suffolk County, recommending the revocation of, and revoking, petitioner’s pistol license and firearms dealer’s license; and (b) to direct the reinstatement of such licenses. Amended petition dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any. of the respondents (cf. *Matter of Murray*v. *Stark,*21 A D 2d 697). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.