alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Loretta G. White, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent. *1016Loretta G. White, Appellant, v Bernard T. Waldron, Respondent.

— Appeals from (1) an order of the Court of Claims, entered January 26, 1978, which denied a motion by claimant for permission to file a late claim, and (2) an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 12, 1978 in Schenectady County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Bernard T. Waldron. We are concerned with two separate appeals but are considering them together since they arise out of the same incident. On June 18, 1977, appellant was arraigned in Schenectady Police Court on a charge of petit larceny. She was released on her own recognizance. While this charge was still pending, she was arraigned for forgery in the second degree, and remanded to the custody of the County Sheriff. Since she was pregnant and experiencing some difficulty, the County Court Judge released her on her own recognizance. On August 22, 1977, she again appeared in Police Court and, although the Justice was aware of the County Court Judge’s release order, he ordered appellant into the custody of the Sheriff on the petit larceny charge. She spent nine days in jail before being released on bail. Appellant commenced an action against the Schenectady County Sheriff for false arrest. Special Term granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In the other action, the Court of Claims denied appellant permission to file a late notice of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. These appeals ensued. As to the Supreme Court action, Police Court had jurisdiction over both appellant and the subject matter. The legal process was valid on its face. The Sheriff, therefore, properly carried out the order of Police Court. The order should be affirmed *(Schildhaus v City of New York, 7*Mise 2d 859, mod as to damages 10 AD2d 566, affd 8 NY2d 1108). The second order is a discretionary one and we should not disturb it unless there is an abuse of discretion *(Hogan v Franken,*221 App Div 164; see, also, 11 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 72:131, p 299). Considering the record in its entirety, we are of the view that appellant does not allege a meritorious cause of action. The Police Court Judge of the City of Schenectady is not a State officer within the meaning of the Court of Claims Act (Court of Claims Act, § 9, subd 2; Public Officers Law, §2). Consequently, the State cannot be held liable for any tortious acts on his part nor can the State be held liable because the Sheriff obeyed a court order and confined appellant to jail *(Rossman v State of New York,*40 AD2d 1046). Orders affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### 252.227-7026 Deferred delivery of technical data or computer software.

As prescribed at 227.7103-8(a), use the following clause:

# Deferred Delivery of Technical Data or Computer Software (APR 1988)

The Government shall have the right to require, at any time during the performance of this contract, within two (2) years after either acceptance of all items (other than data or computer software) to be delivered under this contract or termination of this contract, whichever is later, delivery of any technical data or computer software item identified in this contract as “deferred delivery” data or computer software. The obligation to furnish such technical data required to be prepared by a subcontractor and pertaining to an item obtained from him shall expire two (2) years after the date Contractor accepts the last delivery of that item from that subcontractor for use in performing this contract.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 33505, June 28, 1995]
<PAGE>


                                                                        Page 22

EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cato Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 1, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Derham Cato, President, Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Date:  December 15, 2003


/s/ John P. Derham Cato
------------------------------------------------
John P. Derham Cato
President, Vice Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to The Cato Corporation and will be
retained by The Cato Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
3009.570-2 Policy. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, under 6 U.S.C. 396, no entity performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system (See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3002.101) by DHS may have any direct financial interest in the development or construction of any individual system or element of any system of systems under the program in which the entity is performing lead system integrator functions.
( b ) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply if— ( 1 ) The Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate that— ( i ) The entity was selected by DHS as a contractor to develop or construct the system or element concerned through the use of competitive procedures, and
( ii ) DHS took appropriate steps to prevent any organizational conflict of interest in the selection process; or
( 2 ) The entity was selected by a subcontractor to serve as a lower-tier subcontractor, through a process over which the entity exercised no control.
( c ) CONSTRUCTION—Nothing in this section 3009.570 shall be construed to preclude an entity described in paragraph (a) of this subsection from performing work necessary to integrate two or more individual systems or elements of a system of systems with each other.
[75 FR 41099, July 15, 2010]
# C_2020002EN.01000101.xml

| 6.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

0,00 % on 1 January 2020

Euro exchange rates (2)

3 January 2020

(2020/C 2/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1147 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,54 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85115 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4858 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0840 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 136,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8315 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,360 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 330,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2493 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7784 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,6587 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6031 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4471 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6713 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6718 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5047 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 300,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9222 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7712 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4463 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 536,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5725 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,983 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,1190 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,614 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5271 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1433 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,0085 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1147

JPY

Japanese yen

120,54

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85115

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4858

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0840

ISK

Iceland króna

136,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8315

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,360

HUF

Hungarian forint

330,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2493

RON

Romanian leu

4,7784

TRY

Turkish lira

6,6587

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6031

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4471

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6713

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6718

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5047

KRW

South Korean won

1 300,32

ZAR

South African rand

15,9222

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7712

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4463

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 536,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5725

PHP

Philippine peso

56,983

RUB

Russian rouble

69,1190

THB

Thai baht

33,614

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5271

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1433

INR

Indian rupee

80,0085

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

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

---
# C_2019410EN.01000901.xml

| 6.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 December 2019

(2019/C 410/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1094 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4716 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5418 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0964 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 134,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1613 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,526 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 330,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2753 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7785 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,3845 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6251 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4610 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6853 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6997 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5103 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 320,69 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2774 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8125 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4390 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 603,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6256 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,402 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,7798 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,676 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,6794 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4895 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,0195 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1094

JPY

Japanese yen

120,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4716

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84470

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5418

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0964

ISK

Iceland króna

134,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1613

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,526

HUF

Hungarian forint

330,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2753

RON

Romanian leu

4,7785

TRY

Turkish lira

6,3845

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6251

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4610

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6853

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6997

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5103

KRW

South Korean won

1 320,69

ZAR

South African rand

16,2774

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8125

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4390

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 603,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6256

PHP

Philippine peso

56,402

RUB

Russian rouble

70,7798

THB

Thai baht

33,676

BRL

Brazilian real

4,6794

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4895

INR

Indian rupee

79,0195

---

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

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Butts, Appellant.

— Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered June 24, 1977, convicting defendant of robbery, third degree, and kidnapping, second degree, and imposing concurrent indeterminate sentences of up to seven years’ imprisonment, held in abeyance pending the filing of supplemental briefs addressed to the issue of the possible excessiveness of sentence. Appellant’s counsel is to serve and file his brief on or before February 5,1979; respondent’s supplemental brief is to be served and filed on or before February 20, 1979. Counsel, assigned by this court to represent the defendant on appeal, has resorted to the procedure of *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833), and has moved to be relieved of his assignment. Yet, he argues that the sentence imposed upon appellant was excessive. Such an argument defeats counsel’s application to withdraw *(People v Shaw,*59 AD2d 873; see, also, *People v Rowner,*61 AD2d 740) and demonstrates that this appeal is not wholly frivolous. *(Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, supra.)*Indeed, without our prejudging it, counsel seems correct in raising the issue and should have proceeded with his advocacy on that point. We, therefore, hold the appeal in abeyance in order to give both sides a full opportunity to litigate the issue of the possible excessiveness of the sentence. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Sandler, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-11029

Summary Calendar

Ignacio Salcido, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Eric Wilson, Warden; Fort Worth FMC; Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP), 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-254

Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and concerning Federal Medical 

Center Fort Worth, by Ignacio Salcido, federal prisoner # 88965-051 and 

proceeding pro se, was dismissed with prejudice as moot, frivolous, and for 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-11029 Document: 00516323960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
No. 21-11029

2

failure to state a claim. Salcido appears to challenge only the dismissal for 

mootness. (To the extent that Salcido raises new challenges for the first time 

regarding conditions at another prison where he is now confined, or requests 

release to home confinement, our court will not consider them. See Leverette 

v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to 

consider challenge raised for first time on appeal).) 

Questions of jurisdiction, including mootness, are, of course,

reviewed de novo. Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792, 798 (5th Cir. 2018). Salcido 

fails to show the district court erred in concluding: his amended complaint 

sought only declaratory and injunctive relief related to conditions at Federal 

Medical Center Fort Worth; and, therefore, his claims became moot when 

he was transferred to another prison. E.g., Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 

776 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding claim for injunctive relief moot after defendant 

transferred to different facility); Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 

307, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (concluding facility transfer mooted declaratory and 

injunctive-relief claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq). 

Salcido’s complaint, however, should have been dismissed without 

prejudice, based solely on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. E.g., Cinel v. 

Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1994) (dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction and modifying judgment to reflect claims dismissed 

without prejudice); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) 

(“Dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim is a decision on the 

merits and essentially ends the plaintiff’s lawsuit, whereas a dismissal on 

jurisdictional grounds alone is not on the merits and permits the plaintiff to 

pursue his claim in the same or in another forum.”). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED AS 

MODIFIED, to reflect dismissal without prejudice. 

Case: 21-11029 Document: 00516323960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 195 

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 ‘‘Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Use of Digital 

User Accounts to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2024 

Mr. DONALDS (for himself and Mr. HILL) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

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 ‘‘Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Use of Digital 

User Accounts to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans’’. 

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 ‘‘Truth 

5 in Lending (Regulation Z); Use of Digital User Accounts 

6 to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 195 IH 

1 47068; published May 31, 2024), and such rule shall have 

2 no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4.702 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to records generated under contracts that contain one of the following clauses: ( 1 ) Audit and Records—Sealed Bidding (52.214-26).
( 2 ) Audit and Records—Negotiation (52.215-2).
( b ) This subpart is not mandatory on Department of Energy contracts for which the Comptroller General allows alternative records retention periods. Apart from this exception, this subpart applies to record retention periods under contracts that are subject to 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (10 U.S.C. 3064) and 10 U.S.C. 3016 and chapter 203 or 40 U.S.C. 101, *et seq.*
[48 FR 42113, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1727, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 60 FR 42650, Aug. 16, 1995; 60 FR 48211, Sept. 18, 1995; 62 FR 258, Jan. 2, 1997; 70 FR 57454, Sept. 30, 2005; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1, 2022]
36.602-1 Selection criteria. ( a ) Agencies shall evaluate each potential contractor in terms of its— ( 1 ) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;
( 2 ) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials;
( 3 ) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;
( 4 ) Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules;
( 5 ) Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project; *provided,* that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project; and
( 6 ) Acceptability under other appropriate evaluation criteria.
( b ) When the use of design competition is approved by the agency head or a designee, agencies may evaluate firms on the basis of their conceptual design of the project. Design competition may be used when— ( 1 ) Unique situations exist involving prestige projects, such as the design of memorials and structures of unusual national significance;
( 2 ) Sufficient time is available for the production and evaluation of conceptual designs; and
( 3 ) The design competition, with its costs, will substantially benefit the project.
[48 FR 42356, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 28498, May 31, 1995; 62 FR 44812, Aug. 22, 1997; 62 FR 51379, Oct. 1, 1997]
Exhibit
32.3








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF


CENTRAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY


(required
by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)








In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008 of Central Illinois Public Service Company (the “Registrant”) as filed
by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.










Date:  May 8,
2008










/s/ Scott A.
Cisel


Scott A.
Cisel


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)











/s/ Warner L.
Baxter


Warner L.
Baxter


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)