alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

INGENUITY13 LLC, )

) CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-04238

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Judge: Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon

) Magistrate: Hon. Young B. Kim

JOHN DOE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF A CERTAIN DOE DEFENDANT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1),

Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all causes of action in this complaint against

the Doe Defendant associated with Internet Protocol addresses 98.213.201.117. This Doe

Defendant has neither filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor a motion for summary

judgment with respect to the same. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is

therefore appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 30, 2012

INGENUITY13 LLC,

By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

Prenda Law Inc.

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 880-9160

Facsimile: (312) 893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-04238 Document #: 13 Filed: 07/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:76
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates Program (EDGE)      

# Resource: Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates Program (EDGE)

NCES’s Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates program (EDGE) makes postsecondary school location data available through these data tools and web services: 
                  -  Geographic data homepage - This tool offers raw data files containing the coordinate points and other geospatial characteristics of postsecondary institutions.  
                  -  Open Data Site - This service allows users to view postsecondary institutions on a map of the United States, add the postsecondary institution data layer to existing maps, or download individual components of the data layer.  
                  -  Locale Lookup tool - This tool allows users to search for postsecondary schools and view them in the context of the NCES locale boundaries, a 12-category classification of cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas.  

**Learn more.**
406.302-70 Otherwise authorized by law. ( a ) *Authority.* Section 1472 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to award contracts, without competition, to further research, extension, or teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences.
( b ) *Limitations.* The use of this authority is limited to those instances where it can be determined that contracting without full and open competition is in the best interest of the Government and necessary to the accomplishment of the research, extension, or teaching program. Therefore: ( 1 ) Contracts under the authority of the Act shall be awarded on a competitive basis to the maximum practicable extent.
( 2 ) When full and open competition is not deemed appropriate, the contracting officer shall make a written justification on a case-by-case basis in accordance with procedures in FAR 6.303 and 6.304.
# Exhibit 4Charles T. Wehland/JonesDay Extension 312 269 4388 (54388) 11/17/2009 11:33 AM To smith.suzanne@epa.gov
cc bcc Subject Fw: OG&E BART Presentation
Suzanne, Thanks for meeting with OG&E earlier this month. The message that I sent to Joe with a copy of the presentation is attached. We asked Joe for a reference to the FLM study that he mentioned during the meeting, but we have not had a response. It would be useful to have the information because OG&E is meeting with the FLM on Dec. 7. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide with this.

* * * Chuck Wehland - 312 269 4388 * * * ----- Forwarded by Charles T. Wehland/JonesDay on 11/17/2009 10:30 AM ----- Charles T. Wehland/JonesDay Extension 312 269 4388 (54388) 11/03/2009 04:12 PM To kordzi. j oe@epa.gov
cc shoopkl@oge.com, "David Branecky" <branecda@oge.com>, brockmcd@oge.com, paul.r.predick@sargentlundy.com Subject OG&E BART Presentation

Joe, An electronic copy of the presentation made at the meeting today on the OG&E regional haze proposal and BART determination is attached. We appreciated the open exchange of information at the meeting. During the meeting, you mentioned a FLM study that indicated an average SO2 cost effectiveness of $2,600 per ton. Can you give me a reference to where we can find that study? We will be in touch as we work through the process of gathering additional information for DEQ. Please do not hesitate to let any of us know if there is information that EPA believes would be helpful. Thank you.

* * * Chuck Wehland - 312 269 4388 * * *

========== This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.==========

========== This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.

==========
#### BLANCK, Respondent, v. PRESTON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action bj Mary Ann Blanck against Charles M. Preston as receiver of the New York Building Loar Banking Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment reversed, anc R new trial granted, costs to abide the fina award of costs, upon the authority of Prestoi v. Reinhart 'decided December 29, 1905) 96 N Y. Supp. 851.

HOOKER, J.,

dissents.
#### In the Matter of Donald S. Gover et al., Appellants, v Armand A. Granito et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead denying petitioners’ application for a variance, *inter alia,*permitting construction of a one-family dwelling on a parcel of land having less *730than the 40-foot street frontage required by the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Hempstead, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 7, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Prior to the enactment of the applicable zoning ordinance, petitioners owned the lot in question with frontage of 16.57 feet on Lawrence Place and an adjoining parcel with frontage of 75 feet on Old Mill Road. In 1975, petitioners sold the adjoining parcel, but retained the lot in question, resulting in the violation of section G-9.0 of article 14 of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Hemp-stead, which prohibits the subdivision of property so as to create one or more substandard plots. Petitoners do not allege what market value the lot in question would have had had it been sold along with the adjoining parcel. Therefore, there is no evidence that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory as applied to this case. It is also noted that petitioners’ hardship was self-created which was another factor to be considered in denying the variance (see *Matter of Cherry Hill Homes v Barbiere,*28 NY2d 381). Furthermore, the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the lot in question did not comply with subdivision 5 of section 280-a of the Town Law was based upon substantial evidence. Damiani, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16816

Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-20301-CR-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

KEVIN RIVERO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(February 28, 2007)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Rivero appeals his conviction and sentence of 27 months for
2

knowingly and willfully receiving a firearm while under information for a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(n). Having reviewed the record and considered the briefs and oral

argument of counsel, we find no reversible error.

First, Rivero’s argument that the government’s prosecution under 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(n) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is foreclosed

by our reading of United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir. 1997).

Second, we reject Rivero’s argument that the word “receive” in 18 U.S.C. § 922(n)

is unconstitutionally vague, finding that it gives ordinary persons clear notice of

what is prohibited therein. Third, we find no merit to Rivero’s argument that the

indictment failed to adequately state the offense when it alleged only that Rivero

had been “previously charged by indictment” instead of alleging that Rivero 

was “under” indictment when he received the firearm at issue. The indictment

expressly refers to the statutory provisions on which the charges were based and

the date of the incident in question, and, accordingly, provides notice to Rivero of

the charges he faced and would preclude any subsequent prosecution for the same

offense. See United States v. Fern, 155 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 1998). 

With reference to asserted errors at trial, after a review of the trial record, we

cannot say that the trial judge abused its discretion when it admitted testimony that
3

Rivero impersonated a police officer. Nor can we say that there was an

impermissible variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof at

trial simply because the jury asked a question pertaining to Rivero’s firearm rentals

on a different day than that of the charged conduct. Finally, we find the

government presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Rivero was guilty

of the charged conduct.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2018454EN.01000301.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 December 2018

(2018/C 454/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1285 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4656 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89835 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2610 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1254 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7235 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,794 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 323,93 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2974 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6558 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,0799 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5753 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5095 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8168 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6613 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5534 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 280,17 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2186 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7880 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3905 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 499,62 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7243 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,980 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,2265 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,026 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4129 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0211 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,2250 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1285

JPY

Japanese yen

128,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4656

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89835

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2610

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1254

ISK

Iceland króna

140,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7235

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,794

HUF

Hungarian forint

323,93

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2974

RON

Romanian leu

4,6558

TRY

Turkish lira

6,0799

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5753

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5095

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8168

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6613

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5534

KRW

South Korean won

1 280,17

ZAR

South African rand

16,2186

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7880

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3905

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 499,62

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7243

PHP

Philippine peso

59,980

RUB

Russian rouble

75,2265

THB

Thai baht

37,026

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4129

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0211

INR

Indian rupee

81,2250

---

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

---
Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New JerseyReviewer 1

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New JerseyReviewer 2

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New JerseyReviewer 3

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

# _1479579931.unknown

# _1479579932.unknown

# _1479579930.unknown
3046.791-1 Policy (USCG). The USCG shall include a warranty in all contracts for major systems acquisitions. When drafting warranty provisions/clauses for major systems acquisitions, the contracting officer shall ensure that the items listed at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3046.706 have been considered. The warranty shall also meet the following requirements: ( a ) For systems or components which are commercially available, such warranty as is normally provided by the manufacturer or supplier shall be obtained in accordance with (FAR) 48 CFR 46.703(d) and (FAR) 48 CFR 46.710(b)(2).
( b ) For systems or components provided in accordance with either design and manufacturing or performance requirements as specified in the contract or any modification to that contract, a warranty of compliance with the stated requirements shall be obtained.
( c ) The warranty provided under paragraph (b) of this section shall provide that in the event the major system or any component thereof fails to meet the terms of the warranty provided, the contracting officer may: ( 1 ) Require the contractor to promptly take such corrective action as the contracting officer determines to be necessary at no additional cost to the Government, including repairing or replacing all parts necessary to achieve the requirements set forth in the contract;
( 2 ) Require the contractor to pay costs reasonably incurred by the United States in taking necessary corrective action; or
( 3 ) Equitably reduce the contract price.
( d ) Any warranty shall specifically exclude coverage of combat damage.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7153

LUKE ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-912-1) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luke Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Luke Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), but construed by the district court as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We find that the district court properly construed Allen’s motion as one filed under § 2255. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
4.804-1 Closeout by the office administering the contract. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, time standards for closing out contract files are as follows: ( 1 ) Files for contracts using simplified acquisition procedures should be considered closed when the contracting officer receives evidence of receipt of property and final payment, unless otherwise specified by agency regulations.
( 2 ) Files for firm-fixed-price contracts, other than those using simplified acquisition procedures, should be closed within 6 months after the date on which the contracting officer receives evidence of physical completion.
( 3 ) Files for contracts requiring settlement of indirect cost rates should be closed within 36 months of the month in which the contracting officer receives evidence of physical completion.
( 4 ) Files for all other contracts should be closed within 20 months of the month in which the contracting officer receives evidence of physical completion.
( b ) When closing out the contract files at 4.804-1(a)(2), (3), and (4), the contracting officer shall use the closeout procedures at 4.804-5. However, these closeout actions may be modified to reflect the extent of administration that has been performed. Quick closeout procedures (see 42.708) should be used, when appropriate, to reduce administrative costs and to enable deobligation of excess funds.
( c ) A contract file shall not be closed if— ( 1 ) The contract is in litigation or under appeal; or
( 2 ) In the case of a termination, all termination actions have not been completed.
[48 FR 42113, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 34752, Aug. 21, 1989; 60 FR 34746, July 3, 1995; 84 FR 19841, May 6, 2019]