alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Corporation for National and Community Service

Board of Directors

Resolution

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh served honorably, and with distinction, in the U.S.

Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps for 27 years, providing outstanding support to the 

United States Army and to our nation, at home and abroad; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh served in numerous leadership positions with the 

General Counsel’s Office for the District of Columbia from 2000 until 2010, including 

his service as Chief of the Defensive Litigation Division from 2000 until 2004, and then, 

as Legal Counsel to the Department of Health and Board of Medicine from 2004 until 

2010; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh joined the Office of General Counsel for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) as Associate General Counsel 

in April 2010, and has served with distinction as Legal Counsel to several CNCS 

departments since that time; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh has served as Counsel to the CNCS Board of Directors 

since 2010, and has provided wise and timely legal advice to the Board and senior staff 

throughout his tenure at CNCS; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh adeptly served from 2010 until 2012 as Legal Counsel 

to the White House Council for Community Solutions, a presidentially-appointed body of 

distinguished Americans, charged with seeking out practical solutions to various 

challenges facing communities in America; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh successfully coordinated and achieved a long-term 

CNCS goal of registering and protecting important agency service marks with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh provided outstanding legal support and expert 

guidance to several CNCS programs, including AmeriCorps VISTA, Research and 

Evaluation, and the Office of External Affairs; and 

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh is always willing to contribute to the Office of General 

Counsel and CNCS by taking on any duties asked of him, as evidenced by him assuming 

the duties of the Deputy Ethics Official, and then, the duties of the Designated Agency 
Ethics Official for a six-month period, when a vacancy suddenly occurred for this

important and extremely nuanced position; and

WHEREAS, John C. Greenhaugh has actively supported volunteer causes and activities 

in both his professional and personal life, and has unselfishly chosen to make a 

meaningful difference in the lives of numerous individuals who needed both physical and 

emotional encouragement, as many of them faced almost insurmountable challenges in 

their personal lives; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, this 19th day of September, 2018, that the Board of 

Directors for the Corporation for National and Community Service expresses its deep

appreciation and utmost respect for John C. Greenhaugh’s 45 years of legal practice and 

public service to our nation.

Shamina Singh

Chairwoman

Resolution 2018-04
#### § 102-75.1055 What is the policy governing delegations of real property disposal authority to the Secretary of Defense?

GSA delegates to the Secretary of Defense the authority to determine that Federal agencies do not need Department of Defense controlled excess real property and related personal property having a total estimated fair market value, including all the component units of the property, of less than $50,000; and to dispose of the property by means deemed most advantageous to the United States.
No. 11-9182.

#### Gomez *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
S89G0520.

#### QUINONES v. MAIER & BERKELE, INC. et al.

(390 SE2d 594)

Decided February 21, 1990

Reconsideration denied March 12, 1990.

*Robert M. Goldberg, Michael E. Bergin,*for appellant.

*Norton, Pennington, Goetz & Cronkright, Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Lamar, Archer & Coffin, David W. Davenport, Douglas R. Sandberg,*for appellees.

Per curiam.

We granted certiorari in this case on the questions of whether the allegedly defamatory information was published and whether a police officer is “on duty” while providing security services to a private company. The issue of public gravity involved in this case is whether a private employer, by retaining an off-duty police officer as a security guard, may acquire for itself the same immunity from liability for the police officer’s actions that is accorded to public agencies and to public officers.

After plenary review of the record in this case, we have determined that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and hereby vacate the writ.

*Writ of certiorari vacated.*

*All the Justices concur, except Ben-ham, J., not participating.*
§ 302-8.104 What are the allowable costs for storage? Allowable costs for storage include the cost of: ( a ) Necessary packing;
( b ) Crating;
( c ) Unpacking;
( d ) Uncrating;
( e ) Transportation to and from place of storage;
( f ) Charges while in storage; and
( g ) Other necessary charges directly relating to the storage as approved by your agency.
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

May 30, 2014

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

For Salt Lake City-Mexico City Service

Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0040

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta additionally seeks a statement of authorization, pursuant to 14

C.F.R. Part 212, to permit Delta to display Aeromexico’s “AM*” designator code on flights

operated by Delta in this market, if prior relied upon authorizations have expired. 

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2599

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:11-cv-00555-SGB, Senior Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: October 12, 2018

______________________ 

PAUL JAMES HOGAN, JR., Hogan and Associates, Canton, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR., CHAD A. READLER. 

 ______________________ 
2 RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. UNITED STATES

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

RDA Construction Corp. (“RDA”) appeals from the 

United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision denying 

RDA’s claims stemming from a contract with the United 

States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (“the government”) for reconstruction 

of certain structures at the Newport, Rhode Island Naval 

Station. RDA Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 

732 (2017). Specifically, RDA appeals the Claims Court’s 

denial of RDA’s superior knowledge, cardinal change, 

differing site conditions, and time extension claims as 

well as its decision upholding the government’s termination of the contract and granting the government 

$2,208,204.01 in liquidated damages.

After fully reviewing and considering the parties’ arguments, we conclude that RDA’s challenges are to the 

Claims Court’s factual findings, not to its procedures or 

legal conclusions. Indeed, RDA’s counsel conceded as 

much at oral argument. Oral Arg. at 6:17–6:59, available 

at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=

20-17-2599.mp3. Accordingly, we may only reverse the 

judgment on appeal if we conclude that the Claims 

Court’s findings were clearly erroneous. See McDonnell 

Douglas Corp. v. United States, 323 F.3d 1006, 1012 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not disturb the trial court’s factual 

findings . . . unless they are clearly erroneous.”). After a 

careful examination of the Claims Court’s factual findings 

and conclusions drawn from those findings and a review 

of the detailed record upon which they were based, we 

find no clear error warranting reversal. To be sure, there 

was evidence proffered by RDA in support of its position 

on each relevant point. But it was the Claims Court’s role 

to assess and weigh all the evidence in the first instance.
RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. UNITED STATES 3

For these reasons, and those expressed in more detail 

in the Claims Court’s opinion, we affirm the Claims 

Court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED

Costs

No costs.
No. 10-11201.

#### Gricco *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 596

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain types of mail

matter from being sent by a Member of the House of Representatives

as part of a mass mailing.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. LAHOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain

types of mail matter from being sent by a Member of

the House of Representatives as part of a mass mailing.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3210(a) of title 39,

5 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

6 following:
2

HR 596 IH

1 ‘‘(8) A Member of the House of Representatives may

2 not send, as part of a mass mailing, any matter described

3 in subparagraph (B), (C), or (F) of paragraph (3).’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to mail sent during

6 any session of Congress beginning after the date of the

7 enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-33094, 333-65968, 333-97249, 333-103768, 333-107727, 333-149828, 333-155527, 333-170716, 333-175852 and 333-184558) and form F-3 (No. 333-182769) of
National Grid plc of our report dated May 21, 2014 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                              
|------------------------------
|                              
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|London, UK                    
|June 5, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-02-1997
<CASH>                                       6,440,000
<SECURITIES>                                15,794,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  999,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 15,839,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,889,000
<PP&E>                                       3,418,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,287,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,384,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,584,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,179,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,384,000
<SALES>                                     88,104,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            88,104,000
<CGS>                                       67,344,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               67,344,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,700,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,991,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,584,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Submitted on remand September 27,

affirmed November 2, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*IVY FRANCINE CONGER, *Appellant.*

(90-01-1676-C; CA A72340)

883 P2d 1338

David E. Groom, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Charles S. Crook-ham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*264PER CURIAM

This case was remanded to us to consider defendant’s remaining two assignments of error, following the Supreme Court’s reversal of our disposition of defendant’s first assignment of error. *State v. Conger,*319 Or 484, 878 P2d 1089 (1994). We have considered those assignments and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

 

** AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of American Science &Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to theundersigned’s knowledge:

 

*1      *the Company’sReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (“10-Q”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

*2.*      the information contained in the Company’s 10-Q being filedfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

* *
| Date:  February 11, 2008 | /s/ Anthony R. Fabiano                 |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Anthony R. Fabiano                     |   |
|                          | President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. and will beretained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Forecasters handbook forextreme southwestern California based on short term climatologicalapproximations [electronic resource] /**
 
Parts: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2:NWS WR-277
Item Number:0208-C-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000674260
 
August 28, 2019
No. 10-11105.

#### Vasquez Ruiz *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 301-11.18 What M&IE rate will I receive if a meal(s) is furnished by the Government or is included in the registration fee? ( a ) Except as provided in § 301-11.17 or in paragraph (b) of this section, your M&IE allowance must be adjusted for meals furnished to you by the Government (including meals furnished under the authority of chapter 304 of this title) by deducting the appropriate amount shown at *https://www.gsa.gov/mie*. For meals provided on the day of departure and the last day of travel, you must deduct the entire allocated meal cost from the decreased M&IE rate (see § 301-11.101). The total amount of deductions made will not cause you to receive less than the amount allowed for incidental expenses.
( b ) Your agency, at its discretion, may allow you to claim the full M&IE allowance if: ( 1 ) You are unable to consume the furnished meal(s) because of medical requirements or religious beliefs;
( 2 ) In accordance with administrative procedures prescribed by your agency, you requested specific approval to claim the full M&IE allowance prior to your travel;
( 3 ) In accordance with administrative procedures prescribed by your agency, you have made a reasonable effort to make alternative meal arrangements, but were unable to do so; and
( 4 ) You purchase substitute meals in order to satisfy your medical requirements or religious beliefs.
( c ) In your agency's discretion, and in accordance with administrative procedures prescribed by your agency, you may also claim the full M&IE allowance if you were unable to take part in a Government-furnished meal due to the conduct of official business.
[FTR Amdt. 2009-03, 74 FR 16328, Apr. 10, 2009; 74 FR 17437, Apr. 15, 2009, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2009-07, 74 FR 54912, Oct. 26, 2009; FTR Amdt. 2011-03, 76 FR 55275, Sept. 7, 2011; FTR Amdt. 2015-05, 80 FR 45086, July 29, 2015; FTR Amdt. 2018-01, 83 FR 30078, June 27, 2018; 85 FR 39848, July 2, 2020]
No. 10-11255.

#### Easley *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S‐3 (No. 333-210819) and S‐8 (No. 333-190412, No. 333-175912, No. 333-135416, No. 333-129748, No. 333-100628, No. 333-84485, and No. 333-72967) of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. of our report  dated March 30, 2017 relating to the financial statements of AQR Capital Management Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries, which appears in this Form 10‐K/A.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York


March 30, 2017
§ 302-4.704 Must we require a minimum driving distance per day? Yes, you must establish a minimum driving distance not less than an average of 300 miles per day. However, an exception to the daily minimum driving distance may be made when the delay is: ( a ) Beyond control of the employee, *e.g.,* results from acts of God or restrictions by Government authorities;
( b ) Due to a disability or special need; or
( c ) Due to vehicle range capability and fueling availability limitations of the employee's alternative fuel POV; or
( d ) For other pre authorized exceptions.
[FTR Case 2022-03, 89 FR 20859, Mar. 26, 2024]
#### § 60-20.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to set forth specific requirements that covered Federal Government contractors and subcontractors, including those performing work under federally assisted construction contracts (“contractors”),[1] must meet in fulfilling their obligations under Executive Order 11246, as amended, to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in employment. These regulations are to be read in conjunction with the other regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, as amended, set forth in parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4, and 60-30 of this chapter. For instance, under no circumstances will a contractor's good faith efforts to comply with the affirmative action requirements of part 60-2 of this chapter be considered a violation of this part.

###### Footnotes -
  60-20.1

[1] This part also applies to entities that are “applicants” for Federal assistance involving a construction contract as defined in part 60-1 of this chapter.
Order filed, May 16, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00103-CR

____________

FRANCISCO CASTILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1369878

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 08, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On April 09, 2013 this court granted Tammy Adam’s motion for 

extension of time to file the record on or before May 08, 2013. The court has not 

received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been 

filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we 

issue the following order.
We order Tammy Adams, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Argued October 15,

decided November 17, 1908.

#### COFFEY *v.*STOCK.

[97 Pac. 1081.]

From Multnomah: Arthur L. Frazer, Judge.

Suit by B. D..Coffey against Anna Stock, O. M. Smith et al. to establish and foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

*546For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. John H. Hall.*

For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by *Mr. Andrew T. Lewis*and *Mr. Walter G. Hayes.*

Opinion by

Mr. Commissioner Slater.

This is a suit to establish and foreclose an alleged mechanic’s lien upon a dwelling house constructed upon lot 1, block 11, West Piedmont, Multnomah County. The material facts in this case are identical with those in the case of *Coffey*v. *Smith et al.*52 Or. 538 (97 Pac. 1079), and the conclusion there reached is controlling here, and the same decree should be entered.

Reversed.
056PA14-2

#### Kirby, et al. v. N.C. Department of Transportation

Attorney Tanoury’s Motion to Withdraw

Allowed 02/01/2016