alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000789789
<NAME> 86A
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          58,223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,802
<PP&E>                                       7,118,212
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,577,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     634,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,224
<SALES>                                        415,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               420,606
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  669,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (248,515)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (248,515)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (248,515)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (24.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 664.2 Who is eligible to apply for assistance under the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program? The following are eligible to apply for assistance under this part: ( a ) Institutions of higher education;
( b ) State departments of education;
( c ) Private non-profit educational organizations; and
( d ) Consortia of institutions, departments, and organizations described in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6))
#### § 79.5 What is the Secretary's obligation with respect to Federal interagency coordination?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70343, Aug. 29, 2024.

The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and the Department regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.

(Authority: E.O. 12372)
§ 644.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make? ( a ) The Secretary evaluates an application for a new grant as follows: ( 1 ) ( i ) The Secretary evaluates the application on the basis of the selection criteria in § 644.21.
( ii ) The maximum score for all the criteria in § 644.21 is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.
( 2 ) ( i ) For an application for a new grant to continue to serve substantially the same populations and campuses that the applicant is serving under an expiring project, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's prior experience of high quality service delivery under the expiring project on the basis of the outcome criteria in § 644.22.
( ii ) The maximum total score for all the criteria in § 644.22 is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.
( iii ) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published application materials for the competition.
( iv ) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the designated project years for which annual performance report data are available.
( v ) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three project years assessed.
( b ) The Secretary makes new grants in rank order on the basis of the applications' total scores under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) If the total scores of two or more applications are the same and there are insufficient funds for these applications after the approval of higher-ranked applications, the Secretary uses the remaining funds to serve geographic areas and eligible populations that have been underserved by the Educational Opportunity Centers program.
( d ) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11, 1070a-16, and 1144a(a))
[59 FR 2658, Jan. 18, 1994, as amended at 75 FR 65781, Oct. 26, 2010]
AAM-12-156-E 

January 24, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10067A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0461 

Mr. Matt Rupe 

Director of Operations 

Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc. 

2460 Greentree Road 

Lebanon, OH 45036 

Dear Mr. Rupe: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10067. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter January 6, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc. (Vertical Advantage), for an extension of 

Exemption No. 10067. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations allows Vertical Advantage, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Vertical 

Advantage. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10067 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
 2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Vertical Advantage are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Vertical Advantage part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10067 to May 31, 2014, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10067 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10067. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
§ 81.9 Location of proceedings. ( a ) An ALJ may hold conferences of the parties in person or by conference telephone call.
( b ) Any conference, hearing, argument, or other proceeding at which the parties are required to appear in person is held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area unless the ALJ determines that the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives requires that it be held elsewhere.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 554(b); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1234(f)(1), and 3474(a))
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MARK YOUNG,

Petitioner

v.

PRESIDENT JUDGE OF THE COMMON 

PLEAS COURT OF PHILADELPHIA 

COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 158 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and Petitions for Leave to Respond are GRANTED, and the Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 4,324

 6,267

 3,882

 4,702

 5,659

 5,364

 6,259

 5,186

 3,787

 5,548

 4,803

 5,023

 5,688

 6,716

 6,425

 7,546

 6,805

 6,986

 5,754

 5,165

 3,816

 3,671

 3,682

 4,458

 3,601

 4,426

 5,633

 6,468

 7,497

 6,509

 495

 457

 570

 422

 460

 392

 331

 375

 366

 514

 550

 604

 543

 769

 796

 605

 634

 497

 530

 571

 514

 598

 443

 517

 432

 422

 517

 779

 423

 461

 1,840

 2,377

 1,807

 2,086

 2,146

 2,135

 2,364

 2,302

 2,052

 2,404

 2,342

 2,242

 2,174

 2,465

 2,584

 3,137

 2,961

 3,119

 3,001

 3,231

 2,023

 1,411

 1,803

 1,767

 1,689

 1,702

 2,129

 2,976

 3,044

 3,200

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 21, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 34,727

 34,561

 33,582

 32,669

 31,997

 31,190

 30,329

 30,671

 30,928

 30,464

 29,673

 29,843

 30,053

 30,736

 31,480

 32,240

 33,394

 34,427

 35,282

 36,378

 36,037

 35,146

 34,897

 34,260

 33,607

 33,067

 33,022

 33,533

 33,993

 34,056

 2,481

 2,469

 2,399

 2,334

 2,286

 2,228

 2,166

 2,191

 2,209

 2,176

 2,120

 2,132

 2,147

 2,195

 2,249

 2,303

 2,385

 2,459

 2,520

 2,598

 2,574

 2,510

 2,493

 2,447

 2,401

 2,362

 2,359

 2,395

 2,428

 2,433

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
(No. 73-CC-325

#### Theresa Chiumiento, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 25, 1973.*

Theresa Chiumiento, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*312Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 1,189.25

 1,188.94

 1,188.63

 1,188.36

 1,188.06

 1,187.75

 1,187.43

 1,187.11

 1,186.80

 1,186.47

 1,186.14

 1,185.82

 1,185.49

 1,185.15

 1,184.82

 1,184.47

 1,184.12

 1,183.77

 1,183.40

 1,183.06

 1,182.69

 1,182.32

 1,181.94

 1,181.57

 1,181.20

 1,180.84

 1,180.46

 1,180.08

 1,179.69

 1,179.31

 33.99

 33.55

 33.12

 32.74

 32.32

 31.90

 31.46

 31.03

 30.61

 30.17

 29.74

 29.32

 28.89

 28.45

 28.04

 27.60

 27.16

 26.73

 26.28

 25.87

 25.43

 25.00

 24.55

 24.13

 23.70

 23.30

 22.87

 22.46

 22.03

 21.62

STORAGE

-0.44

-0.44

-0.44

-0.38

-0.42

-0.43

-0.44

-0.43

-0.42

-0.44

-0.44

-0.42

-0.43

-0.44

-0.42

-0.44

-0.44

-0.43

-0.45

-0.41

-0.44

-0.44

-0.44

-0.43

-0.42

-0.41

-0.42

-0.42

-0.42

-0.41

CHANGE

15

13

16

43

27

26

25

23

35

24

16

28

27

19

27

16

20

24

15

32

15

20

13

23

25

34

29

30

26

32

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

 227

OUTLET

 12

 8

 9

 7

 10

 14

 18

 14

 18

 18

 8

 12

 15

 12

 10

 10

 12

 14

 15

 11

 11

 13

 9

 11

 11

 12

 15

 14

 13

 11

C.F.S.

 .26

 .17

 .19

 .16

 .23

 .32

 .40

 .33

 .41

 .43

 .18

 .29

 .37

 .30

 .25

 .25

 .30

 .36

 .38

 .28

 .30

 .34

 .25

 .29

 .30

 .34

 .42

 .39

 .38

 .31

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2015 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 07/24/2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -12.85 718 6,810 0 367 9.18 .12

ACRE-FEET -12,850 1,424 13,508 0 728

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 13,508

 13,508

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .12

JULY 1, 2014 13.83

 34.44
Jump to main content.

Clean Air Markets

Recent Additions | Contact Us**Search:**All EPAThis Area

    - You are here:  EPA Home
    - Air & Radiation
    - Clean Air Markets
    - Progress and Results
    - Progress Reports

----

# Progress Reports 

##### Progress & Results 

      - Progress Reports 
      - Market Analyses
      - Assessment and Tools
      - Interactive Mapping

### Acid Rain  Program:

    - 2009 Acid Rain Program Progress Report
    - 2008 Acid Rain Program Progress Report
    - 2007 Acid Rain Program Progress Report 
    - 2006 Acid Rain Program Progress Report 
    - 2005 Acid Rain Program Progress Report 
    - 2004 Acid Rain Program Progress Report - 10 Years of Achievement
    You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's About PDF page to learn more about PDF, and a link to the free Adobe Acrobat Reader. 
    - 2003 Acid Rain Program Progress Report
    - 2002   Acid Rain Program Progress Report 
    - 2001 Acid Rain Program Progress Report
    - 2000   Acid Rain Program Progress Report 
    - 1999 Acid Rain Program Progress Report
    - Acid Rain Program Compliance Reports 1995 through 1999   Clean Air Interstate Rule:          - 2009 Clean Air Interstate Rule Progress Report  NOx Budget  Trading Program (SIP Call):          - NOx Budget Trading Program 2008 Program Compliance and Environmental Results
      - NOx Budget Trading Program 2007 Program Compliance and Environmental Results
      - NOx Budget Trading Program 2006 Program Compliance and Environmental Results
      - NOx Budget Trading Program 2005 Program Compliance and Environmental Results (PDF)  (40 pp., 5.7 MB)   |  Appendix  ( Excel, 1.3 MB)
      - Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx Budget       Trading Program, 2004 (PDF)  (41 pp., 7MB)   |  Appendix  (Excel, 1.2 MB)
      - NOx Budget Trading Program (SIP Call) 2003 Progress Report (PDF)  (28 pp., 3.3 MB ) |  Appendix  (Excel, 491 K) 
      - Program home page  OTC NOx Budget  Trading Program (ended 2002):          - Program home page
      - OTC NOx Budget       Program 1999-2002 Progress Report (PDF)  (21 pp., 962 K)                  Local Navigation- Air & Radiation Home 
- Clean Air Markets Home
- Basic Information
- Where You Live
- About Acid Rain
- Doing Business With Us 
- Programs and Regulations
- Progress and Results
- Cap and Trade
- Allowance Trading
- Emissions Monitoring
- Data and Maps
- Environmental Issues
- Resource Center
- Meetings and Workshops
- Related Links
      - EPA Home
- Privacy and Security Notice
- Contact Us
    Jump to main content.
§ 668.139 Recovery of payments and loan disbursements to ineligible students. ( a ) If an institution makes a payment of a grant or a disbursement of a Federal Perkins loan to an ineligible student for which it is not liable in accordance with § 668.138, it shall assist the Secretary in recovering the funds by— ( 1 ) Making a reasonable effort to contact the student; and
( 2 ) Making a reasonable effort to collect the payment or Federal Perkins loan.
( b ) If an institution causes a Federal Stafford, Federal PLUS, Direct Subsidized, Direct Unsubsidized, or Direct PLUS Loan to be disbursed to or on behalf of an ineligible student for which it is not liable in accordance with § 668.138, it shall assist the Secretary in recovering the funds by notifying the lender in the case of an FFEL Program loan or the Secretary in the case of a Direct Loan Program loan that the student has failed to establish eligibility under the requirements of §§ 668.201 or 685.200, as appropriate.
( c ) If an institution is liable for a payment of a grant or Federal Perkins loan to an ineligible student, the institution shall restore the amount equal to the payment or disbursement to the institution's Federal Perkins loan fund or Federal Pell Grant, ACG, National SMART Grant, TEACH Grant, FSEOG, or LEAP amount, even if the institution cannot collect the payment or disbursement from the student.
( d ) If an institution is liable for a Federal Stafford, Federal PLUS, Direct Subsidized, Direct Unsubsidized, or Direct PLUS Loan disbursement to an ineligible student, the institution shall repay an amount equal to the disbursement to the lender in the case of an FFEL Program loan or the Secretary in the case of a Direct Loan Program loan, and provide written notice to the borrower.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1091, 1094)
[58 FR 3184, Jan. 7, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 40626, July 29, 1998; 64 FR 38729, June 22, 2000; 71 FR 38003, July 3, 2006; 73 FR 35493, June 23, 2008]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7950
WILLIAM H. KING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1541-AM) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. King, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. King v. Thompson , No. CA-95-1541- AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph , Slip Opinion No. 2022
- Ohio
- 4682.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2022

- O HIO - 4682 T HE C ITY OF C LEVELAND ET AL . , A PPELL EE S , v . R UDOLPH , A PPELL ANT . [ Unti l this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland v. Rudolph , Slip Opinion No. 2022
- Ohio
- 4682 .] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. B rasher

. (No. 202 2

- 1036 ―Submitted December 2 3 , 2022―Decided December 29 , 2022.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,

No. 111128 , 2022

- Ohio

- 2363

.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to proposition of law Nos. I and III on the authority of Stat e v. B rasher , __
_ Ohio St.3d __

_ , 2022

- Ohio

- 4703 , __
_ N.E.3d __

_ , and proposition of law No. II is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ

. , concur. K ENNEDY , J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part and would not dismiss the cause as to proposition of law No. II.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 F ISCHER , J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

_________________ Mark Griffin, city of Clevelan d Law Director , and Stephen F

. Gorczyca , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appell ee city of Cleveland

. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Latina Bailey, for appellee S.W. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender , and Robert B. McCaleb and Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defenders, for appell ant , Christopher G. Rudolph

.

_________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           3,810
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,476
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                             45,886
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           27,069
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             58,600
<PP&E>                                           1,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,753
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,703
<PAYABLES>                                      17,406
<REPOS-SOLD>                                    60,738
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              9,340
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              27,700
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        818
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,753
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                1,122
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             5,939
<COMMISSIONS>                                      437
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    1,211
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      310
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,501
<COMPENSATION>                                   1,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    883
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         883
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.48<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.33<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Amounts have been retroactively adjusted to give effect for a
two-for-one stock split, effected in the form of a 100% stock dividend, which
became effective on January 26, 1996
</FN>
        

</TABLE>