alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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

*Today, the Administration released the fiscal year 2021 budget request. For the U.S. Department of Education, the budget builds upon President Donald J. Trump’s commitment to expand educational freedom for all families and return power to local leaders. “This  budget proposal is about one thing—putting students and their needs above all else,” said Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. “Our budget puts an end to education earmarks. Instead of Washington politicians and bureaucrats forcing local schools to spend limited resources on D.C.’s priorities, this budget proposes putting state and local leaders, teachers, parents, and students themselves in control of education.”*

The following materials show what this budget provides for the programs and activities of the Department of Education:
                - Press Release
                - The FY 2021 Education Budget Summary and Background Information  [ PDF , 447K] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
                - FY 2021 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress 

### FY 2021 Budget for the entire U.S. Government

                - The President's FY 2021 Budget for the entire United States Government

----

 

 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

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | President's Education Budget Request |  |
|  |
|  | Budget Tables |  |
|  |
|  | Budget News |  |
|  |
|  | ED Budget Process and Calendar |  |
|  |

----

*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
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00305-CV

PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

v.

MELBA LOZANO

On Appeal from the

92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-5034-15-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 2, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1964

BARRY GREEN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk; CLAYTON R. HIGGINS,

JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-05-1674-3)

Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 10, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Barry Green, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Suter, No. CA-05-

1674-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00259-CR

David Tomberlin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0994345, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

The district court accepted appellant David Tomberlin’s guilty plea and adjudged

him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §

22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (2)(B) (West Supp. 2000). The court assessed punishment at imprisonment

for fifteen years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.

1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d

137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
2

was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief

has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: December 21, 2000

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 21****LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**           ***State/Country &***    ***Legal Name*** ***Date Inc./Organized*** ***Owned by*** ***Ownership %***          CCBCC, Inc. Delaware Consolidated  100%  12/20/1993               CCBCC Operations, LLC Delaware Consolidated  100%  10/15/2003               CCBCC Vending, LLC Delaware Operations/TN Soft  100%  09/25/2003               Chesapeake Treatment Company, LLC North Carolina Operations  100%  06/5/1995               Coca-Cola Ventures, Inc. Delaware Consolidated  100%  06/17/1993               Consolidated Beverage Co. Delaware Consolidated  100%  01/8/1997               Consolidated Real Estate Group, LLC North Carolina Consolidated  100%  01/04/2000               ByB Brands, Inc. North Carolina Consolidated  100%  03/08/2006               Data Ventures, Inc. North Carolina Consolidated  100%  09/25/2006               Heath Oil Co., Inc. South Carolina Operations  100%  09/9/1986               TXN, Inc. Delaware Data Ventures  100%  01/03/1990               Tennessee Soft Drink Production Company Tennessee Operations  100%  12/22/1988               Piedmont Coca-Cola Bottling Partnership Delaware CC Ventures  77.326%  07/02/1993               CCBC of Wilmington, Inc. Delaware Piedmont  100%  06/17/1993               Swift Water Logistics, Inc. North Carolina Consolidated  100%  04/24/2006               Data Ventures Europe BV Netherlands Data Ventures  100%  01/23/2007               Red Classic Brokerage, Inc. North Carolina Operations  100%  09/21/2007
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Kenneth Schaffer

*Edwin M. Lavitt,*speciál public defender, in support of the motion.

*Donald B. Caldwell,*state’s attorney, in opposition.

Submitted February 3

decided February *4,*1975

The defendant’s petition for an order permitting his presence at the argument of his appeal is denied.
ExcellenceToday, SuccessTomorrow

April 8, 2013 

### LEWISTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE 215 7TH AVENUE SOUTH • LEWISTOWN, MONTANA 59457 PHONE: (406) 535-8777 • FAX: (406) 535-7292

To Whom ItMay Concern: · . . __ :f

I amwritingthis letter in support ofmaintaining commercial air service inthe community of Lewistown, Montana. This service is the last public transportation service in Lewistown and ifit were to be terminated, it would have a definite negative effect on our community.
While our school district does notuse this service for travel to events, we sometimes have guest speakers orpresenters from out ofstate who do. This service is also a tool that we use when working to recruit the best teachers possible. Some of these teaching candidates fly to our community to interview and losing this service would take that option away. It is also a great selling point for candidates looking at moving to our community.
I ask you to please strongly consider maintaining commercial air serv1ce at the Lewistown, Montanaairport.
Ifyouhave questions or concerns, please feel free to contactme. Sincerely,

# ~a,.-- A

# '3>~ Jason A. Butcher Superintendent
#### BARR. Respondent, v. KIRBY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by John C. Barr against Janetta R. Kirby. A. C. Weil, for appellant. A. H. Holbrook, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 766.1 Purpose.

This part establishes the policy and procedures for the use of Navy and Marine Corps aviation facilities by aircraft other than U.S. Department of Defense aircraft.
March 12, 2010 i--P1 Or llimOm m 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary -] , 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New 

York and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between 

three of the world's largest financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific 

market. American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angeles - both vital focal 

points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing 

unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits 

from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. 

However, we need your help to make the JFK & LAX/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Kennedy and Los Angeles to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

Joan Goodwin, CTC 

Dallas Travel, Inc. 

972-503-4446
# Sheet1

State Agency Program Migrant Student Education

Impact Aid Basic Support Payments

Impact Aid Payments for Children with Disabilities

Impact Aid Construction

Indian Student Education Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Special Education Preschool Grants

Grants for Infants and Families

Career and Technical Education State Grants

Federal Pell Grants

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

Federal Work Study

Assessing Achievement (State Assessments)

Small Rural School Achievement Program

Client Assistance State Grants

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights

Supported Employment State Grants

State Agency Program--Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education

Mathematics and Science Partnerships

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Independent Living State Grants

Services for Older Blind Individuals

Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology

Assistive Technology State Grants

Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants

English Literacy and Civics Education State Grants

Grand Total

Federal Direct Student Loan Program

School Turnaround Grants (School Improvement State Grants)

College- and Career-Ready Students (Title I, Grants to LEAs)

State or Other Area

Arizona

Arkansas

California

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Compiled for posting on the WEB by the Budget Service on November 1, 2013.

College Access Challenge Grants

Rural and Low Income Schools Program

English Learner Education (English Language Acquisition)

Homeless Children and Youth Education

Centers for Independent Living

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

Effective Teachers and Leaders

Special Education -Grants to States

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area
### §4507. Suspension and termination of orders

#### (a) Determination by Secretary

After September 30, 1985, the Secretary shall, whenever the Secretary finds that any order issued under this subchapter or any provision thereof obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of this subchapter, terminate or suspend the operation of such order or such provisions thereof.

#### (b) Referendum

After September 30, 1985, the Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time, and shall hold a referendum on request of a representative group comprising 10 per centum or more of the number of producers and importers subject to the order, to determine whether the producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of the order. The Secretary shall suspend or terminate collection of assessments under the order within six months after the Secretary determines that suspension or termination of the order is favored by a majority of the producers voting in the referendum who, during a representative period (as determined by the Secretary), have been engaged in the production of milk for commercial use and importers voting in the referendum (who have been engaged in the importation of dairy products during the same representative period, as determined by the Secretary) and shall terminate the order in an orderly manner as soon as practicable after such determination.

#### (c) Action not considered an order

The termination or suspension of any order, or any provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within the meaning of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §116, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1141; Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1505(f), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 209.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–171, which directed amendment of section 116(b) of the Dairy Promotion Stabilization Act of 1983 by inserting "and importers" after "of producers" and after "whether the producers" in first sentence and inserting "and importers voting in the referendum (who have been engaged in the importation of dairy products during the same representative period, as determined by the Secretary)" after "commercial use" in second sentence, was executed by making the insertions in subsec. (b) of this section, section 116 of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Boston/New York OIG Region ◄▬▬

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Washington/Philadelphia OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge//Investigation, Atlanta OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Chicago OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Long Beach OIG Office 

FROM: Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Inspector General, Delegation 

Control Number EF/EFI/157, certified July 23, 2004, and subject to the reservations 

noted below, I hereby redelegate to you, anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, or 

your successor in function, the authority under Sections 4 (a) (1), 6 (a) (2), and 7 (a) of 

the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to open investigative cases within your 

respective geographic areas of responsibility.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

The following authorities are not delegated:

A. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by present 

employees of the Department, or allegations of misconduct by public officials

elected to federal or state-wide office;

B. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by Office of 

Inspector General employees; and 

C. The authority to sign Advice of Investigation forms.
Page 2 - Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegation 

Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority. I hereby ratify 

actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

_____________/s/______________ 

 William D. Hamel

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/10/2009

Certified Date: 7/17/2009

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EFI/EFD1I/182
#### Lee Tire & Rubber Company, appellant, v. John T. Brown and R. A. Balcom, trading as General Tire Company, appellees.

Gen. No. 7,810.

Suit to determine right to personal property levied upon under a judgment. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the County Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Eugene E. Bone, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 11, 1925.

Sherman, Bainum & Bree, for appellant.

B. L. Catron, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §439b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, July 2, 1948, ch. 818, §3, 62 Stat. 1235, related to disposition of plants under former sections 439 to 439e of this title, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
### §3177. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1413, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1549

Section, Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1427, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1000; Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1425(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1308, required submission to Congress of a plan for a human nutrition research management system.
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Michael Doar                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael                Doar                                        |   |
| Chairman                of the Board & Chief Executive Officer |   |
| January                23, 2006                                    |   |

----
#### Barbara Joseph et al., Appellants, v Villages at Huntington Home Owners Association, Inc., Defendant, and Villages at Huntington Development Corp. et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 231]

*482In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 21, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendants the Villages at Huntington Development Corp. and Susan Barbash for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Lusa Concrete Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant Lusa Concrete Corp.

On the evening of September 4, 2001 the plaintiff Barbara Joseph (hereinafter the plaintiff) tripped and fell in the residential development where she resided as she attempted to traverse a curb cut leading from a roadway to the adjacent sidewalk. The plaintiff asserts that there was a height differential of 5/8 of an inch between the two surfaces, and contends that this height differential caused the accident.

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability ‘depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury’ ” *(Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 977 [1997]). However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip *(see Outlaw v Citibank, N.A.,*35 AD3d 564 [2006]; *Neumann v Senior Citizens Ctr.,*273 AD2d 452 [2000]). In this case, the defendants made a prima facie showing, through the plaintiffs testimony and the photographs identified by her as accurately depicting the condition of the curb cut at the time of the accident, that the alleged defect did not constitute a trap or nuisance and was merely a trivial defect which was not actionable as a matter of law *(see Hargrove v Baltic Estates,*278 AD2d 278 [2000]). The evidence which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to this showing failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(cf. Mansfield v Dolcemascolo,*34 AD3d 763 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.