alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Wilfred A. Hommel et al., Respondents, v Hugh R. Carey, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Appeals, by permission, from two orders of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 20, 1977 and February 27, 1978 in Albany County, which transferred this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to a Trial Term of the Supreme Court and denied a motion by appellants for leave to renew. There is nothing in the record to indicate that petitioners made a demand prior to June 18, 1976, when they filed a grievance. Construing the filing of the grievance as a demand, the four-month Statute of Limitations could not begin to run until there has been a refusal to perform as demanded (CPLR 217). In our view, such a refusal could not have occurred until the decision at the third step of the grievance procedure on September 3, 1976 and, accordingly, this proceeding, commenced December 14, 1976, was timely. While the issue here is somewhat clouded by the initial, mistaken assumption of all parties that the dispute constituted a contract grievance, that factor should not serve to deprive petitioners of their day in court. Special Term transferred the matter to a Trial Term, concluding that a question of fact existed as to which paragraphs, if any, of the collective bargaining agreement apply to the issues raised by petitioners. Such a question, however, is initially one of law since it involves the construction of a contract and, accordingly, the matter should be remitted to Special Term. Order, entered September 20, 1977, modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Order entered February 27, 1978, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.

Larkin, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum. Larkin, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that the refusal, for the purposes of CPLR 217, did not take place until September 3, 1976, when the third step decision was issued in the soon to be abandoned *968grievance proceeding. I disagree. Surely the demand and refusal occurred no later than June 18, 1976 when the petitioners instituted action under the collective bargaining agreement by the initial filing of a contract grievance. If there had been no refusal at this point, there would have been no grievance. In my view, any subsequent decisions under the guise of the grievance procedure, which petitioners now concede to be inapplicable to the complaints which are the subject of this proceeding, are irrelevant to the question of when the Statute of Limitations under CPLR 217 began to run. This proceeding, commenced on or about December 14, 1976, was instituted well beyond the four-month period and is untimely. The orders should be reversed, and the petition dismissed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Composite Technology Corporation on Form S-8 (333-121922, 333-112679, 333-83504)
of our report, dated December 14, 2004, except for Note 2 as to which the date
is April 8, 2005 (which includes an emphasis paragraph relating to an
uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern),
appearing on Form 10-KSB of Composite Technology Corporation for the year ended
September 30, 2004. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the
caption "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration
Statement.


/s/ Singer Lewak Greenbaum and Goldstein LLP
--------------------------------------------

SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM AND GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
August 5, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert W.
Cremin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Company.

|                          |  |     |                                                                
|------------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  September 2, 2005 |  | By: | /s/  Robert W. Cremin                                          
|                          |  |     | Robert W. CreminChairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
|                          |  |     |                                                                



---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jacob Mandwelle, Appellant, v. Albert W. Skinner, as Sheriff of the County of Monroe, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and writ sustained unless the bail is reduced to an amount not to exceed $50,000, in which event the order is affirmed and the writ dismissed. Memorandum: The action of the County Judge in fixing the bail at $75,000 was an improvident exercise of discretion in that the amount was excessive. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ. (Decision and order entered April 10, 1962.)
p. 1 of 2 

From: Dorey, Garr E. [mailto:Garr.Dorey@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:43 PM 

To: Putney, David 

Cc: Palazzolo, Michael A.; Bishop, Kathy L. 

Subject: Wenatchee Works Primary Aluminum Testing ICR 

Update 

Mr. Putney, 

During a review of the Primary Aluminum Testing ICR data, 

it was discovered that the Potline Roof Monitor emissions 

for EPA Method 315 (POM's) and EPA Method 29 (Metals) were 

calculated and reported on the individual room upon which 

the testing was performed. However, each line is made up 

of two rooms. Therefore, the results were reported as half 

of the actual emissions. Attached are the corrected 

emission calculations for the above noted. Please note 

that the Particulate Matter (PM) data for these sites was 

reported correctly and unchanged. I apologize for any 

inconvenience. 

The updated files are below: 

EPA Method 29 Room 6 (Line 1) - This will replace "Line 1 

Roof Monitor M29.pdf" in folder 8 of the original 

submission. 

EPA Method 29 Room 20 (Line 5) - This will replace "Line 5 

Roof Monitor M29.pdf" in folder 8 of the original 

submission. 

EPA Method 315 Room 6 (Line 1) & Room 20 (Line 5) - This 

will replace "Method 315 Summary.pdf" in folder 8 of the 

original submission. 
p. 2 of 2 

Again, I apologize for any inconvenience and please feel 

free to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Garr Dorey 

Environmental Specialist 

Alcoa Wenatchee Works 

509-667-4502
<PAGE>
                                                                       EXHIBIT 1

Board of Directors
3Si Holdings, Inc.

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

        We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of 3Si
Holdings, Inc. as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows, and changes in stockholders' (deficit) for the years
ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

        We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentations. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

        In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of 3Si Holdings, Inc.
as of June 30, 2002, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for
the years ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.

        The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that
the Company will continue as a going concern. At June 30, 2002, current
liabilities exceed current assets by $176,190 and the Company has a deficit in
stockholders' equity of $95,275. These factors, discussed at Note O, raise
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.
The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the
recoverability and classification of recorded assets, or the amounts and
classifications of liabilities that might be necessary in the event the Company
cannot continue in existence.

s\\Balogh and Tjornehoj, LLP
Balogh and Tjornehoj, LLP

Denver, Colorado

September 19, 2002


                                       32
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 1 4, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00505

- CR

Richard Alcorta GARZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B15467

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to F ile Brief is GRANTED. The State ’ s Brief

is due on January 28, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         285,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,370,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,177,045
<PP&E>                                     109,357,426
<DEPRECIATION>                              63,715,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,233,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,331,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,761,100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,223,928
<SALES>                                     12,504,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,590,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,644,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             550,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,394,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                   501,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            893,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   893,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM MORGANHERRING

340A95

(Filed 6 November 1997)

ORDER

The record on appeal regarding defendant’s first assignment of error, pertaining to his motion for appropriate relief heard with the case on appeal, reflects conflicting and insufficient evidence as to the assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to (1) the withdrawal of defendant’s plea of not guilty to the murder charges by reason of insanity, (2) the submission of a stipulation by defendant admitting commission of the physical acts alleged in the bills of indictment and basing defense on absence of mental elements of the crime, (3) the tender of guilty pleas to the sex offenses, (4) the circumstances surrounding these submissions to the trial court, and (5) the defendant’s understanding and voluntary tender thereof.

The record on appeal does not reflect that the trial court made findings of fact sufficient to resolve these conflicts in the evidence or to establish an evidentiary basis for this Court’s determination of this first assignment of error. We, therefore, remand to the superior court for a hearing on these matters and for findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto. The order of the trial court containing said findings of fact and conclusions, together with a transcript of the additional evidence, shall be certified to this Court forthwith upon conclusion of the hearing and shall be treated as an addendum to the record. Copies shall be forwarded to all parties for such further proceedings in this Court, if any, as may then be ordered.

It is so ordered.

REMANDED to the Superior Court, Wake County, for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Done by the Court in Conference this 6th day of November 1997.

Orr, J.

For the Court
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each person whose signature appears below hereby authorizes Ilan Daskal, as attorney-in-fact and agent, with
full powers of substitution, to sign on his behalf, individually and in the capacities stated below, and to file any and all amendments to this Form 10-K, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to perform any other act on behalf of
the undersigned required to be done in the premises.

Signatures

Title

Date/s/ RICHARD J. DAHL Richard J. Dahl

Chairman of the Board

August 26, 2009/s/ JACK O. VANCE Jack O. Vance

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ ROCHUS E. VOGT Rochus E. Vogt

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ JAMES D. PLUMMER James D. Plummer

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ ROBERT ATTIYEH Robert Attiyeh

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ THOMAS A. LACEY Thomas A. Lacey

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ MARY B. CRANSTON Mary B. Cranston

Director

August 26, 2009/s/ OLEG KHAYKIN Oleg Khaykin

Director and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

August 26, 2009


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Wayne J. Conner, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
of Elgin National Industries, Inc., certify that:



| | 3. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WAYNE J. CONNERWayne J. ConnerVice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer




Date: November 14, 2005
#### 11.600 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS), a Department of Commerce regulation in support of approved national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy programs (see 15 CFR part 700).

[73 FR 21784, Apr. 22, 2008]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 6, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00346

- CV

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant

v.

David A. Escamilla, Travis County Attorney, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DIST RICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 25, 2018

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s ju dgment

. A ppellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
- 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

*Note:  These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables, please visit the Department's State Tables page*.Volume I- Improving Elementary and Secondary Education   PDF (1.4MB) 
- Education for the Disadvantaged  PDF (1.4MB) 
- Impact Aid   PDF (1.2MB)
- School Improvement Programs  PDF (2.0MB)
- Safe Schools and Citizenship Education  PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Education  PDF (1.2MB)  ****)
- Innovation and Improvement  PDF (1.9MB)
- English Language Acquisition  PDF (622KB)
- Special Education  PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services  PDF (1.9MB)
Volume II- American Printing House for the Blind  PDF (73KB)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf  PDF (172KB)
- Gallaudet University  PDF (228KB)
- Career, Technical, and Adult Education  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Overview  PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance  PDF (1.8MB)
- TEACH Grants  PDF (1.0MB)
- Student Loans Overview  PDF (1.2MB)
- Higher Education  PDF (2.7MB)
- Howard University  PDF (222KB)
- College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account  PDF (162KB)
- Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account  PDF (301KB)
- Institute of Education Sciences  PDF (675KB)
- Salaries and Expenses Overview  PDF (553KB)
- Program Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights  PDF (474KB)
- Office of Inspector General  PDF (343KB)
- Information Technology System Modernization and Working Capital  PDF (343KB)
   Printable view  Last Modified: 02/07/2020How 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 RequestBudget TablesBudget NewsED Budget Process and Calendar*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
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
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                        COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
<PAGE>   2






                                  EXHIBIT (11)


                      Elcor Corporation and Subsidiaries
         Computation of Income Per Common and Common Equivalent Share


(In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                 <C>
1.       Three Months Ended September 30, 1996                       Three Months Ended
                                                                     ------------------
          and September 30, 1995                                     9-30-96    9-30-95
                                                                     ------------------

                 Net Income                                          $ 3,768    $ 3,663
                                                                     =======    =======

         Shares:
           Weighted average common shares
             outstanding                                               8,758      8,723

         Adjustments:
           (a)   Assumed issuance of shares purchased
                 under incentive stock option plan using
                 the treasury stock method                                35        120
                                                                     -------    -------

         Total Common and Common Equivalent Shares                     8,793      8,843
                                                                     =======    =======

         Income per Common and Common Equivalent Share               $   .43    $   .41
                                                                     =======    =======
</TABLE>
#### § 536.49 Scope of employment requirement.

To be payable, a claim must be based on acts or omissions of a member of the armed forces, a member of a foreign military force within the United States with which the United States has a reciprocal claims agreement, or a federal employee acting within the scope of employment, except for subparts E, J, or subpart K of this part, §§ 536.153 through 536.157 (Claims involving tortfeasors other than nonappropriated fund employees). A claim arising from noncombat activities must be based on the armed service's official activities. Excluded are claims based on vicarious liability or the holder theory in which the owner of the vehicle is responsible for any injury or damage regardless of who the operator was. See parallel discussion at DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-46.
#### In the Matter of Christopher J.M., Appellant. Wayne County Attorney, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 844]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered August 11, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Welch Foods v Wilson,*262 AD2d 949, 951 [1999]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.