alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 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 December 10, 2012.

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
# 2011 Congressional Action

Bottom Line
#### Ward V. Smith, Respondent, v. Ray C. Vaughn, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied; motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                               EMERSON RADIO CORP
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Emerson Radio Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2002 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Kenneth A. Corby,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 consolidated financial condition and result of operations of
     the Company.


Dated: February 10, 2003

                                              /s/ Kenneth A. Corby
                                                  Kenneth A. Corby
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
US2008 3246295.4 

130306443v1 0932177 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES WILLIAMS, on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

E-BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM, INC. d/b/a 

BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 12-cv-00190 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ELIMINATE CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

PURSUANT TO RULE 23(D)(1)(D)

 For the reasons expressed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Defendant eBackgroundChecks.com, Inc. d/b/a Backgroundchecks.com hereby moves the Court pursuant 

Rule 23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the class allegations contained 

in Plaintiff James Williams' Complaint.

 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 2012. 

 /s/ Nabil G. Foster 

Nabil G. Foster (Atty. No. 6273877) 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1081 

(312) 704-3000 

(312) 704-3001 (facsimile) 

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com

Cindy D. Hanson 

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & 

STOCKTON LLP 

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Telephone: (404) 815-6500 

Facsimile: (404) 541-3240 

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:93
- 2 - 

US2008 3246295.4 

130306443v1 0932177 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BGC

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:94
- 3 - 

US2008 3246295.4 

130306443v1 0932177 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on March 16th, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ELIMINATE CLASS ALLEGATIONS PURSUANT TO 

RULE 23(D)(1)(D) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

automatically send email notification of such filing to all attorneys of record:

Keith J. Keogh 

Craig M. Shapiro 

Timothy J. Sostrin 

KEOGH LAW, LTD. 

101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 605 

Chicago, IL 60606

/s/ Nabil G. Foster 

Nabil G. Foster (Atty. No. 6273877) 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1081 

(312) 704-3000 

(312) 704-3001 (facsimile) 

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com 

Cindy D. Hanson 

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

(404) 815-6500 

(404) 541-3240 

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:95
EXHIBIT 32.1



               Certification of Periodic Financial Report by
         Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, DeWitt Drew, President and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Georgia
Financial Corporation certify that:

  (1)  The Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period
       ended December 31, 2007 (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 present, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Corporation.



                                 By:   /s/DeWitt Drew
                                       DeWitt Drew
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       Southwest Georgia Financial Corporation
March 28, 2008
#### Damaris Cruz, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Maria L. Rivera, et al., Appellants, v. Sidney Sumpter et al., Respondents.

In an infant’s action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 9, 1963, denying the defendants’ motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar, as directed that the infant plaintiff submit to a physical examination. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The physical examination of the infant plaintiff, as directed, *794shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such time and place as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

Globe United Holdings, Inc.
c/o Laufer Halberstam & Karish
One Liberty Plaza
165 Broadway, 37th Floor
New York, New York 10006
                                                  March 27, 2000




Kenneth Schilling
iBIZ Technology Corp.
1919 West Lone Cactus
Phoenix, Arizona 85021

                  Re:      Letter Agreement

Dear Ken:

                  This Letter Agreement will serve to document Globe United
Holdings, Inc.'s ("Globe") understanding regarding its rights granted under that
certain Securities Purchase Agreement and Registration Rights Agreement, each
dated November 9, 1999, and the related debenture and warrant, and that certain
Securities Purchase Agreement and Registration Rights Agreement, each dated
December 29, 1999, and the related debenture and warrant (individually the
"Globe SPA's" or the "Globe RRA's"), each with iBIZ Technology Corp. (the
"Company").

                  Globe hereby gives its consent and approval for the Company to
enter into that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated March 27, 2000, and
related documents with Lites Trading, Inc. ("Lites Trading"), and to comply with
all terms and obligations set forth therein.

                  Notwithstanding this inclusive consent and approval, Globe
acknowledges that, as of the date hereof, the Lock-Up Period (as defined in the
Globe SPA's) is currently in effect. In connection with the Lites Trading
transaction, Globe hereby waives its rights under Section 4(i) of the Globe
SPA's related to sales of additional shares, Section 4(q) related to no senior
indebtedness, and Section 4(k) of the Globe SPA's and Section 4(e) of the Globe
RRA's relating to the filing of additional registration statements during the
Lock-Up Period. In addition, in regard to the right of first refusal after the
Lock-Up Period granted in the Globe SPA's, Globe hereby waives its rights in
favor of Lites Trading. In the event that Lites Trading declines to exercise its
right of first refusal, Globe's right shall revert back according to the terms
of the Globe SPA's.

                                Sincerely,

                                GLOBE UNITED HOLDINGS, INC., a British Virgin
                                Islands corporation


                                By:______________________________
                                Its:_____________________________
#### Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Morris J. Rosner et al.

Motion to vacate order of this court entered on April 3, 1962 and to reinstate appeal granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before April 19, 1962, with notice of argument for the May 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondents’ points are to be served and filed on or before May 1, 1962. Reply points, if any, are to be served and filed on or before May 7, 1962. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### 1239.201 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to the acquisition of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supplies and services. It concerns the access to and use of information and data, by both Federal employees with disabilities, and members of the public with disabilities in accordance with FAR 39.201. This subpart implements DOT policy on section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) as it applies to contracts and acquisitions.
#### 1309.407-1 General.

Suspensions shall be effective throughout the executive branch of the Government, unless the designee set forth in CAM 1301.70 states in writing compelling reasons for continuing to do business with a suspended contractor.
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1320

___________

Juanita M. Crump-Donahue, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 12, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juanita Crump-Donahue appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal of her

suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200

F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review), we agree with the

district court that Crump-Donahue’s suit is barred by res judicata, see Daley v.

Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 895-96 (8th Cir. 2005) (under doctrine of res

judicata, judgment on merits in prior suit bars second suit involving same parties or

their privies based on same cause of action). We also deny her appellate motions.
-2-

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### L. Luria & Son, Inc., Respondent, v. Abraham H. Berger, Appellant.

— Appeal from order and judgment withdrawn, with prejudice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00059-CV

Harry Jay SISKIND,

Appellant

v.

Patricia Ann SISKIND,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-07505

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2013

DISMISSED

On March 14, 2013, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the 

appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record.

We, therefore, ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court by March 28, 2013, that 

either (1) the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or 

(2) appellant was entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We warned that if appellant 

failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if clerk’s record is not filed due to appellant’s fault); see 
04-13-00059-CV

- 2 -

also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an 

order of this court). Appellant failed to respond. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

PER CURIAM
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 89 ) ll-K - (B ) -7 7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:51 AM Sheet 89of 325P. 2 

# / A 

# P /:L\\ a 

### /ry ^ II-K-(B)-7 7
AVERAG E EMISSION

RATE S FRO

M SELECTE D RUN S FOR NE

W BOILERS . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EEA

t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Jul y 7 , 1981 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-7 7
12.205 Offers. ( a ) Where technical information is necessary for evaluation of offers, agencies should, as part of market research, review existing literature generally available in the industry to determine its adequacy for purposes of evaluation. If adequate, contracting officers shall request existing product or service literature from offerors of commercial products or commercial services in lieu of unique technical proposals.
( b ) Contracting officers should allow offerors to propose multiple offers that will meet a Government need in response to solicitations for commercial products or commercial services. The contracting officer shall evaluate each offer separately
( c ) Consistent with the requirements at 5.203(b), the contracting officer may allow fewer than 30 days response time for receipt of offers for commercial products or commercial services, unless the acquisition is covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement (see 5.203(h)).
[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 264, Jan. 2, 1997; 64 FR 72418, Dec. 27, 1999; 69 FR 1053, Jan. 7, 2004; 69 FR 77872, Dec. 28, 2004; 86 FR 61022, Nov. 4, 2021]
FORM 10-Q

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

[x]	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005

OR

[ ]	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-827

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company	13-6084254

(State or other jurisdiction of 	(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York

(Address of principal executive offices)

10165

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ].  No [   ].

An Exhibit Index is located on Page 14 of this Report.

Number of pages (including exhibits) in this filing: 14

 

 

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income

(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months	For the Six Months

	Ended June 30,	Ended June 30,

	2005	2004	2005	2004
#### 1252.228-73 Command of Aircraft.

As prescribed in 1228.306-70(d), insert the following clause:

# Command of Aircraft (NOV 2022)

During the performance of a contract for out-service flight training for DOT, whether the instruction to DOT personnel is in leased, contractor-provided, or Government-provided aircraft, contractor personnel shall always, during the entirety of the course of training and during operation of the aircraft, remain in command of the aircraft. At no time shall other personnel be permitted to take command of the aircraft.

(End of clause)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Daniel Marchand, Appellant, v. Sperry Gyroscope Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying claimant an award on the grounds that his injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Claimant, aged 22, was an engineering clerk for the employer respondent. While his normal duties consisted of filing and various other inside activities, he was required on occasion as part of his employment to deliver parts to various points away from his original job site. To accomplish these deliveries he was frequently called on and expected to use his own automobile for which he was reimbursed by his employer. On June 23, 1960, the day before the accident in question, the car of one Malakoff, who was transporting a part for the employer, broke down because of a faulty generator and claimant was dispatched by his employer to pick up the part and Malakoff. On June 24, 1960 claimant and Malakoff left the employer’s plant at the beginning of their lunch period and subsequently were involved in a one ear accident as a result of which claimant sustained severe injuries. It is undisputed that Malakoff had permission to have his ear repaired on company time, but there is an absence of proof that claimant ever received permission to accompany Malakoff. Claimant’s supervisors deny granting any permission, and claimant, still suffering from the effects of the accident, could not testify that in fact such permission had been granted. Furthermore the board found as a question of fact that Malakoff had no authority to direct claimant to take him to his ear and by implication rejected the presence of any implied permission for claimant to accompany Malakoff despite the fact that obviously Malakoff would need transportation to his car (cf. *Matter of IAppmom*v. *Biennier Transp. Co.,*12 A D 2d 681, affd. 10 N Y 2d 757). In addition there is proof that claimant bought headlights for his own car at the time Malakoff purchased the generator and a disputed question as to whether the accident occurred during the lunch period or after it had ended. Whether a given activity is within the course of employment is, of course, a question of fact and thus the determination of the issue by the board is only subject to review if unsupported by substantial evidence (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23, e.g., *Matter of Hoffman*v. *New York Cent. B. B. Co.,*290 N. Y. 277). . Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
No. 704.

#### Maria Eloisa Rocha *v.*Emilia Tuason y Patino et al.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. W. A. Kincaid, Mr. Alex. Britton*and *Mr. Evans Browne*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied.
#### In the Matter of Greater New York Terminal, Inc., Appellant, v. Horn Construction Co., Inc., Respondent

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, granted, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it on December 9, 1960. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said date. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before November 28, 1960. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §4916. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, except that the funds so appropriated shall not be available for the payment of any expenses or expenditures of the Board in administering any provision of any plan issued under authority of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1657, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1630.)
§ 989.16 Environmental impact statement. ( a ) Certain classes of environmental impacts normally require preparation of an EIS (40 CFR 1501.4). These include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Potential for significant degradation of the environment.
( 2 ) Potential for significant threat or hazard to public health or safety.
( 3 ) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the significance or nature of the environmental impact of a proposed action.
( b ) Certain other actions normally, but not always, require an EIS. These include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Public land withdrawals of over 5,000 acres (Engle Act, 43 U.S.C. 155 through 158).
( 2 ) Establishment of new air-to-ground weapons ranges.
( 3 ) Site selection of new airfields.
( 4 ) Site selection of major installations.
( 5 ) Development of major new weapons systems (at decision points that involve demonstration, validation, production, deployment, and area or site selection for deployment).
( 6 ) Establishing or expanding supersonic training areas over land below 30,000 feet MSL (mean sea level).
( 7 ) Disposal and reuse of closing installations.