alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul M. O’Leary, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirming the decision of a Referee which sustained the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner. There is substantial evidence contained in the record, including the claimant’s own statements, to support the factual finding made by the board that the claimant lost his employment through misconduct *(Matter of Baida*[Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 945 [false and premature entries on time cards]). In his brief the claimant alleges discrimination because of his religious belief and of Ms espousal of unionization. But these contentions were not raised before the Commissioner, the Referee or the board and no proof was offered to support them. As we find the board’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence we are required to accept it as final and conclusive (Unemployment Insurance Law [Labor Law, art. 18], § 623; *Matter of Morton,*284 N. Y. 167, 170; *Matter of Ianni*[CatherwoodI], 14 A D 2d 469). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
FILED 3/12/2012

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

VMJ

Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 6 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 6 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 6 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:14
#### Citibank, N. A., Appellant, v Halajen Mineral Development Corp., Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 8, 1978, denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment made on the ground that defendant’s defense and counterclaim failed to state a valid defense or a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to the appellant, and the motion granted. Defendant acted as operating manager on behalf of a limited partnership known as Adelphi, whose purpose was to set up a tax shelter in the coal business. Plaintiff served as an escrow agent to hold the investment proceeds until the figure of $1,450,000 was reached, which had to be not later than a certain date. On that date, the fund was short $347,500. In order to trigger the release of the funds, the president of the defendant negotiated with the plaintiff a loan in that amount, a promissory note being signed on behalf of the defendant by its president. There is no record of the loan being repaid, nor does the defendant have a release of any kind. However, it contends that when it withdrew the investment proceeds, it left in the account the amount of the loan. We find insufficient substantiation for the affirmative defense of payment, and inasmuch as the counterclaim is for interest allegedly improperly paid on the loan, making it part of the same transaction for which we find the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, summary judgment is warranted. Settle order. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
AC PRODUCT SHIPMENT FORECAST INPUTSAdjusted and Scaled CoefficientsAdjusted Utility CoefficientsBase ValuesMarket Share CalculationsYear MS Factors Price CoefSave CoefIncomePrice/Inc InterestPrice CoefSave CoefIncomePrice/Inc InterestPrice CoefSave CoefPrice/IncNew Homes1993 75% 0.00000 0.000000.00000 -34.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000 -34 0 -0.00095 0.00000-34Early Replacements1996 29% 0.00000 0.000000.00000 -34.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000 -34 0 -0.00095 0.00000-34Homes without AC product who purchase1996 0.0% 0.00000 0.000000.00000 -34.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000 -34 0 -0.00095 0.00000-34New vs Used Purchases for Replacements19960.00000 0.000000.00000 -34.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000 -34 0 -0.00095 0.00000-34Replace vs Repair @ Breakdown1996 ---- 0.00000 0.000000.00000 -34.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000 -34 0 -0.00095 0.00000-34Yellow Squares are Model InputsForecast Calibration VerificationModelARIPrice Elasticity CasesIncome Elasticity CasesFraction of Machines Purchased New in 1996:100% 100%List IndexNameCoefficient AdjustmentList IndexNameCoefficient AdjustmentEarly Replacements/Total Replmnts 1987:29% 29%0 None-100% change0 None-100% changeAdd-on Market/Total Sales (1990-1996)15% 14%1 Medium0% change1 Medium0% change2 High10% change2 High10% changeLifetime Increase of Extra Repair:6yearsPrice/Income Elasticity CasesDrop-out Rate at Replacement0%Note: Interest and Income Elasticities can beList IndexNameCoefficient AdjustmentImplicit Consumer Discount Rate75%implemented, but are not currently used.0 None-100% changeImplicit Present Worth Factor1.331 Medium0% changeFuel Switching Coefficient0.00002 High 10% changeFraction of Shipments as Commercial0.10Coefficient Scaling Parameter1.00Interest Elasticity CasesRMS Deviation From Historical0.249044 million/yearList IndexNameCoefficient AdjustmentMoves per New House Completion1.400 None-100% changeStart Year for NPV Analysis19981 Medium0% changeAverage CAC vs HP Market Share77%2 High 100% changeYear of Heat Pump Market Saturation1976Split vs. Package Heat Pumps88%Split vs. Package Central AC90%Ineligible Housing Stock20%Ineligible New Housing10%Standard Year:Tier #1 2006Tier #2 2006Price Scenario: ARI Min/Med/Max (0/1/2)0Purchase Price Deflation Forecast1Standard Option (0-9), Tier #10Standard Option (0-9), Tier #20Energy Price Projection Option (0-3)1Price (PP) Deflation Rate:0.0%Product Option (0-3)0Efficiency Market Share Scenario2Fuel Switching Option (0/1/2)0Post-Standard New Shipments (@2030):4.87 millionStandard Level0 10 SEER1 11 SEER2 12 SEER3 13 SEER4 14 SEER5 15 SEER6 16 SEER7 17 SEER8 18 SEER9 19 SEERFuel Switching Options0 None1 Medium2 HighEfficiency Market Share Options (Post-Standard)0 Shift1 Roll-up2 NAECATotal Shipments of AC Product01234561950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

MillionsHistorical (1951-1996)Accounting and ElasticityProjectedHistory
OMB No. 1894-0003 

# Abstract

An abstract is to be submitted in accordance with the following:

1. Abstract Requirements

· Abstracts must not exceed one page and should use language that will be understood by a range of audiences.

· Abstracts must include the project title, goals, and expected outcomes and contributions related to research, policy, and practice.

· Abstracts must include the population(s) to be served.

· Abstracts must include primary activities to be performed by the recipient.

· Abstracts must include subrecipient activities that are known or specified at the time of application submission.

2. For research applications, abstracts also include the following:

· Theoretical and conceptual background of the study (i.e., prior research that the investigation builds upon and that provides a compelling rationale for this study).

· Research issues, hypotheses and questions being addressed.

· Study design including a brief description of the sample including sample size, methods, principals, and dependent, independent, and control variables, as well as the approach to data analysis.

[Note: For a non-electronic submission, include the name and address of your organization and the name, phone number and e-mail address of the contact person for this project.]
§ 877.14 Entry for emergency reclamation. ( a ) OSM, its agents, employees, or contractors shall have the right to enter upon any land where an emergency exists and on any other land to have access to the land where the emergency exists to restore, reclaim, abate, control, or prevent the adverse effects of coal mining practices and to do all things necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare.
( b ) Prior to entry under this section, OSM shall make a written finding with supporting reasons that the situation qualifies as an emergency in accordance with the requirements set out in section 410 of the Act.
( c ) Notice to the owner shall not be required prior to entry for emergency reclamation. OSM shall make reasonable efforts to notify the owner and obtain consent prior to entry, consistent with the emergency conditions that exist. Written notice shall be given to the owner as soon after entry as practical in accordance with the requirements set out in § 877.13(c) of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the
Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report).
The undersigned hereby certifies 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 financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|            |  |                                                                                             
|----------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            |  | /s/    DONALD C.
WOOD                                                                       
|May 3, 2006 |  | Donald C. Wood, President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### 1516.603-3 Limitations.

The CCO is authorized to make the determination in FAR 16.603-3.

[55 FR 24580, June 18, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 18976, Apr. 21, 1994]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11289]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Peter Burns, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, (phone: 202-647-3865 or email:                         *BurnsPI@state.gov*).                    

Zachary A. Parker,

Director, Office of Directives Management, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2021-00556 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>       1
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Feb-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          Mar-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            May-31-1997                     
<CASH>                                      118,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                            13,238,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                              15,847,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         34,980,000
<PP&E>                                   11,340,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            7,584,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           41,791,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    24,690,000
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  1,267,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               14,657,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             41,791,000
<SALES>                                   9,050,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         13,817,000
<CGS>                                     6,656,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,966,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (2,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          399,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (1,224,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (1,224,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                            (1,224,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .25

        

</TABLE>
## Advance Letter (E

- Mail Text)

Dear < principal or superintendent name>

, I am contacting you on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to discuss an opportunity for <district or school name> to participate in a study that would provide access to the National High School Center’s Early Warning and Intervention Monitoring System (EWIMS) including training and technical support at no cost. This project, conducted by the Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory at American Institutes for Research (AIR ), is aimed at preventing high school dropout by using data to identify at

- risk students early in high school and assign struggling students to interventions that get them back on track for eventual graduation. The study will examine the impact of implemen ting EWIMS on a host of critical student outcomes (validated indicators of dropout, course performance, persistence and progress in school and likelihood of on

- time graduation). In addition, the study will examine the impact of EWIMS on how schools make us e of data to allocate limited dropout prevention resources.

Attached please find a document that briefly describes the study. Our initial records indicate that
your district/school may be eligible to participate in this Ohio

- based study funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institutes for Educational Sciences. I would like to schedule a brief phone call with you to tell you more about the study, ascertain your interest in taking part, and to discuss whether this might be a great opportunity for <dist rict or school name>

. Would you be able to touch base briefly by phone on <day>, <month> <date>? Please feel free to reach me by email or at 312

- 283

- 2318.

Thank you and I look forward to speaking with you!

<name of project outreach recruiter>

<name of pr oject outreach recruiter> Project Outreach Early Warning and Intervention Monitoring System Study Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory American Institutes for Research 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1231, Chicago, IL 60606 t: 312.283.2318 | www.air.org

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings a cross the sample and will not associate responses with a specific district or individual. ED’s contractor will not provide information that identifies you or your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent, is a class E felony.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(i)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 27, 2007
|        |   | /s/ Yvon Pierre Cariou                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                    |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | of Dynamic Materials Corporation      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

** **

----
### **CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS**

Sec.
1.
"Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title.
2.
Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate.
3.
Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration.
4.
Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination.
5.
Appointment of arbitrators or umpire.
6.
Application heard as motion.
7.
Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance.
8.
Proceedings begun by libel in admiralty and seizure of vessel or property.
9.
Award of arbitrators; confirmation; jurisdiction; procedure.
10.
Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing.
11.
Same; modification or correction; grounds; order.
12.
Notice of motions to vacate or modify; service; stay of proceedings.
13.
Papers filed with order on motions; judgment; docketing; force and effect; enforcement.
14.
Contracts not affected.
15.
Inapplicability of the Act of State doctrine.
16.
Appeals.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §325(a)(2), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5120, added item 15 "Inapplicability of the Act of State doctrine" and redesignated former item 15 "Appeals" as 16.

**1988**—Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1019(b), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4671, added item 15 relating to appeals.

**1970**—Pub. L. 91–368, §3, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 693, designated existing sections 1 through 14 as "Chapter 1" and added heading for Chapter 1.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00601

- CV

ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY

- SEVEN DOLLARS ($1,437.00) in United

States Currency and a 2016 Toyota Corolla VIN 2T1BURHE0GC627119,

Appellants

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 223

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED the costs of this appeal are assessed against Appellant Isaac James

Osei.

SIGNED July 31, 2019.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Case: 1:12-cv-01149 Document #: 15 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:55
Case: 1:12-cv-01149 Document #: 15 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:56
Case: 1:12-cv-01149 Document #: 15 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:57
Case: 1:12-cv-01149 Document #: 15 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:58
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11392

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

J. JESUS JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CR-13-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

J. Jesus Jaimes appeals the 36-month sentence imposed after his guiltyplea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. Assuming he preserved this argument 

in the district court, we review it for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11392 Document: 00513969740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
No. 16-11392

2

Jaimes argues that the district court failed to take into account any 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors other than those involving his prior criminal and 

deportation history. Additionally, he contends that the district court failed to 

consider a factor that should have received significant weight when it failed to 

discuss whether his legal residency in the United States for 26 years and his 

reasons for returning to the United States affected his sentence. He also

contends that the degree of the departure from his 15-to-21-month Guidelines 

range was unreasonable.

Jaimes has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion

in varying upwardly from the Guidelines range. The record supports a 

determination that the district court had an adequate basis for the sentence 

imposed and was guided by the Section 3553(a) factors in determining that an 

upward variance was justified. The district court stated that it had considered 

multiple Section 3553(a) factors. Jaimes’s criminal history is a factor that a 

court may consider in deciding whether to impose a non-Guidelines sentence. 

See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no 

requirement that any aspect of a defendant’s personal history and 

circumstances be afforded dispositive weight. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Jaimes’s challenge to how the 

district court chose to weigh specific factors does not show that the district 

court erred. See Gall, 522 U.S. at 51. Additionally, his sentence, which was 

15 months above the top of the applicable advisory Guidelines range, was not 

so disproportionate as to overcome the factors that warranted its imposition. 

See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348–50 (5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11392 Document: 00513969740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ERICK EDOUARD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2086

[ February 1, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Scherer,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 04

- 00 9461CF10A.

Erick Edouard, Okeechobee

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., C IKLIN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Loan_Volume
### SUBCHAPTER II—IMMIGRATION