alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fiscal Year 2019 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - NEVADA

No data No data No data

LEA ID District FY 2019 Title I Allocation

3200390 Carson City School District 1,345,768

3200030 Churchill County School District 684,186

3200060 Clark County School District 115,557,398

3200090 Douglas County School District 639,497

3200120 Elko County School District 972,219

3200150 Esmeralda County School District 22,906

3200180 Eureka County School District 20,424

3200210 Humboldt County School District 429,587

3200240 Lander County School District 131,056

3200270 Lincoln County School District 134,333

3200300 Lyon County School District 1,602,412

3200330 Mineral County School District 176,042

3200360 Nye County School District 1,516,678

3200420 Pershing County School District 147,091

3200450 Storey County School District 32,759

3200480 Washoe County School District 11,999,110

3200510 White Pine County School District 226,674

3299999 PART D SUBPART 2 745,093

No data No data No data

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.

X0AT
#### Charles Duchen et al., Copartners Doing Business as Kaye Knitting Mills, Appellants, v. Milliken Woolens, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on May 26, 1959, dismissing the first and third causes of action of the complaint as insufficient in law, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied. Defendants manufactured a certain Mazet yarn which they sold to plaintiffs, who in turn manufactured a line of cardigan sweaters from the yarn. Plaintiffs contend that the first cause of action sounds in prima facie tort, alleging that maliciously and solely to interfere with the right of plaintiffs to pursue their lawful business of selling such sweaters at a certain price and “ without just cause or excuse, and with the sole intent of injuring the plaintiffs ”, defendants advised certain named customers and certain potential customers of plaintiffs not to place orders with plaintiffs because the latter would not be able to fill such orders. While plaintiffs upon a trial may have great difficulty in proving defendants were not actuated by self-interest or thought of profit, it cannot be held that, giving the complaint every favorable inference, the possibility of such proof is precluded. The -third cause of action pleads violation of the Donnelly Act (General Business Law, § 340). It alleges that defendants and certain direct competitors of plaintiffs in the manufacture of sweaters conspired, among other things, to refuse to sell Mazet yarn to plaintiffs and to prevent plaintiffs from selling the afore-mentioned line of sweaters at $2.98 each, “to the end that the defendants could sell their Mazet yarns to other manufacturers *522of sweaters and the other manufacturers of sweaters could sell the sweaters made of such Mazet yarn to the retail public at greatly increased prices.” These and other allegations of the third cause of action spell out such an arrangement or combination to interfere with free enterprise as would constitute a violation of the Donnelly Act. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Lydia B. Melhado, Respondent-Appellant, v. Frederick A. Melhado, Appellant-Respondent.

Order, entered on August 13, 1963, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that payments for the maintenance and education of the children shall commence as of May 9, 1963, the return date of the motion, and to eliminate all provisions for a counsel fee, without prejudice to plaintiff’s renewal of an application therefor, and for expenses, upon the trial of this action. In view of the fact that plaintiff is possessed of sufficient assets to maintain this action, and that the claim for separation is not contested, the above modifications are warranted. As so modified the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
[ Comerica Letterhead ]



October 20, 1998


Mr. W.T. ZurSchmiede, Jr.
Chairman
Federal Screw Works
2400 Buhl Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226


Dear Mr. ZurSchmiede,

Per your request dated September 3, 1998 and pursuant to Section 2.13 of
the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement between Federal Screw Works
and Comerica Bank, the Bank has approved the one year extension for the 
Revolving Credit Facility and Term Loan option. The new maturity dates for
the facilities are October 31, 2001 and October 31, 2003, respectively.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards,

/s/ Robert M. Ramirez
Robert M. Ramirez


cc: Wade Plaskey
### §476. Acreage reports

The Secretary of Agriculture shall cause to be issued a report on or before the 12th day of July of each year showing by States and in toto the estimated acreage of cotton planted, to be followed on or before the 12th day of August with an estimate of the acreage for harvest and on or before the 12th day of December with an estimate of the harvested acreage.

(May 27, 1912, ch. 135, §1, 37 Stat. 118; Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §6, 44 Stat. 1374; Pub. L. 85–430, §1, May 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 149; Pub. L. 92–331, §2, June 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 400.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act which enacted sections 471 to 474 of this title and amended sections 475 and 476 of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 412 of this title.

#### Amendments

1972—Pub. L. 92–331 substituted "12th" for "10th", "on or before the 12th day of August" for "on August 1", and "on or before the 12th day of December" for "on December 1".

1958—Pub. L. 85–430 substituted provisions requiring report to show estimated acreage of cotton planted, to be followed with an estimate of acreage for harvest and an estimate of harvested acreage for provisions which required report to show number of acres of cotton in cultivation on July 1 of each year, followed with an estimate of acreage of cotton abandoned since July 1.

1927—Act Mar. 3, 1927, struck out "Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Agriculture", substituted "on or before the 10th day of July" for "on or about the first Monday in July" and inserted "on July 1, to be followed on September 1 and December 1 with an estimate of the acreage of cotton abandoned since July 1" after "cultivation".
Exhibit
32.2





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 Annual Report of MDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Sweet,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 SweetMichael
      SweetPrincipal
      Financial OfficerMarch
      25, 2009
MEMORANDUM 

To: File 

From: Marc Thomas 

Subject: Meeting with NACWA 

Date: March 4, 2010 

On March 4, 2010, EPA met with representatives from the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies (NACWA) and others concerned with how sewage sludge could be potentially 

impacted by the upcoming proposed rule that identifies which non-hazardous secondary 

materials are or are not solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

for purposes of regulation under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This meeting 

was a follow-up to a letter sent by NACWA to EPA on September 9, 2009. NACWA discussed 

generally and elaborated upon the positions put forth in its letter, which is also included in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

A list of participants who were in the room and on the phone is attached. 

Attachment
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DOLORES NUCCIO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 581

)

WATSON DWYER, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Watson Dwyer, Inc. (“Watson Dwyer”) has filed its Answer and

Affirmative Defense to the employment discrimination claims

brought against it by Dolores Nuccio (“Nuccio”). This memorandum

order is issued sua sponte because of the challenge to federal

jurisdiction that is reflected in the Answer.

There are a number of problems with Watson Dwyer’s

submission as a pleading matter, but those will not be addressed

here because of the overriding threshold need to determine

whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Answer ¶1

asserts that “Watson Dwyer did not employee [sic] the minimum

number of employees required by these Federal Statutes.” If that

is indeed the case, this action would have to be dismissed for

lack of such jurisdiction (no other predicate for federal

jurisdiction is suggested by Nuccio’s Complaint).

Accordingly this action is set for a status hearing at

9 a.m. May 10, 2012. At or before that date Watson Dwyer’s

counsel is ordered to file, and to deliver to Nuccio’s counsel, a

Case: 1:12-cv-00581 Document #: 13 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:50
verified statement as to the employment information that supports

the assertion in Answer ¶1. That subject can then be discussed

at the scheduled status hearing.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 3, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00581 Document #: 13 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BILL BEIGL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 150

)

NORTHWEST COLLECTORS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Northwest Collectors, Inc. (“Northwest”) has filed its

Answer to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Complaint filed

against it by Bill Beigl (“Beigl”). This sua sponte memorandum

order is occasioned by two aspects of that responsive pleading.

To begin with, defense counsel has joined a substantial club

(though frankly a single member of that club would be one too

many) comprising lawyers who cannot seem to conform to the plain

language of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5). Instead of

tracking the clear roadmap prescribed by that Rule for parties to

get the benefit of a deemed denial (see App’x ¶5 to State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill.

2001)), Answer ¶¶9, 10 and 12 through 18 follow a different (and

impermissible) path that requires rerouting.

Another instance of defense counsel’s thoughtlessly

mechanical pleading is found at Answer ¶¶22 through 24. In each

of those instances counsel admits that the corresponding

Complaint allegations accurately set out a portion of a quoted

Case: 1:12-cv-00150 Document #: 18 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:38
statute and denies its violation--but the Answer goes on to say:

Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation

contained in paragraph --.

But there are no “remaining” allegations in those paragraphs of

the Complaint, so that the “denial” in the response is

meaningless.

Finally, counsel advances a First Affirmative Defense (“AD”)

of “bona fide error” (if any error did occur) because of the

asserted “maintenance of procedures reasonably designed to avoid

such error.” But with the Complaint’s allegations being accepted

as true (as must be done for AD purposes), no explanation is

provided as to why those claimed procedures did not prevent the

asserted violations claimed by Beigl. Hence the AD in its

present form is stricken, but without prejudice to its possible

reassertion with proper support.

In sum, the several flaws in Northwest’s pleading call for

its being stricken in its entirety, so that a self-contained

Amended Answer can be filed instead. That Amended Answer must be

filed on or before March 16, 2012.

One last point: No charge is to be made to Northwest by its

counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting

counsel’s errors. Northwest’s counsel are ordered to apprise

their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be

transmitted to this Court’s chambers as an informational matter

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00150 Document #: 18 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:39
(not for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00150 Document #: 18 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:40
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 13 OF THE 1998 FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,438
<SECURITIES>                                    15,222
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,288
<INVENTORY>                                     42,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,010
<PP&E>                                          30,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,278
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,247
<SALES>                                        165,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,701
<CGS>                                           92,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,082
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SUMMARY CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED JULY
31, 1998, AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                      21,953,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,470,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                   558,711
<INVENTORY>                                 13,985,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,198,123
<PP&E>                                      43,253,743
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,801,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,713,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,666,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,393,298
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,438,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,713,977
<SALES>                                     99,601,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            99,601,109
<CGS>                                       59,568,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,568,873
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,210,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                93,113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             177,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,821,901
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,732,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,089,901
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,089,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
#### Nicholas J. Rakiecki, Respondent, v. John Ferenc et al., Appellants.

Judgment as to defendant John Ferenc unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and a new trial granted, and otherwise judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. Memorandum: At the opening of the trial of this action and while the first witness was testifying it was disclosed that the defendant John Ferenc was then confined to Matteawan State Hospital for the criminally insane. The same information developed on two subsequent occasions, the last of which indicated Ferenc’s commitment was by order of the Erie County Court dated June 29, 1962. Section 207 of the Civil Practice Act (then in effect) provided that the Supreme Court could at any stage in any action appoint a guardian ad litem or special guardian for an incompetent person. The failure of the court to afford the incompetent this protection under the circumstances existing was improvident and requires the reversal of the judgment against him. The defendant Diane Ferenc was the owner of the vehicle which was being driven by her husband with her knowledge, permission and consent. The infirmity of the judgment against John Ferenc does not affect the judgment against the owner and that judgment is affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in favor of plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
### §7984. Studies of effects of changes in approach to national dairy policy and fluid milk identity standards

#### (a) Federal dairy policy changes

The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study of the effects of—

(1) terminating all Federal programs relating to price support and supply management for milk; and

(2) granting the consent of Congress to cooperative efforts by States to manage milk prices and supply.

#### (b) Fluid milk identity standards

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the effects of including in the standard of identity for fluid milk a required minimum protein content that is commensurate with the average nonfat solids content of bovine milk produced in the United States.

#### (c) Reports

Not later than 1 year after May 13, 2002, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the studies required by this section.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1508, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 211.)
Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: August 19, 2009
    /s/ Greenfield PittsGreenfield PittsChief Financial Officer
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06914**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06914\06914_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06914\06914_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06914\06914_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06914\06914_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06914\06914_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06914\06914_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06914\06914_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06914\06914_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06914\Certification Statement Plant ID 06914.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06914\Supplemental Documents\06914_Charles R Lowman Plant Map -1(CONFIDENTIAL) R.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 06914\Supplemental Documents\06914_Cover Letter.pdf Cover letter x 

### 06914\Supplemental Documents\06914_Extension Request.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06914\Supplemental Documents\06914_Lowman Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.