alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fiscal Year 2016 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DELAWARE

FY 2016 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

1000080 Appoquinimink School District 974,892

1001240 Brandywine School District 2,740,464

1000180 Caesar Rodney School District 2,725,780

1000170 Cape Henlopen School District 1,500,072

1000190 Capital School District 4,385,321

1000200 Christina School District 10,139,121

1000230 Colonial School District 4,853,754

1000270 Delmar School District 282,861

1000680 Indian River School District 3,779,775

1000790 Lake Forest School District 1,315,401

1000810 Laurel School District 891,617

1001080 Milford School District 1,551,591

1001300 Red Clay Consolidated School District 6,964,780

1001530 Seaford School District 2,816,544

1001620 Smyrna School District 1,129,650

1001850 Woodbridge School District 1,220,630

1099999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* 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 4 percent in fiscal year 2016 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### Robert Chiappone, Appellant, v City of New York Department of Consumer Affairs, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review respondent’s determination granting petitioner’s landlord certain parking lot licenses and to impose additional penalties against petitioner’s landlord for allegedly violating parking lot licensing provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 18, 1977, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Upon the record, respondent’s determination to grant the parking lot licenses at issue was not made in violation of lawful procedure, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see Administrative Code of City of New York, ch 32, § 773-4.0; § B32-251.0 *et seq.).*Furthermore, no abuse of discretion appears with respect to the amount of the fines respondent imposed against petitioner’s landlord. Suozzi, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
### §7993. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1623(a), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1025, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1623(a), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1753

Section, Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1605, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 216, related to Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 repealed this section. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. George Bartlam, Appellant, against Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the warden.) Present — Bastow, J. jP., Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
### §7012. Purchase of American-made equipment and products

#### (a) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased using funds made available pursuant to this chapter should be American-made.

#### (b) Notice requirement

In providing financial assistance to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using funds made available pursuant to this chapter, the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §292, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3237.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 103–354, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3209, known as the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 4, 2015

p0128 

# Order

Clerk February 4, 2015

149989

WYANDOTTE ELECTRIC SUPPLY,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149989

COA: 313736

Wayne CC: 11

- 003015

- CK

ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS,

INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant,

and

KEO & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 15, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whe ther the plaintiff served on the principal

contractor the 30

- day notice within the meaning of MCL 129.207; (2) whether the

plaintiff is entitled to damages, if any, that include a time

- price differential and attorney

fees; and (3) whether MCL 600.6013(7) i s applicable to the judgment in this case.
#### Dorothy S. May, Appellant, v Richard J. May, Respondent.

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 1, 1977 in Albany County, upon an order which granted defendant’s motion to resettle the original judgment of the court granting plaintiff a divorce. In connection with their matrimonial litigation, the parties stipulated in open court that plaintiff was to receive a life estate in the "marital premises” with the right to exclusive possession. The divorce decree incorporated the stipulations, but granted plaintiff a life estate in the "premises” with the right to exclusive use and possession. The decree was entered on July 28, 1977. The "premises” in question consisted of real estate improved by two separate houses. One of the houses was occupied by the parties as their marital home; the other has been vacant for some years. There is also a garage apartment on the property. Defendant subsequently moved to resettle the divorce decree because it indicated that plaintiff was entitled to a life estate in the entire premises whereas the stipulation had provided that plaintiff’s life estate was only in the "marital premises”. Accordingly, Special Term amended the original divorce decree to provide that plaintiff was entitled to a life estate in the "marital portion” of the premises. The amended decree was entered on November 1, 1977. Plaintiff appealed on November 30, 1977. We agree with defendant’s contention that plaintiffs appeal is untimely. Generally, the time to appeal is measured from the date of entry of the resettled order or judgment *(Matter of Kolasz v Levitt,*63 AD2d 777, 779). "However, the general rule is qualified by the proviso that the resettled judgment must contain a change that is a material one so as to be, in effect, a new determination, thereby creating a corresponding new right to appeal and, if there is no such change, the time to appeal should be measured by the original order (cf. *Kaehler v Phoenix Ins. Co.,*38 AD2d 683)” *(Matter of Kolasz v Levitt, supra,*p 779). Here, the resettlement order, in recognition of the parties’ stipulation, amended the original decree to state that plaintiff was to receive a life estate in the "marital portion” of the premises rather than the "premises”. In our view, the resettlement order clarified and corrected the original decree so that it would conform to the stipulation (see 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 5701.25). It did not contain a material change which would constitute a "new determination” *(Matter of Kolasz v Levitt, supra,*p 779). Since plaintiff did not take an appeal within 30 days of the entry of the original decree, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Appeal dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EMONS
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,084,679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,964,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,621
<INVENTORY>                                    223,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,543,182
<PP&E>                                      31,255,819
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,556,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,844,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,679,160
<BONDS>                                     11,106,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,375
<COMMON>                                        60,315
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,378,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,844,801
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,466,682
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,665,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             753,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                855,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                    79,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            776,552
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   776,552
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
Document has been coded “C” Claimed Confidential Must be Requested 

under the Freedom of Information Act.
#### Rita Schwartz, Respondent, v Samuel R. Schwartz, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff was granted a divorce, the defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 23, 1978, as (1) granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion which sought (a) an interpretation of the stipulation of settlement dated May 30, 1975, (b) additional alimony and (c) counsel fees and (2) denied the branch of his motion which sought counsel fees. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. For the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Gibbons at Special Term, we are in agreement with his interpretation of the stipulation of settlement and the modification of the award of alimony. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this record, the award of counsel fees to the wife and the denial of counsel fees to the husband were proper. Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of the constitutionality of sections 237 and 238 of the Domestic Relations Law (cf. *Thaler v Thaler,*58 AD2d 890). Special Term’s failure to draw an inference favorable to the husband upon the wife’s untimely filing of the official form financial affidavit was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see 22 NYCRR 699.11). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., not voting.
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-2 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-2 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:12
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION.IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 October 14, 2014

Dwight E. Mallory Environmental/Regulatory Manager Resolute Natural Resources Company, LLC 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2800 Denver, CO 80203 In Reply ReferTo: AIR-3 NU 05-01

Subject: Proposed PSD Permit Amendment for the McElmo CreekUnit Oil Production Facility Dear Mr. Mallory: This letter and the enclosed materials are inresponse to your to the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (MCU Facility). The application requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) incorporate into the MCU Facility's PSD permitthe pollution limits, terms, and conditions ofa federal Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S. Inc., CaseNo. 2:05-CV-319, filed June 8, 2005) that apply to the Main Flare atthe facility
. The MCU Facility is an existing oil and gas production operation that is owned, in partnership withNavajo Nation Oil and Gas Company, and operated by the Resolute Natural Resources Company. The facility is located in
.Section 31, Township 40 South, Range 25 East within the Four Comers Areaonthe Navajo Nation Indian Reservation near the town ofAneth, SanJuan County, Utah
. We have reviewed your application and supporting materials, based on the criteria inthe EPA's PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. Enclosed are the proposed PSD permit amendment, Ambient Air Quality Impact Report and Fact Sheet, andpublic notice. The public notice will also be published on Wednesday, October 15th through Friday, October 17th, 2014, depending onthe publication date ofthe following newspapers inthe Four Comers area: Navajo Times, Farmington Daily Times, Cortez Journal, and SanJuan Record. We have scheduled a public hearing onNovember 20,2014, atthe Aneth Chapter House in Aneth, Utah. The proposed PSD permit amendment and other documents related to the PSD permit application are also available on our website at: http://www
.epa.gov/region9/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html.Ifyou have any questions, you may contact Shaheerah Kelly at ( 415) 947-4156 or kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.

Enclosures Sincerely, 

# 2/;;b

Gerardo C. Rios Chief, Permits Office Air Division

cc: PatrickE Flynn, Resolute Natural Resources Company (via email) Tom Hormell, McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc (via email) Raju Bisht, Navajo Nation EPA (via email) Tennille Begay, Navajo Nation EPA (via email)



### 2
#### Menashi J. Saleh, Respondent, v. Herman J. Karp, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before February 9, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Helen Jacobs v. Irving Warren.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente and Bastow, JJ.
#### 1414.201 Preparation of invitation for bids.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 13, 2022

No. 04-21-00345-CR

EX PARTE Vanessa Marie VILLANUEVA,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A1523-1

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 28, 2022, we issued an opinion and judgment in this appeal. As a result, 

any motion for rehearing was due by today, October 13, 2022. On October 11, 2022, appellant 

filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. After consideration, we grant

the motion in part. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due by November 14, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

April 16, 2015

Shawn Darrick Sheffield

Law Office of Shawn Sheffield

8406 Fountain Circle

San Antonio, TX 78229-2387

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

David Philip Martin

Bexar County Criminal District Attorney

Paul Elizondo Tower

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Nicolas A. Lahood

District Attorney, Bexar County

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-15-00082-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2013-PA-00544

Style: In the Interest of R.C.

Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has 

issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_____________________________

Elizabeth Montoya

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 5-3857
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00082-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.C.,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00544

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on May 

3, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ELLUS LAROUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00007-F-4)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellus Larous, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ellus Larous appeals the district court’s order denying his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Larous, No. 5:98-cr-00007-F-4 (E.D.N.C. 

June 23, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 11, 2020

s0909

Order 

Clerk

September 11, 2020

161557

In re A. SMITH, JR., Minor. SC: 161557

COA: 351233

Huron CC Family Division: 

17-004605-NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 745 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 745

  To reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2017

 Mr. Flake (for himself and Mr. McCain) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) SCAAP Reauthorization.--Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the em dash and all that follows through 
        ``(C)''; and
            (2) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2021''.
    (b) SCAAP Assistance for States.--
            (1) Assistance for states incarcerating undocumented aliens 
        charged with certain crimes.--Section 241(i)(3)(A) of such Act 
        (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged with 
        or'' before ``convicted''.
            (2) Assistance for states incarcerating unverified 
        aliens.--Section 241(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), as 
        amended by paragraph (1) and subsection (a), is further 
        amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and medical 
                expenses'' after ``incarceration'';
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), 
                as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
                    (C) in paragraph (7), as redesignated, by striking 
                ``(5)'' and inserting ``(6)''; and
                    (D) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) In the case of an alien whose immigration status is 
        unable to be verified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
        and who would otherwise be an undocumented criminal alien if 
        the alien is unlawfully present in the United States, the 
        Attorney General shall compensate the State or political 
        subdivision of the State for the incarceration and medical 
        expenses of the alien in accordance with paragraph (2).''.
                                 <all>
```