alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED JULY 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,719
<SECURITIES>                                       204
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         93
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,258
<PP&E>                                          44,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,525
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,390
<SALES>                                         17,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,103
<INCOME-TAX>                                       515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,400
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.00
        

</TABLE>
Docket No. FAA - 2016 - 3696 Dir. ID 2015 - NM - 113 - AD
EXHIBIT F

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:325
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:326
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:327
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:328
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:329
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-12 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:330
### **CHAPTER 15—ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY AND VISA ENTRY REFORM**

Sec.
1701.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—FUNDING

1711.
Authorization of appropriations for hiring and training Government personnel.
1712.
Authorization of appropriations for improvements in technology and infrastructure.
1713.
Machine-readable visa fees.
1714.
Surcharges related to consular services.
1715.
Consular and Border Security Programs.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING

1721.
Interim measures for access to and coordination of law enforcement and other information.
1722.
Interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data system with name-matching capacity and training.
1723.
Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing.
1724.
Personnel management authorities for positions involved in the development and implementation of the interoperable electronic data system ("Chimera system").

#### SUBCHAPTER III—VISA ISSUANCE

1731.
Implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system.
1732.
Machine-readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents.
1733.
Terrorist lookout committees.
1734.
Improved training for consular officers.
1735.
Restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism.
1736.
Check of lookout databases.
1737.
Tracking system for stolen passports.
1738.
Identification documents for certain newly admitted aliens.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—INSPECTION AND ADMISSION OF ALIENS

1751.
Study of the feasibility of a North American National Security Program.
1752.
Staffing levels at ports of entry.
1752a.
Model ports-of-entry.
1753.
Joint United States-Canada projects for alternative inspections services.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS

1761.
Foreign student monitoring program.
1762.
Review of institutions and other entities authorized to enroll or sponsor certain nonimmigrants.

#### SUBCHAPTER VI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1771.
General Accounting Office study.
1772.
International cooperation.
1773.
Statutory construction.
1774.
Annual report on aliens who fail to appear after release on own recognizance.
1775.
Retention of nonimmigrant visa applications by the Department of State.
1776.
Training program.
1777.
Establishment of Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center.
1778.
Vulnerability and threat assessment.
14.202-1 Bidding time. ( a ) *Policy.* A reasonable time for prospective bidders to prepare and submit bids shall be allowed in all invitations, consistent with the needs of the Government. (For construction contracts, see 36.213-3(a).) A bidding time (i.e., the time between issuance of the solicitation and opening of bids) of at least 30 calendar days shall be provided when synopsis is required by subpart 5.2.
( b ) *Factors to be considered.* Because of unduly limited bidding time, some potential sources may be precluded from bidding and others may be forced to include amounts for contingencies that, with additional time, could be eliminated. To avoid unduly restricting competition or paying higher-than-necessary prices, consideration shall be given to such factors as the following in establishing a reasonable bidding time: ( 1 ) degree of urgency;
( 2 ) complexity of requirement;
( 3 ) anticipated extent of subcontracting;
( 4 ) whether use was made of presolicitation notices;
( 5 ) geographic distribution of bidders; and
( 6 ) normal transmittal time for both invitations and bids.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1738, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 60 FR 34737, July 3, 1995; 62 FR 272, Jan. 2, 1997]
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Kathy Travis, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 1lev7911
)
v. ) Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
)
Triton College, Sean Sullivan, Kevin ) Magistrate Sheila M. Finnegan
Kennedy, Sum Lau, Marianne Mayer, )
Donna Stadermann, Danielle Stephens, )
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF FILING

To: Kathy Travis
1150 8. 15" Avenue
Maywood, Illinois 60153

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 9, 2013, we filed with the Clerk of the Court for the
Northern District or Illinois, Eastern Division, the Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, a copy of which is attached and served upon you.

By: s/Daniel E. Cannon
Daniel E. Cannon

Daniel E. Cannon

Kusper & Raucci Chartered

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1530
Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 332-5000

(312) 332-4663 (fax)

ARDC No. 6180109

Attorney for Defendants


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney certifies that on May 9, 2013, a true copy of the aforementioned
Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and this
Notice were filed and served by electronic transmission via the Case Management/Electronic Case
Filing System of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, upon the plaintiff pro se,
and were also served by U.S. Mail, with proper prepaid postage, upon the plaintiff Kathy Travis,
11508. 15" Avenue, Maywood, Illinois 60153.

/Daniel E. Cannon
Daniel E. Cannon

Daniel E. Cannon

Kusper & Raucci Chartered

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1530
Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 332-5000

(312) 332-4663 (fax)

ARDC No. 6180109

Attorney for Defendants
#### Leme Realty Corp., Respondent, v. Kings Mercantile Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property or for the recovery of the deposit and title expense, the vendor — the corporate defendant — appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered February 26, 1963 upon the court’s written decision after a non jury trial, in the plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $9,384.49, for the deposit, the title expense, interest and costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. It appears that as of the closing day there was an incumbrance on the property. It also appears that in the written contract between the parties the seller made a representation with respect to the location and use of sewers; that such representation was untrue; that under the terms of the contract the vendee was entitled to the return of its deposit upon notifying the vendor of the falsity of the representation within the time prescribed; and that the vendee duly gave such notice. Under the circumstances, the defendant seller was not entitled to a forfeiture of the deposit. Beldóck, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
13.302-3 Obtaining contractor acceptance and modifying purchase orders. ( a ) When it is desired to consummate a binding contract between the parties before the contractor undertakes performance, the contracting officer shall require written (see 2.101) acceptance of the purchase order by the contractor.
( b ) Each purchase order modification shall identify the order it modifies and shall contain an appropriate modification number.
( c ) A contractor's written acceptance of a purchase order modification may be required only if— ( 1 ) Determined by the contracting officer to be necessary to ensure the contractor's compliance with the purchase order as revised; or
( 2 ) Required by agency regulations.
#### In the Matter of the County of Suffolk, Appellant-Respondent, v. Trustees of the Town of Brookhaven, Appellant-Respondent, and Doris H. S. Dana et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding under the Suffolk County Improvement Act (L. 1939, eh. 726, amdg. L. 1927, eh. 190) to acquire by condemnation certain beach land in the Towns of Brookhaven and Southhampton, Suffolk County, in which the court on August 29, 1961, upon the consent of the parties, had directed the issues as to the title of certain parcels to be tried separately and stayed -all further proceedings before the Commissioners of Estimate with respect to such parcels, the County of Suffolk and the Town of Brookhaven appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated and entered December 27, 1962 upon the opinion -and decision of the court after a nonjury trial, which: (a) denied the claim of title by the Town of Brookhaven to certain parcels and declared the title to such parcels to be vested in the individual el-aimants-respondents; -and (b) directed the continuance of the hearings before the Commissioners of Estimate for the purpose of determining the values of the parcels. Appeal dismissed, without costs. While on the argument of this appeal the cl-aima-nts-respondents withdrew their motion to dismiss the appeal, the court on its own motion has determined to dismiss the appeal. It appears that the order appealed from is an intermediate order; an appeal lies only from the final order in this condemnation proceeding (L. 1927, ch. 190, § 29; of. Condemnation Law, § 19; *Matter of City of Jamestown*v. *Sfetko,*15 A D 2d 403, and cases there cited; *Matter of County of Nassau,*261 App. Div. 118; *City of Buffalo*v. *Ferry-Woodlaivn Realty Go.,*8 Ñ Y 2d 983). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         ULTRAK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       Subsidiary Name                 % Owned          State of Incorporation
       ---------------                 -------          ----------------------
 <S>                                     <C>                  <C>
 Dental Vision Direct, Inc.              100%                   Texas
                                                        
 JAK Pacific Video Warranty and                         
    Repair Services, Inc.                100%                 California
                                                        
 Diamond Electronics, Inc.               100%                    Ohio
                                                        
 BLC & Associates, Inc.                  100%                 California
                                                        
 Ultrak GP, Inc.                         100%                  Delaware
                                                        
 Ultrak LP, Inc.                         100%                  Delaware
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Rafael Diaz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered, after trial to a jury, November 6, 1975, convicting defendant-appellant of murder, second degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for a new trial. The record reflects colloquy between defense counsel and the court to the effect that the court intended to charge murder alone and refused to submit lesser included counts of manslaughter, first and second degrees, to the jury. Contrary to the prosecutor’s argument, the evidence did not unequivocally support murder as the sole possible verdict. "The test of whether a 'lesser included offense’ is to be submitted is certainly not that it is probable that the crime was actually committed or even that there is substantial evidence to support such a view. It suffices that it is supportable on a rational basis or, put another way, by logical necessity. To warrant a refusal to submit it 'every possible hypothesis’ but guilt of the higher crime must be excluded *(People v Shuman,*37 NY2d 302, 304, *supra; People v Malave,*21 NY2d 26), the evidence for that purpose being required to be considered in the light most favorable to the defendant *(People v Battle,*22 NY2d 323) since the jury is free to accept or reject part or all of the defense or prosecution’s evidence *(People v Asan,*22 NY2d 526; *People v Valle,*15 NY2d 682, revg on dissent at App Div 21 AD2d 765).” *(People v Henderson,*41 NY2d 233, 236.) The fatal shot was fired from a distance of five to six feet, immediately preceded by a remark tending to create some doubt as to the state of defendant’s intentions or emotions at that moment, uttered as he came down the stairs to where the decedent stood in conversation with others. The refusal to charge as provided by CPL 300.50 (subd 2) was error. The evidence could have easily supported a conviction for either of the lesser crimes had they been charged. Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | **FOIA Library**Making a Request | FAQs | Contacts | Links

### FOIA Library

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) makes certain types of records, created by the agency on or after November 1, 1996, available electronically on the Internet. The FOIA Library consists of:
                - Frequently requested information
                - Decisions rendered in the adjudication of administrative cases
                - Final statements of policy
                - Annual FOIA reports to the Attorney General
                - Other documents, including ED's Records Disposition Schedule
                - Reading Room Certification (10/31/2008)   PDF  (40K)

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
2003 AQMP - 2010 STATIONARY BASELINE EMISSIONS - NO GROWTH - SOX AND PM10 BY MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORY (T/D

Road Dust

SOx PM10 SOx PM10 PM10 SOx PM10

010 Electric Utilities 0.22 0.75 0.22 0.75020 Cogeneration 0.01 0.66 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.67030 Oil and Gas Production (Combustion) 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.16040 Petroleum Refining (Combustion) 0.00 2.32 0.00 2.32050 Manufacturing and Industrial 0.09 1.15 0.36 1.01 0.45 2.15052 Food and Agricultural Processing 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.18060 Service and Commercial 0.46 0.71 0.14 0.16 0.60 0.87099 Other (Fuel Combustion) 0.15 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30110 Sewage Treatment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00120 Landfills 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.17130 Incinerators 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08199 Other (Waste Disposal) 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12210 Laundering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00220 Degreasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00230 Coatings and Related Process Solvents 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05240 Printing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00250 Sealants & Adhesives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00299 Other (Cleaning and Surface Coatings) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00310 Oil and Gas Production 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02320 Petroleum Refining 4.31 0.76 4.31 0.76330 Petroleum Marketing 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03399 Other (Petroleum Production and Marketing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00410 Chemical 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38420 Food and Agriculture 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19430 Mineral Processes 0.01 2.07 0.00 1.07 0.01 3.14

440 Metal Processes 0.03 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.79

Point Area Total Stationary

MSC SumName

G:\AIR-3\Permit Programs\NSR Info\District NSR Rulemaking\By Districts\South Coast\Rule 1315\TSD suppor

440 Metal Processes 0.03 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.79450 Wood and Paper 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.96 0.00 1.01460 Glass and Related Products 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.23470 Electronics 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00499 Other (Industrial Processes) 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15

NOX/SOX Reclaim 12.03 12.03

Total Emissions (T/D) 18 11 1 3 0 18.2 14.5

Annual Average inventory.

Rounds off may introduce slight discrepancies in totals.

G:\AIR-3\Permit Programs\NSR Info\District NSR Rulemaking\By Districts\South Coast\Rule 1315\TSD suppor
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲
▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Brian P. Carney, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jo-Ann Stores,Inc. (the “registrant”); 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfirst fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 10, 2004   /s/ Brian P. Carney   By: Brian P. Carney Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Linda R. Morse, Respondent, v Albert Morse, Appellant.

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County, entered December 13, 1977, which made an award for alimony, child support and counsel fees. A party may not appeal from an order entered upon his default, the proper remedy being an application to open the default made to the rendering court (CPLR 5511, 5015; *Furci v Furci,*45 AD2d 1003). Appeal dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Smalls, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 10, 1975, convicting him of felony murder and two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since the Trial Judge duly instructed the jury both on robbery and attempted robbery, and on the fact that an attempted robbery could form the basis for a felony murder conviction, the jury could have concluded that the felony murder in this case should be predicated on the uncharged attempted robbery of the deceased. The guilty verdict for the robberies of two of the decedent’s companions may therefore rest on a separate and distinct factual foundation. Accordingly, the convictions of these two counts of robbery must stand (cf. *People v Barnes,*60 AD2d 654; *People v De Gata,*64 AD2d 929). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
# May 2022 FOIA Log