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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET OCTOBER 27, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR
ENDED OCTOBER 27, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                           3,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                       294
<INVENTORY>                                     11,170
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,799
<PP&E>                                          16,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           230
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,060
<SALES>                                         70,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,237
<CGS>                                           55,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### 1328.101-1 Policy on use.

The designee authorized to make a class waiver for the requirement to obtain a bid guarantee when a performance bond or a performance and payment bond is required is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Dear Mr. Pierce :

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015− 3861 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to
proce ed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/5/16 . I f we do not receive the information

, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questi ons, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
16.101 General. ( a ) A wide selection of contract types is available to the Government and contractors in order to provide needed flexibility in acquiring the large variety and volume of supplies and services required by agencies. Contract types vary according to ( 1 ) the degree and timing of the responsibility assumed by the contractor for the costs of performance and
( 2 ) the amount and nature of the profit incentive offered to the contractor for achieving or exceeding specified standards or goals.
( b ) The contract types are grouped into two broad categories: fixed-price contracts (see subpart 16.2) and cost-reimbursement contracts (see subpart 16.3). The specific contract types range from firm-fixed-price, in which the contractor has full responsibility for the performance costs and resulting profit (or loss), to cost-plus-fixed-fee, in which the contractor has minimal responsibility for the performance costs and the negotiated fee (profit) is fixed. In between are the various incentive contracts (see subpart 16.4), in which the contractor's responsibility for the performance costs and the profit or fee incentives offered are tailored to the uncertainties involved in contract performance.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe Aerospace Database data element dictionary with issues and recommendations from the meetings of July 24-25, August 13-14, and September 24-25, 1991The present volume contains descriptions of the individual fields (data elements) which comprise the bibliographic records of the Aerospace Database. Indexes by field name and field mnemonic are provided. In addition, the issues and recommendations defined by the NASA STI Database Upgrade Working Group are included as annotations to the individual field descriptions and are listed at the end of the volume. The activities of the Working Group were initiated by the NASA STI Program Coordinating Council as part of an effort to improve overall database quality.Document ID19930007044Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeOther - OtherDate AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1991Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:108156NASA-TM-108156Accession Number93N16233Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007044.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[Cite as State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski , 2019-Ohio-3982.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

STATE EX REL. RYAN SALIM

Relator

v. HON. JUDGE MARK A. BETLESKI Respondent C.A. Nos. 19CA011530 19CA011537

ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROCEDENDO

Dated: September 30, 2019

PER CURIAM. {¶1} Relator, Ryan Salim, has petitioned this Court for a writ of procedendo to compel Respondent, Judge Mark Betleski, to rule on a motion for summary judgment pending in Mr. Salim’s underlying civil case. Judge Betleski has moved to dismiss the complaint as moot because he has ruled on the motion. Because the motion has been ruled on, Mr. Salim’s claim is moot, and this Court dismisses his petition. {¶2} To obtain a writ of procedendo, Mr. Salim must establish that he has a clear legal right to require the judge to proceed, that the judge has a clear legal duty to proceed, and that there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel.

Ward v. Reed , 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). Procedendo isC.A. Nos. 19CA011530, 19CA011537 Page 2 of 3 the appropriate remedy when a court has refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel , 111 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled that procedendo will not “compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.”

State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel , 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 1998-Ohio-541. {¶3} Mr. Salim sought a writ of procedendo to order the judge to rule on the pending motion for summary judgment. This Court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine that an action is moot. State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo , 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000). According to Judge Betleski’s motion to dismiss, and a review of the trial court docket, Judge Betleski ruled on the motion for summary judgment that was the subject of this complaint. Accordingly, this matter is moot. {¶4} Because Mr. Salim’s claim is moot, his complaint is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Salim. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

THOMAS A. TEODOSIO FOR THE COURT HENSAL, J. SCHAFER, J. CONCUR.C.A. Nos. 19CA011530, 19CA011537 Page 3 of 3 APPEARANCES: ROBERT E. JORDAN, JR., Pro se, Relator. DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and CHRIS A. PYANOWSKI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
Negotiated Rulemaking February Links – p. 1

Links active as of February 18, 2022

U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

 Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee

Committee February 14-18, 2022

Links shared in the Chat during session 1

February 14, 2022 - Day 1

Description Link Provided by

None

February 15, 2022 - Day 2

Description Link Provided by

Tangled up in Debt 

Report

https://hechingerreport.org/how-cosmetology-schools-mire-studentsin-debt/Johnson Tyler,

Legal Assistance 

Organizations

Lessons from 

Gainful

Employment: 

Improvements to

Replicate and a 

Mistake to Avoid

https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-

NGT-LessonsfromGainfulEmployment-AndrewGillen.pdf

Brad Adams,

Proprietary 

Institutions of 

Higher 

Education
Negotiated Rulemaking February Links – p. 2

Links active as of February 18, 2022

February 16, 2022 - Day 3

Description Link Provided by

Press Release 

regarding for 

profit ITT 

Tech 

https://predatorystudentlending.org/new

s/press-releases/new-report-detailsmassive-scale-of-fraud-and-abuse-atnotorious-for-profit-college-itt-tech-pressrelease/

Ernest Ezeugo, 

Student & Loan 

Borrowers

February 17, 2022 - Day 4

Description Link Provided by

Dreams 

Destroyed 

Report: 

How ITT 

Technical 

Institute 

Defrauded a 

Generation 

of Students

https://predatorystudentlending.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/ITT-Report.pdfBarmak Nassirian, 

Servicemembers 

& Vets

Transcript 

withholding 

across New 

York’s 

Neighborhoods 

https://younginvincibles.org/transcript-withholding-across-new-yorksneighborhoods-a-crisis-for-communities-of-color/

Ernest 

Ezeugo, 

Students 

and Loan 

Borrowers

February 18, 2022 - Day 5

Description Link Provided by

None
Negotiated Rulemaking February Links – p. 3

Links active as of February 18, 2022
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79071-79072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31706]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending October 
30, 2010

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0267.
    Date Filed: October 25, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 648--Resolution 010e, TC31 North & Central 
Pacific, Special Passenger Amending

[[Page 79072]]

Resolution, from USA to South East Asia, (Memo 0525), Intended 
effective date: 1 November 2010.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-31706 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
§ 756.3 Notification. ( a ) Some NAFI's, such as flying clubs, carry private commercial insurance to protect them from claims for property damage and personal injury attributable to their operations. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Chief of Naval Personnel, and the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command determine whether NAFI's within their cognizance shall carry liability insurance or become self-insurers, in whole or in part.
( b ) The Marine Corps requires mandatory participation in the Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Composite Insurance Program by the following operations: MWR operations and retail services, food and hospitality, recreation; and special NAFI activities including flying clubs, rod and gun clubs, Interservice Rifle Fund, Marine Corps Marathon and Dependent Cafeteria Fund. The following organizations may also participate in the MWR Composite Insurance Program, if desired: Child welfare centers, billeting funds, chapel funds, and civilian welfare funds.
( c ) When the operations of NAFI's result in property damage or personal injury, the insurance carrier, if any, should be given immediate written notification. Notification should not be postponed until a claim is filed. When the activity is self-insured, the self-insurance fund shall be notified of the potential liability by the activity.
Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:112

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:113

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:114

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:115

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:116

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:117

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:118

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:119

Case: 1:12-cv-00158 Document #: 20 Filed: 11/29/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:120
#### In the Matter of Warren D., Appellant.

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County, entered October 31, 1977, which adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to reverse the fact-finding determination with respect to the attempted robbery, and dismiss that charge in the petition, and otherwise affirmed. The appellant was one of three juveniles who, at a subway station in The Bronx, made threatening remarks to the transit employee in the change booth, and their acts were observed by two transit patrolmen. One of the three, not the appellant, thrust a knife through the open window of the booth and stated "I should kill you” and 'T should rob”, while the appellant looked on. It was found that the appellant’s conduct would, if done by an adult, constitute the crimes of attempted robbery and menacing. We do not believe that it can be found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of attempted robbery under the definitions thereof (Penal Law, §§ 110:00,160.15). However, we affirm with respect to menacing (Penal Law, §§ 120.15, 20.00). There was no doubt that the appellant’s companion was menacing under the appropriate definitions, and it could be found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was intentionally aiding "such person to engage in such conduct.” We do not disturb the disposition. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.902 Propriety of the discharge. ( a ) A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that: ( 1 ) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or
( 2 ) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.
( b ) When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court) the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.
( c ) The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.
( d ) The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court's Order of December 3, 1981, in *Wood* v. *Secretary of Defense* to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that: ( 1 ) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;
( 2 ) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
209.270-3 Policy. ( a ) The head of the contracting activity responsible for procuring an aviation or ship critical safety item may enter into a contract for the procurement, modification, repair, or overhaul of such an item only with a source approved by the head of the design control activity.
( b ) The approval authorities specified in this section apply instead of those otherwise specified in FAR 9.202(a)(1), 9.202(c), or 9.206-1(c), for the procurement, modification, repair, and overhaul of aviation or ship critical safety items.
[73 FR 1827, Jan. 10, 2008]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Insetta, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and information dismissed. Defendant has been convicted by the former Court of Special Sessions of illegal possession of obscene films in violation of section 1141 of the Penal Law. The information charged that on May 11, 1961 defendant “ did have in his possession ” the films “ with intent to * * * show” them . There is no testimony in the record by any witness that he saw the defendant in possession of the films on May 11, or at any time. The proof of guilt rests entirely upon a bare and categorical admission attributed to the defendant by a police officer. This officer, who received the film from another person, testified he showed the film to defendant and asked “if it was his film” and that defendant said “yes, it was.” The officer testified he then asked defendant if he “ had shown ” the film to anybody and that defendant said he “ had only shown them to friends.” This admission of mere title was not the full equivalent of an admission of possession on May 11 with intent to show the film. Nor is the statement strengthened by the further statement that he “ had * * * shown them to friends ”, which may well have referred to a period long in the past having no important bearing on an intention to show them on May 11. The barren nature of the record, containing no direct proof of possession at any time leaves open to serious doubt both possession and intent at the time the crime is charged. Moreover the admission is weakened in its effect by the fact that it was made to the police officer while defendant was held under illegal arrest. Concededly the arrest was made without a warrant and concededly the misdemeanor charged was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. Although such a confession is still technically admissible *{People*v. *Everett,*10 N Y 2d 500, 507; *People*v. *Lane,*10 N Y 2d 347), the illegality of the detention is a significant factor in the weight that should be accorded to such an admission as that attributed to defendant in this record. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### 1602.170-7 Experience-rate.

*Experience-rate* means a rate for a given group that is the result of that group's actual paid claims, administrative expenses (including capitated administrative expenses), retentions, and estimated claims incurred but not reported, adjusted for benefit modifications, utilization trends, and economic trends. Actual paid claims include any actual or negotiated benefits payments made to providers of services for the provision of healthcare such as capitation not adjusted for specific groups, including mental health benefits capitation rates, per diems, and DRG payments.

[70 FR 31378, June 1, 2005]
#### In the Matter of Armand A. Cioffi v. Edward T. McCaffrey.

Motion for reargument and for other relief denied on the ground that it does not appear that the order denying petitioner’s application for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes is an appealable one (see *People*v. *Howell,*3 N Y 2d 672). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.