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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                         855,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,644,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   125,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,696,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,570,000
<PP&E>                                       9,006,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,773,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,908,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,595,000
<BONDS>                                      1,620,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,640,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,908,000
<SALES>                                     12,490,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,490,000
<CGS>                                        6,021,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,021,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             326,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             98,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
210.001 Policy. ( a ) In addition to the requirements of FAR 10.001(a)— ( i ) ( A ) Agencies shall conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances before issuing a solicitation with tiered evaluation of offers (section 816 of Pub. L. 109-163); and
( B ) Use the results of market research to determine whether the criteria in FAR part 19 are met for setting aside the acquisition for small business or, for a task or delivery order, whether there are a sufficient number of qualified small business concerns available to justify limiting competition under the terms of the contract. If the contracting officer cannot determine whether the criteria are met, the contracting officer shall include a written explanation in the contract file as to why such a determination could not be made (section 816 of Pub. L. 109-163); and
( ii ) Contracting officers shall use market research, where appropriate, to inform price reasonableness determinations (see 212.209 and 234.7002).
( c ) (2) In addition to the notification requirements at FAR 10.001(c)(2)(i) and (ii), see 205.205-70 for the bundling notification publication requirement.
[71 FR 53043, Sept. 8, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 40716, July 13, 2010; 83 FR 15996, Apr. 13, 2018; 85 FR 34531, June 5, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RANDALL W. SYLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 1408

) (USCA No. 13-1593)

COUNTY OF WILL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Randall Syler ("Syler"), whose appeal from this Court's order of dismissal 

is pending before our Court of Appeals, has recently filed a "Motion To Supplement the Record 

on Appeal." Earlier this week five of the eight defendants targeted by Syler's complaint filed a 

response (the "Response") in opposition to Syler's motion. This memorandum order is issued in 

light of the matters raised by the Response. 

That Response correctly points out that the documents to which Syler's motion refers 

were never presented to this Court, either when it entered its order of dismissal in conjunction 

with Syler's Second Amended Complaint or earlier when he tendered any of his previous filings 

in this District Court. By definition, then, Syler is seeking "to add materials to the record on 

appeal which were not before the district court" (United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262 F. 3d 

637, 640 (7th Cir. 2001)), which that case and other caselaw have consistently held to be outside 

the proper province of Fed. R. App. P. 10(e).

Accordingly it would appear that Syler's pro se motion should be denied. But because he 

has not had the opportunity to provide any input in reply to defendants' January 14, 2014 
- 2 -

Response, this Court will grant him the opportunity to do so by a submission on or before 

January 28, 2014.1

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 17, 2014

 1 To make certain that any such submission comes directly to this Court's attention 

(something that does not take place automatically under Clerk's Office procedures where only an 

original document is received), Syler should tender to the Clerk's Office a Judge's Copy as well 

as the original of any submission that he does make.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Fabiano, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the May Term, beginning April 24, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
DRAFT

English Learner (EL) Students Who Are Hispanic/Latino 

2 of 2

This fact sheet uses data from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS), and applies the following definitions:

• An “English learner” student:

o is ages 5 to 18,

o attends school,

o lives in a home where English is not the primary language spoken, and

o reports speaking English “well,” “not very well,” or “not at all.”

• An “English proficient” student:

o is ages 5 to 18,

o attends school,

o lives in a home where English is spoken, or

o reports speaking English “very well.”

• The 2013 ACS defines individuals who are Hispanic or Latino as those whose origin or ancestry is Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano,

Puerto Rican, Cuban, from other Spanish-speaking countries of the Caribbean or Central or South America, or from Spain. People who

identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

These definitions represent the respondent’s perceptions of his or her own English-speaking ability and ethnicity (Gambino, et al., 2014). The 

definitions may not correspond with those used by State Education Agencies and Local Education Agencies for reporting purposes. 

Poverty Level of Hispanic/Latino Students: 2013

Note: The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) under the National School Lunch Program provides a proxy measure for the 

concentration of low-income students within a school. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free 

meals. Those from families with incomes that are between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013. Estimates generated by NCELA using Census DataFerrett.

Fact

Approximately 74 percent of EL students who are Hispanic/Latino live at, or below, poverty level. 

Approximately 57 percent of English proficient students who are Hispanic/Latino live at, or below, poverty level. 

OCTOBER 2015
Fact

Sixteen percent 

of EL students 

who are 

Hispanic/Latino 

are first 

generation 

immigrants. 

Immigrant Generations of Hispanic/Latino Students: 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013. Estimates generated by NCELA using Census DataFerrett.

Educational Attainment of Mothers of Hispanic/Latino Students: 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013. 

Fact

Approximately 22 

percent more 

mothers of English 

proficient students 

who are 

Hispanic/Latino have 

a high school degree 

or higher, than 

mothers of EL 

students who are 

Hispanic/Latino. 

Reference Cited: Gambino, Christine P., Yesenia D. Acosta, and Elizabeth M. Grieco. English-Speaking Ability of the Foreign-Born Population in the 

United States: 2012. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 2014.

OCTOBER 2015
#### BISCHOFF, Appellant, v. BISCHOFF, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

Action by Franklin J. Bischoff against Henry Bisehoff.

No opinion. Order to make complaint more definite and certain modified, by striking out so much of the order as vacates the complaint, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
Exhibit 21(a)PPL CorporationSubsidiaries of the RegistrantAs of December 31, 2003



|Company NameBusiness Conducted under Same Name | State or Jurisdiction ofIncorporation/Formation
|---------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|                                               |                                                
|PMDC International Holdings, Inc               | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Brunner Island                             | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Capital Funding Inc.                       | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Electric Utilities Corporation             | Pennsylvania                                   
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Energy Funding Corporation                 | Pennsylvania                                   
|                                               |                                                
|PPL EnergyPlus, LLC                            | Pennsylvania                                   
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Energy Supply, LLC                         | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Generation, LLC                            | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Global, LLC                                | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Investment Corp.                           | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Montana Holdings, LLC                      | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Montour, LLC                               | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Susquehanna, LLC                           | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|PPL Transition Bond Company, LLC               | Delaware                                       
|                                               |                                                
|WPD Investment Holdings Ltd.                   | United Kingdom
From: Pantic, Zorica <panticz@wit.edu> 

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 2:45 PM

To: OM Information Quality 

Cc: Pantic, Zorica; DeVos, Betsy

Subject: Information Quality Request 

Director, Information Collection Clearance Division 

Office of the Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management 

U.S. Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319 

Washington, DC 20202 

ATTN: Information Quality Request 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Season’s greetings from Wentworth Institute of Technology. 

I am writing to request your immediate assistance with a critically important issue regarding Wentworth and the inclusion 

of erroneous data on the most recent College Scorecard. 

The Scorecard uses Wentworth’s IPEDS student financial aid submittal for the 2015-16 school year, which was forwarded 

by the Institute in early February of 2017. However, due to a glitch on our end, that submittal significantly understated 

the average grant aid awarded to Title IV recipients, misreporting the amount as $8,000 when it was actually $14,000. 

Using the accurate figure of $14,000 on the College Scorecard would have correctly given Wentworth an average annual 

cost of $36,000 rather than the inflated $42,000 currently reported on the Scorecard. 

This $6,000 disparity is misleading to the public. We have gone through your formal process for changing the data but 

were told that the inaccuracy cannot be corrected until the fall of 2019. This seems like a flaw in the system. Waiting that 

long means that the inaccurate Wentworth information will be seen by the public and media for another nine months, and 

we will be left explaining the situation repeatedly. 

I am respectfully appealing for your help with this in the interest of accuracy, on behalf of one of the country’s leading 

STEM institutions. 

Please let me know if there is anything further that you need from our end. In the meantime, the Institute is redoubling its 

efforts to ensure the full accuracy of all future submittals. 

Sincerely, 

Zorica Pantić

President 

Wentworth Institute of Technology 

panticz@wit.edu 

617-989-4476

216 Williston Hall 

Wentworth Institute of Technology 

550 Huntington Ave. 

Boston, MA 02115 

1
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:741
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:742
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:743
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:744
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:745
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:746
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:747
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:748
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:749
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:750
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:751
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:752
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:753
Case: 1:12-cv-02782 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:754
#### 1552.216-76 Estimated cost and cost-sharing.

As prescribed in 1516.307(c), insert the following clause:

# Estimated Cost and Cost-Sharing (APR 1996)

(a) The total estimated cost of performing the work under this contract is $________. The Contractor's share of this cost shall not exceed $________. The Government's share of this cost shall not exceed $________.

(b) For performance of the work under the contract, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for not more than ____ percent of the cost of performance determined to be allowable under the Allowable Cost and Payment clause. The remaining balance of allowable cost shall constitute the Contractor's share.

(c) Fee shall not be paid to the prime contractor under this cost-sharing contract.

(d) The Contractor shall maintain records of all costs incurred and claimed for reimbursement as well as any other costs claimed as part of its cost share. Those records shall be subject to audit by the Government.

(e) Costs contributed by the Contractor shall not be charged to the Government under any other contract, grant or agreement (including allocation to other contracts as part of an independent research and development program) nor be included as contributions under any other Federal contract.

(End of clause)

[61 FR 14505, Apr. 2, 1996]
#### In the Matter of Robert D. McEvoy et al., Respondents, v Michael B. Adams et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rye, Appellants.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rye, dated July 19, 1977, which, after a hearing, denied the application of petitioners McEvoy for two area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 30, 1977, which annulled the determination and directed the zoning board to grant the variances. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to the zoning board for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith. Petitioners McEvoy sought two area variances from the zoning board to enable them to build a one-family house on a substandard lot which they had contracted to purchase from petitioner Filanowski. The subject parcel has a width of 66.03 feet and a land area of 6,607 square feet; the zoning ordinance requires a width of 85 feet and a land area of 10,000 square feet. The applicants did not appear at the hearing before the board. Instead, the Corporation Counsel of the City of Rye, acting as a neutral party to the proceedings, testified as to the foregoing facts. In opposition to the application, a number of community residents claimed that a house on the lot in question would distort the character of the neighborhood and detract from the value of their properties. The board denied the application upon a determination that the house would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Subsequent to the board’s decision, Filanowski allowed the McEvoys to rescind the contract. On appeal, Special Term found that the requisite "practical difficulties” had been shown and ordered the zoning board to issue the variances sought. In our view, the zoning board did not abuse its discretion in denying the McEvoys’ application for the area variances. Since they failed to produce any proof establishing what Filanowski originally paid for the subject property, there was no basis upon which to support a finding of economic hardship (see *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591; *Matter of Brower v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Valley Stream,*58 AD2d 863). However, there must be a new hearing so that the zoning board can reconsider the request. Filanowski, presently the real party in interest, did not personally present the facts upon the original application. Therefore, *734she must be given the opportunity to show that denial of the area variances would cause her practical difficulties or economic hardship. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, Robert A. Doak, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Mountains  West
Exploration, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 22, 2004


/s/Robert A. Doak
-----------------------
Robert A. Doak, President
#### 17.101 Authority.

This subpart implements 41 U.S.C. 3903 and 10 U.S.C. 3501 and provides policy and procedures for the use of multi-year contracting.

[79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014, as amended at 87 FR 73898, Dec. 1, 2022]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan Cruz, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Tálente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.