alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fiscal Year 2010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2010 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1100030 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 47,616,858 9,523,372 2,585

1199999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 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 2010 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
Was a D/E rate calculated for your 

program for the most recent year?

Note: A rate would not be calculated for 

a program with an n-size of <10 

M2. Did program meet 

repayment rate benchmark?

M3. Does program meet 34 CFR 

668.213 or 34 CFR 668.216?

M1. Did program meet the D/E 

benchmark?

Did program have a D/E rate last 

year?

Notification of failing metrics sent to 

Institution, Accreditor, SHEEO (*)

30 day response as to why USDE 

should not post notification

USDE Review

YES

NO

NO NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

No 

further

action

SHEEO *

Accrediting Agency *

ED staff evaluate Institutional response and 

any supporting documentation.

Accept Response *

NFA

Reject Response *

Req to 

Post 

Notice

USDE Internal Review Process

Existing evidence determines options up to 

and including removal of Title IV
Archived Information

Enclosure A 

##### March 2007 Growth Model Peer Review Panel

**Chair**

· Anthony Bryk, Stanford University

**Academia**

· Pete Goldschmidt, California State University Northridge

· Margaret McLaughlin, University of Maryland

· Ann O’Connell, University of Connecticut 

· Chris Schatschneider, Florida State University  

· Martha Thurlow, University of Minnesota

**State and District Practitioners**

· Mitchell Chester, Ohio Department of Education 

· Lou Fabrizio, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 

· Tom Fisher, independent consultant (formerly of Florida Department of Education) 

· Robert Mendro, Dallas Independent School District 

· Jeff Nellhaus, Massachusetts Department of Education

· Sandy Sanford, independent consultant with Riverside County Office of Education, California

**Education Organizations**

· Harold Doran, American Institutes for Research 

· Chrys Dougherty, National Center for Educational Accountability 

· Dianne Piché, Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights 

· Sharon Lewis, Retired, Council of the Great City Schools 

· William Taylor, Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights 

PAGE  

4
Case: 1:11-cv-07892 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/12/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:777
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN MERLE MUNCY, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-81, CA-00-3-7-BR) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Merle Muncy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Merle Muncy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Muncy , Nos. CR-97-81; CA-00- 3-7-BR (E.D.N.C. June 23, 2000). We deny Muncy’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.216 Types of contracts.
#### Penn-Texas Corporation, Respondent, v. Murat Anstalt et al., Defendants, and Jacques Sarlie, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States

On February 15, 2019, by Proclamation 9844, I declared a national emergency concerning the southern border of the United States to deal with the border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests.

The ongoing border security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border of the United States continues to threaten our national security, including by exacerbating the effect of the pandemic caused by COVID-19. The executive branch has taken steps to address the crisis, but further action is needed to address the humanitarian crisis and to control unlawful migration and the flow of narcotics and criminals across the southern border of the United States.

For these reasons, the national emergency declared on February 15, 2019, and the measures adopted on that date to respond to that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 15, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9844 concerning the southern border of the United States.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2021-01566

Billing code 3295-F1-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         453,673 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,288,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,286,297
<PP&E>                                     104,580,646
<DEPRECIATION>                              62,291,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,856,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,609,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,794,040
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,714,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,856,714
<SALES>                                      2,610,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,650,010
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,232,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             298,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (880,423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (307,724)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (572,699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (572,699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) of Tellabs, Inc. of our reports dated February 23, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Tellabs, Inc., included in the 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders of Tellabs, Inc. 

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Tellabs, Inc. listed in Item 15(a). The schedule is the responsibility of Tellabs, Inc.’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinionbased on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-45788, 33-48972, 33-55487, 333-49557, 333-83509,333-87637, 333-95135, 333-56546, 333-81360, 333-107457, 333-122712 and 333-128076, and Form S-4 No. 333-116794) of our reports dated February 23, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Tellabs, Inc.,Tellabs Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Tellabs, Inc. included and incorporated by reference in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) of Tellabs, Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2006. 

Ernst & Young, LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 23, 2007
Fourth Department,

May, 1962

(May 10, 1962)

#### Salvatore J. Piazza, Doing Business as Ransomville General Hospital, Respondent, v. Town Assessor of the Town of Porter, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The finding of the trial court that petitioner’s hospital building had depreciated $399,088.80 in value (45% of its reproduction cost) as a result of functional obsolescence is against the weight of the evidence. “ Functional obsolescence is loss of value brought about by failure or inability to deliver full service. It includes * * * any loss of value by reason of short-comings or undesirable features contained within the property itself.” (Assessors Manual, issued, 1957, by State Board of Equalization and Assessment, vol. 4, p. 164.) It is loss of utility and failure to function due to inadequeneies of design and deficiencies in the property. (Friedman, Encyclopedia of Real Estate Appraising, pp. 49, 50; McMiehael’s Appraising Manual [4th ed.], p. 51.) The evidence does not disclose any loss of utility, failure to function, undesirable features, or deficiencies in the hospital building which support the court’s finding. The trial court’s finding that the hospital building had depreciated $88,686.40 (10% of its reproduction cost) as a result of economic obsolescence is also against the weight of the evidence. Economic obsolescence is loss of value brought about by conditions that environ a structure, such as a declining location or the down-grading of a neighborhood resulting in reduced business volume. (Assessors Manual, supra, p. 165; Friedman, Encyclopedia of Real Estate Appraising, pp. 49, 50; Mc.Michael’s Appraising Manual [4th ed.], p. 51.) It is possible, as suggested in respondent’s brief, that the location of petitioner’s hospital in a rural area in which an industrial plant has been closed, might result in such a low business volume that it could not with prudent management be there operated at a profit. Petitioner failed, however, to produce any evidence to that effect and there was no proof before the court which supported its finding of economic depreciation. Whether or not respondent may obtain relief upon this or any different theory is a question we do not pass upon. (Appeal from order of Niagara Trial Term reducing the assessment of petitioner’s real property for 1958 and 1959.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, Jj.
#### Framen Steel Supply Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Manufacturers Trust Company, Appellant.

Order entered December 14, 1962, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the respondent. There are issues of fact not completely resolved by the documentary proof as to the significance in custom or trade of the legend GIF Ex Dock New York City. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### 16.000 Scope of part.

This part describes types of contracts that may be used in acquisitions. It prescribes policies and procedures and provides guidance for selecting a contract type appropriate to the circumstances of the acquisition.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 34756, July 3, 1995; 61 FR 39197, July 26, 1996]
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019 (“accompanied report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | The information contained in the accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |

|                              |
|------------------------------|
|                              |  |  |
|                         |   |   |
| Date:  November 5, 2019 | By: | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Hector Francisco Tarango, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. 22-3010-CCL2.

Vs. No. 11-23-00271-CR * February 1, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8740]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Face to Face: The Neo-Impressionistic Portrait, 1886-
1904''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Face to Face: The Neo-Impressionistic 
Portrait, 1886-1904,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, 
Indiana, from on or about June 13, 2014, until on or about September 7, 
2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 13, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-11671 Filed 5-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
(110 App. Div. 773.)

#### DETVILLER v. ROLLED PLATE METAL CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 26, 1906.)

1. Negligence — Injuries — Defective Premises—Action — Sufficiency of Complaint.

In an action for injuries received by plaintiff through falling down an unguarded elevator shaft, a complaint alleging that defendant was a tenant in possession of the second floor of the premises, but failing to aver that plaintiff met his accident on the second floor, did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by John Detviller against the Rolled Plate Metal Company and another. Prom a judgment overruling its demurrer to the complaint, defendant Rolled Plate Metal Company appeals.

Reversed.

The complaint in the second paragraph alleges that the defendant Wagner owned the “premises” which are then described.

In the next numbered paragraph it alleges that the corporate defendant was a tenant in possession “of the second floor of the premises above mentioned,” and that while plaintiff was “in said premises, in the act of delivering goods to” the said corporate defendant, he “fell into the elevator shaft in said premises,” and down into the cellar, breaking his legs, and receiving other injuries. ,

It then alleges in the next two numbered paragraphs that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants and each of them, and alleges the negligence to be that the elevator and shaft were constructed without guards, that the approaches thereto were dark and unguarded, and that they were unprovided with trap doors “and other safety devices required by law and ordinances of the city of New York.”

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

George P. Beebe, for appellant.

Francis B. Mullin, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

I think the demurrer should have been sustained. The complaint alleges that the corporate defendant, which demurred, was a tenant “of the second floor of the premises above mentioned,” the said premises being the whole building and lot, as described in the previous paragraph of the complaint. There is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff met his accident on the second floor, and that fact cannot be presumed. The liability of the owner, who *420is the other defendant, may be for the whole *building;*of this tenant, only for his floor.

The judgment is reversed and the demurrer sustained, with leave to' plead over.

Interlocutory judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 831 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                        Calendar No. 92
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 831

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Police 
             Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 5 (legislative day, April 4), 2017

 Mr. Toomey (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 17, 2017

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Police 
             Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. POLICE OFFICER SCOTT BASHIOUM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Police Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Police 
Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office Building''.
                                                        Calendar No. 92

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 831

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 West Pike Street in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Police 
             Officer Scott Bashioum Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 17, 2017

                       Reported without amendment
```