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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-KSB of American Metals Service,  Inc. for the year ended August 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000319016
<NAME>                        AMERICAN METALS SERVICE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2,151
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,151
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          20
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,151
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 104
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  75
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   29
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               29
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                      29
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        


</TABLE>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00395-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.T.E., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 433rd District Court 

Comal County, Texas 

Trial Court No. C2020-0254D, Honorable Deborah Wigington, Presiding 

November 30, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, John Wyatt Holliday, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from 

the trial court’s Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support 

Order, Granting Judgment for Arrearages without paying the requisite filing fee.1 By letter 

of October 30, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Holliday that the filing fee was overdue 

and that unless he was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by November 9 would result in dismissal of 

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

the appeal. To date, Holliday has neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed 

without payment of court costs.

Because Holliday has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules 

and a notice from the Clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 42.3(c).

Per Curiam
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William A. Tarpley, Appellant.

Motion to prosecute as a poor person, and for other relief, denied. Memorandum: Upon a direct appeal the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court. (7 A D 2d 829.) All of the questions presented in this *eoram nobis*proceeding were therein passed upon. (Cf. *People ex rel. Baumgart*v. *Martin,*9 N Y 2d 351.)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 885 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 885

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include foster care 
transition youth as members of targeted groups for purposes of the work 
                          opportunity credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 4), 2017

 Mr. Casey (for himself and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include foster care 
transition youth as members of targeted groups for purposes of the work 
                          opportunity credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improved Employment Outcomes for 
Foster Youth Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF FOSTER CARE TRANSITION YOUTH FOR PURPOSES OF WORK 
              OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I),
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) 
        and inserting ``, or'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(K) a qualified foster care transition youth.''.
    (b) Qualified Foster Care Transition Youth.--Subsection (d) of 
section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 
the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(16) Qualified foster care transition youth.--The term 
        `qualified foster care transition youth' means any individual 
        who is certified by the designated local agency as--
                    ``(A) not having attained age 27 as of the hiring 
                date, and
                    ``(B) having been in foster care (within the 
                meaning of section 477 of the Social Security Act) 
                after attaining the age specified in section 477(a)(7) 
                of the Social Security Act.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to individuals who begin work for the employer after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Issue 14

# Proposed Regulatory Language

# Team II: School-based Loan Issues

# Origin:HEOA section 465

**Issue:**Military Service Cancellation

**Statutory Cite:**HEA section 465(a)(3)(A)

**Regulatory Cite:**§674.59

**DCL page reference:**Page 136

**Summary of Issue:**The HEOA eliminates the 50 percent limitation on military service cancellations.  Borrowers who are serving in areas of hostility may now receive military service cancellations of up to 100 percent of the loan in increments of 15 percent for the first and second years of service; 20 percent for the third and fourth years of service; and 30 percent for the fifth year of service. The cancellation provision applies to NDSL and Perkins Loans and the effective date is August 14, 2008.

**Regulatory language:**

**Sec. 674.59  Cancellation for military service.**

    (a) *Cancellation on a Defense loan*. (1) An institution shall cancel up to 50 percent of a Defense loan made after April 13, 1970 for the borrower's full-time active service starting after June 30, 1970, in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

    (2) The cancellation rate is 12 1/2  percent of the original loan principal, plus the interest on the unpaid balance accruing during the year of qualifying service, for the first complete year of qualifying service, and for each consecutive year of qualifying service.

    (3) Service for less than a complete year, including any fraction of a year beyond a complete year of service, does not qualify for military cancellation.

    (b) Cancellation of an NDSL or Perkins loan. (1) An institution shall cancel up to 50 percent of **the outstanding balance of**an NDSL or Perkins loan **for active duty service that ended before August 14, 2008**, as a member of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard in an area of hostilities that qualifies for special pay under section 310 of title 37 of the United States Code.

    (2) The cancellation rate is 12 1/2 percent of the original loan principal, plus the interest on the unpaid balance accruing during the year of qualifying service, for each complete year of qualifying service.

**(c) (1) An institution shall cancel up to 100 percent of the outstanding balance of a borrower’s Federal Perkins or NDSL loan for a borrower’s full year of active duty service that includes August 14, 2008, or begins on or after that date, as a member of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard in an area of hostilities that qualifies for special pay under section 310 of title 37 of the United States Code.**

**(2) The cancellation rate is 15 percent for the first and second year of qualifying service, 20 percent for the third and fourth year of qualifying service, and 30 percent for the fifth year of qualifying service.**

    (~~3~~**d**) Service for less than a complete year, including any fraction of a year beyond a complete year of service, does not qualify for military cancellation.

3

DRAFT for discussion at 2nd session

3/27/2009
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of National Property Investors 4 (the "Partnership"),for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
JKB/690879 2246-650-51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANYA DAVIS, SHANNON WEBB and 

DANYA DAVIS ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. and 

PACKER GROUP, INC.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-07923

Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood

DEFENDANT PACKER ENGINEERING, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

AS A MATTER OF LAW AS TO PLAINTIFF DANYA DAVIS

Defendant, Packer Engineering, Inc. (“Packer Engineering”), pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 50(a), submits this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law for the judgment 

entered by the Court on August 2, 2017. For the reasons outlined in its accompanying 

memorandum of law, there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to 

find in favor of Plaintiff Danya Davis. Accordingly, Packer Engineering respectfully requests 

that this Court grant its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Judgment should be entered in 

favor of Defendant Packer Engineering and against Plaintiff Danya Davis, and the Court should 

grant Packer Engineering such other and further relief as it deems just and proper. 

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. 

By: /s/ James K. Borcia

One of Its Attorneys

James K. Borcia (jborcia@tresslerllp.com)

TRESSLER LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606-6399

(312) 627-4000
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

New Mexico Higher Education Department300 Don Gaspar AvenueSanta Fe, NM 87501Phone: (505) 827-5800Website: https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/

### State Higher Education Agency

New Mexico Higher Education Department2048 Galisteo StreetSanta Fe, NM 87505Phone: (505) 476-8400Website: http://hed.state.nm.us/

### Special Education Agency

New Mexico Public Education DepartmentSpecial Education Bureau120 South Federal PlaceRoom 206Santa Fe, NM 87501Phone: (505) 827-1457Fax: (505) 954-0001Website: http://ped.state.nm.us/ped/SEB_index.html

### State Adult Education Agency

Adult Basic Education New Mexico Higher Education Department 2048 Galisteo StreetSanta Fe, NM 87505-2100 Phone: (505) 476-8440 Fax: (505) 476-8453 Website: http://www.hed.state.nm.us/

Back to state map
668.412 Disclosure requirements for GE programs.  

(a)  Disclosure template.  An institution must use the disclosure template provided by the Secretary to disclose information about each of its programs to enrolled and prospective students. The Secretary identifies the information that must be included in the template in a notice published in the *Federal Register*.  The Department will conduct consumer testing to determine how to make the disclosure template as meaningful as possible. This will include, but will not be limited to, a specific request for consumer input on this topic in the *Federal Register* notice.   The Secretary identifies the information that must be included in the template in a notice published in the *Federal Register*.  Theat information identified by the Secretary may include, but is not limited to:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF JUNE 30, 2000) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000017797
<NAME> CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    6,870,514
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    620,489
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,045,394
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       291,706
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 943,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,771,646
<COMMON>                                     1,619,140
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        (816)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,841,760
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               3,460,084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     59,376
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,084,048
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             114,631
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,053,507
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                9,771,646
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,769,444
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           106,632
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,370,151
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,476,783
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        292,661
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,817
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 297,478
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       103,274
<NET-INCOME>                                   194,204
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    (1,483)
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  192,721
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       158,306
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       73,499
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         581,603
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
19.506 Documentation requirements. ( a ) ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall document the rationale when a contract is not totally set aside for small business in accordance with 19.502-2.
( 2 ) The contracting officer shall document the rationale when a multiple-award contract is not partially set aside, not reserved, and does not allow for setting aside of orders, when these authorities could have been used.
( b ) If applicable, the documentation shall include the rationale for not accepting the recommendations made by the agency Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, or, for the Department of Defense, the Director of the Office of Small Business Programs, or the Director's designee, as to whether a particular acquisition should be awarded under subparts 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15.
( c ) Documentation is not required if a contract award is anticipated to a small business under subpart 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15.
[85 FR 11763, Feb. 27, 2020]
#### 1852.225-72 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*William Lupo, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, the defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Queens County, dated February 9, 1962, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 7, 1956 upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, suspending sentence and placing him on probation. Order affirmed. Defendant’s application is based on the fact that his retained counsel was absent when he was arraigned for plea and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, in his counsel’s presence, he withdrew his not guilty plea in order to plead guilty to the afore-stated crime; and his counsel was also present when the suspended sentence was imposed subsequently. At no time did he or his counsel move to withdraw his original not guilty plea in order to move against or demur to the indictment. Under such circumstances, he was not denied representation by counsel, and *coram nobis*does not lie *(People*v. *Spinney,*16 A D 2d 669; *People*v. *Dolac,*3 A D 2d 351, affd. 3 N Y 2d 945; *Canizio*v. *New York,*327 U. S. 82). In our opinion, the rule enunciated in *Spinney, Dolac*and *Canizio*has not been overruled or impaired by the holding in *Hamilton*v. *Alabama*(368 U. S. 52), in view of the marked differences between the laws of Alabama and New York; in view of the Supreme Court’s specific allusion (in *Hamilton)*to those differences when it referred to the *Canizio*case; and in view of the fact that this is a noncapital ease. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### Garden-O-Rama, Inc., Respondent, v. Provident Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, and A. H. Zimmer, as Building Inspector of the Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park, et al., Respondents.

In an action against an insurance company to recover damages sustained as the result of a fire, the defendant insurance company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 17, 1963, which denied its motion, pursuant to the CPLR (3101, subd. [a], par. [4]), to take the testimony of the Building Inspector of the Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park and of said village, as nonparty witnesses. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be paid by defendant to plaintiff. The fire-damaged building was demolished by the plaintiff pursuant to a resolution of the trustees of the Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park, directing that the owner demolish it within 30 days and declaring that upon the owner’s default the village would perform the necessary work and assess the cost thereof against the property. The resolution was based on a report by the Village Building Inspector in which he stated his findings based upon his examination of the building and in which he recommended its condemnation. It appears that the defendant has a copy of both the trustees’ resolution and the Building Inspector’s report. It also appears that prior to the demolition of the building the defendant had been notified of the resolution and had had the building examined by two builders who submitted their estimates of the damage to the *833defendant. In our opinion, under the circumstances the Special Term did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that there were not adequate special circumstances which required the granting of the motion (see CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par [4]). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel D. Bierman, Appellant, v. Newton D. Bartle, as Trustee, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed on or before November 10, 3960. Respondent’s brief must be filed on or before No\7ember 17, 3960 if appeals are to be argued at November 1960 Term of court.
Excellence Today, Success Tomorrow 

April 8, 2013 

LEWISTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE 

215 7TH AVENUE SOUTH • LEWISTOWN, MONTANA 59457 

PHONE: (406) 535-8777 • FAX: (406) 535-7292 

To Whom It May Concern: 

· . . __ :f 

I am writing this letter in support of maintaining commercial air service in the community 

of Lewistown, Montana. This service is the last public transportation service in 

Lewistown and if it were to be terminated, it would have a definite negative effect on our 

community. 

While our school district does not use this service for travel to events, we sometimes have 

guest speakers or presenters from out of state who do. This service is also a tool that we 

use when working to recruit the best teachers possible. Some of these teaching 

candidates fly to our community to interview and losing this service would take that 

option away. It is also a great selling point for candidates looking at moving to our 

community. 

I ask you to please strongly consider maintaining commercial air serv1ce at the 

Lewistown, Montana airport. 

If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

~a,.-- A '3>~ Jason A. Butcher 

Superintendent
[T HE S TATE EX REL .] S INCLAIR , A PPELLANT , v. I NDUSTRIAL C OMMISSION OF O HIO ET

AL ., A PPELLEES
. [Cite as State ex rel. Sinclair v. Indus. Comm . (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Workers’ compensation -- Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-647 – Submitted October 27, 1998 – Decided December 30, 1998.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD04-536.

__________________ Law Offices of James R. Nein , Matthew R. Copp and James R. Nein , for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

__________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.
M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER , C OOK and
L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., concur.