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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the six months ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          278,890
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          3,302
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              20,845
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            27,796
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     330,833
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 56,314
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     102,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                84,267
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  18,415
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          350
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         11,591
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       575
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     112,920
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      330,833
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          106,234
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 5,020
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          89,337
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          94,357
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             11,877
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     238
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      12,115
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             4,613
<NET-INCOME>                         7,502
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        7,502
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             3,808
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            3,954
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              21,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Mary Saccone, Respondent, v. Stephen Saccone, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to appeal as a poor person, to extend time to perfect his appeal, and for a stay pending appeal, denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****AHRQ publicationscatalog**** 
SuDoc:HE 20.6509/3:
ItemNumber:0491-B-27(online)
CGPsystem Number:000531512
 
Note:Publications not marked as html are pdfs.
 
 
Spring/Summer2002 (html)
Fall/Winter 2002-03
Spring/Summer 2003
Spring/Summer2004 (html)
Fall/Winter2004-05 (html)
Spring/Summer2005 (html)
Fall/Winter 2005
Spring/Summer2006 (html)
Fall/Winter2006 (html)
Spring/Summer2007 (html)
Fall/Winter2007 (html)
Spring/Summer 2008
Fall/Winter2008-2009 (html)
Spring/Summer2009 (html)
Fall/Winter2009-2010 (html)
Spring/Summer 2010
Fall/Winter 2011-2012
Fall/Winter 2012-2013
 **
#### 1852.244-70 Geographic participation in the aerospace program.

As prescribed in 1844.204-70, insert the following clause:

# Geographic Participation in the Aerospace Program (APR 1985)

(a) It is the policy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to advance a broad participation by all geographic regions in filling the scientific, technical, research and development, and other needs of the aerospace program.

(b) The Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to solicit subcontract sources on the broadest feasible geographic basis consistent with efficient contract performance and without impairment of program effectiveness or increase in program cost.

(c) The Contractor further agrees to insert this clause in all subcontracts of $100,000 and over.

(End of clause)

[54 FR 28340, July 5, 1989, as amended at 62 FR 14034, Mar. 25, 1997]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8249** 

CECIL SIMMONS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. DIRECTOR OZMINT; CAPTAIN BRIHART; DEBORAH ROWE, Hearing Officer; MR. BURTT,
Defendants

– Appellees

.

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 6:08

- cv - 00860

- RBH )

Submitted : May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affir med by un published per curiam opinion

.
Cecil Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cecil Simmons appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Ac cordingly,

we deny Simmons’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simmons v. Ozmint , No. 6:08

- cv - 00860

- RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2009)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF

NORTHERN ALASKA,

Debtor,

______________________________

DEWEY GREEN; MARY READER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

UNAATUQ, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 35197

D.C. No. 4:14

- cv

- 00010

- HRH

District of Alaska,

Fairbanks

ORDER AMENDING

In re: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF

NORTHERN ALASKA,

Debtor,

______________________________

LOUIE GREEN, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNAATUQ, LLC, No. 15

- 35205

D.C. No. 4:14

- cv

- 00012

- HRH



# FILED

SEP 26 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition filed on August 17, 2016 is amended on page

three line six by adding new footnote one, which states:

Claimants’ argument that the bankruptcy court lacked

jurisdiction over them fails. Claimants filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion in

the bankruptcy court seeking relief from the prior sale order, arguing

that they had acquired title to a portion of the Property through adverse

possession. See Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. S harif , 135 S. Ct. 1932,

1939 (2015) (stating there is no jurisdictional defect “when the parties

knowingly and voluntarily consent to adjudi cation by a bankruptcy

judge”).

With this amendment, the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

N o further petitions for rehearing shall be filed.
#### 219.808 Contract negotiation.
#### 1449.402-3 Procedure for default.

In addition to the requirements of FAR 49.402-3(g), the notice of termination shall contain instructions regarding the disposition of any Government property in the possession of the contractor, and, in the case of construction contracts, materials, appliances, and structures that may be on the construction site. The notice shall also contain a statement concerning the liability of the contractor or its surety for any liquidated damages (*See* FAR 49.402-7).
EXHIBIT 3.9
 CERTIFICATES OF DESIGNATIONS,
PREFERENCES, POWERS AND RIGHTS
OF
SERIES 2008B PREFERRED STOCK
OF
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC. Company
 RESOLVED
 Section 1. Designation and Amount Original Issue Price
 Section 2. Rank Senior Securities Common Stock Junior Securities Parity Securities Distributions
 Section 3. Dividends and Distribution




---



##### 



Section 4. Liquidation Preference
 Liquidation Preference
  Section 5. Conversion Conversion Rights
 Right to Convert
 Mechanics of Conversion
 Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion




---



##### 



Adjustment to Conversion Price
 Adjustment to Conversion Price Due to Stock Split Dividend, Etc.
 Adjustment Due to Merger, Consolidation, Etc.
 Section 6. Voting
 Section 7. Optional Redemption by Company




---



##### 



Section 8. Mandatory Conversion by Company
 Section 9. Status of Converted or Redeemed Stock
 Section 10. Other Preferred Stock
 Section 11. Lost or Stolen Certificates
 Section 12. Fractional Shares
 Section 13. Preemptive Rights
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.By:

/s/ Allan FrankName:
    Allan FrankTitle:
    Corporate Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | By:              | /s/ ARTHUR                D. LEVINSON                                                                     |   |
|--------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title:Date: | Arthur                D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief                Executive OfficerFebruary                17, 2006 |   |

|   | By:                    | /s/ DAVID                A. EBERSMAN                                                                                                                            |   |
|--------|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: Date: | David                A. EbersmanExecutive                Vice President and    Chief                Financial OfficerFebruary                17, 2006 |   |
19.1406 Sole-source awards. ( a ) A contracting officer shall consider a contract award to a SDVOSB concern on a sole source basis (see 6.302-5(b)(6)), before considering small business set-asides (see 19.203 and subpart 19.5) provided none of the exclusions of 19.1404 apply and— ( 1 ) The contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
( 2 ) The anticipated award price of the contract, including options, will not exceed— ( i ) $7 million for a requirement within the NAICS codes for manufacturing; or
( ii ) $4 million for a requirement within any other NAICS code;
( 3 ) The requirement is not currently being performed by an 8(a) participant under the provisions of subpart 19.8 or has been accepted as a requirement by SBA under subpart 19.8;
( 4 ) The service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern has been determined to be a responsible contractor with respect to performance; and
( 5 ) Award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
( b ) Effective January 1, 2024, a contracting officer shall only award a sole-source contract to a concern that— ( 1 ) Is designated in SAM as an SDVOSB concern certified by SBA; or
( 2 ) Has represented that it is an SDVOSB concern in SAM and submitted an application for certification to SBA on or before December 31, 2023. Pending applications for certification are in the SBA Veteran Small Business Certification Program database at *https://veterans.certify.sba.gov .*
( c ) The SBA has the right to appeal the contracting officer's decision not to make an SDVOSB sole-source award.
[69 FR 25278, May 5, 2004, as amended at 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 38688, July 2, 2010; 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 76 FR 14568, Mar. 16, 2011; 77 FR 12933, Mar. 2, 2012; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020; 89 FR 13958, Feb. 23, 2024]
#### 2027.305-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.227-70, Drawings, Designs, Specifications, and Data, in all solicitations and contracts in which drawings, designs, specifications, or other data will be developed and the NRC is required to retain full rights to them (except for the contractor's right to retain a copy for its own use). When any of the clauses prescribed at FAR 27.409, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, are included in the solicitation/contract, this clause will not be used.
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property. Aurea Canales, Claimant. In the Matter of Mound & Roth v. Sarah M. Hurwitz.

Motion for a stay denied. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Motion for an order reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 22, 1961 and for other relief denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Financial AidFINANCIAL AID PROFESSIONALS

Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Report| **Zip Archive (582K)** |
                Cover Page: 
MS Word
 (47K)

                Introduction: 
MS Word
 (34K)

                Table Index: 
MS Word
 (30K)

                Glossary: 
MS Word
 (46K)

Pell Program Data | Program Data | OPE Policy Initiatives

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

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

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Federal Student Aid |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

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

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### Vivian Moreno et al., Respondents, v Steven Weiner et al., Appellants.

[834 NYS2d 323]—

*831In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 5, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

On the afternoon of January 19, 2004, the infant plaintiff, who was 13 years old and had been having a “sleep over” with the defendants’ daughter at the defendants’ home, developed alcohol poisoning. Unbeknownst to the defendants, who, under the circumstances, had a duty to adequately supervise the infant plaintiff *(see Zalak v Carroll,*15 NY2d 753, 754 [1965]; *Appell v Mandel,*296 AD2d 514 [2002]), the infant plaintiff had consumed alcohol while in their home. Alleging that the defendants breached that duty, the infant plaintiff and her mother commenced the instant action against them seeking to recover damages for injuries that the infant plaintiff sustained as a result of the alcohol poisoning. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the motion. Wé reverse.

On their motion, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they did not breach their duty to adequately supervise the infant plaintiff. In this regard, they showed that the infant plaintiff, who acknowledged that she had never previously consumed alcohol in the defendants’ home, had slept over approximately 10 times without incident. The defendants also showed that over the course of the instant sleep over, they checked on the infant plaintiff on five separate occasions, and that each time there was no indication that she had been drinking alcohol. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants, who were not “insurer[s]” of the infant plaintiff’s safety *(Appell v Mandel, supra*at 514), breached their duty of supervision *(cf. Brennan v Sinski,*31 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2006]; *Goldstein v Welter,*303 AD2d 551 [2003]; *Mary*A. *ZZ. v Blasen,*284 AD2d 773, 775 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Memorandum

To: U.S. Department of Education

From: Carolyn Fast 

Date: February 25, 2022 

Re: The Department’s Proposal to add a Supplemental Performance Measure for 

Non-Educational Expenditures 

We support the Department’s proposal to add supplemental performance measures, 

including a measure of expenditures not related to the education of students (proposed §

668.409(a)(4)). While information on institution’s functional expenditures are currently reported 

to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (“IPEDS”), the functional expenditure 

data in IPEDS does not allow for a good comparison of non-educational expenditures across 

schools because certain categories of expenses, including advertising and recruiting expenses, 

are included in other categories (in particular, the “student services” category). To address this 

information gap, we propose modifying the Department’s proposal as set forth below. 

We also suggest that the performance measure of expenditures be applied to schools’ 

divisions, in addition to the entire institution. Current expenditure reporting considers 

expenditures at only the institution level. However, at some universities, the spending patterns 

are very different depending on the division. For example, at some universities, spending 

patterns are different for online programs that are separate from the core educational programs at 

the school. To address this issue, we recommend that measures of non-educational expenditures 

be reported on a division basis, in comparison to tuition revenue in those divisions. These 

measures would be good-faith estimates not required to be included in the institution’s audited 

financial statement. 

We submit the following proposed language, which was drafted by Robert Shireman at The 

Century Foundation: 

§ 668.409 Supplementary performance measures.

(a) General. The Secretary assesses and analyzes the following information prior to issuing an 

institution a new Program Participation Agreement, and may consider the information in 

determining whether to certify, or condition the participation of, an institution under §668.13 and 

668.14—

* * *

(4) Educational spendingInstructional, advertising, and administrative expenses. The amounts the 

institution spent on instruction/instructional activities; advertising or recruiting activities;

academic support; and support services, not including recruiting activities, advertising, and other 
2

pre-enrollment expenditures:administrative activities, which include the salaries and 

compensation of the owners and principal officers,:

(i) for the institution, as provided through a disclosure in the audited financial statements 

required under §668.23(d); and,

(ii) in relation to the tuition revenue generated from each division of the institution (a 

division is a set of instructional programs, grouped by a method determined by the 

Secretary).
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LETTERHEAD]


April 14, 2000


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 201 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223


Directors:



   We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 2 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-60149) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.



	 	Sincerely,
	 

 	 

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
	 

 	 

By: /s/ DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN

	 	David S. Goldstein
#### Jack Goodman, Doing Business as Keystone Contracting Co., Respondent, v. Del-Sa-Co Foods, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order entered on June 22, 1960, modifying defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Jessica Ranucci-BIO

Jessica Ranucci is a supervising atorney with the New York Legal Assistance Group. NYLAG provides free 

civil legal services and financial counseling to New Yorkers with low incomes across a wide variety of 

issue areas, including consumer protec�on. Jessica’s primary focus is student loans and consumer debt, 

as well as certain public benefits. Jessica has worked with individuals facing challenges with debt 

stemming from debt buyers, debt collec�on atorneys, financing companies, sham student loan debt 

relief services, the U.S. Department of Educa�on, and the Social Security Administra�on. As part of her 

work at NYLAG, Jessica also provides individual representa�on to consumers, including individuals sued 

in consumer debt collec�on ac�ons in New York City Civil Court and federal student loan borrowers. 

Jessica served on two prior U.S. Department of Educa�on nego�ated rulemaking commitees. Jessica is a 

magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a graduate of Harvard College, and she served as

a law clerk for the Honorable Allyne R. Ross of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

New York.