alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
');
	document.write('

*The Department of Education strives to make all content accessible to everyone. While these documents do not currently meet the standards of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Budget Service (BS), Budget Policy and Coordination Division is working to create accessible versions.  If you need access to these documents before the accessible versions are available, please contact the Information Technology Accessibility Program Helpdesk at ITAPSUPPORT@ed.gov* to help facilitate.

*Note:  These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables, please visit the Department's State Tables page*.

### Volume I

- Education for the Disadvantaged download files PDF (1.4MB)
- Impact Aid download files  PDF (1.2MB)
- School Improvement Programs download files PDF (2.0MB)
- School Readiness download files PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Education download files PDF (2.0MB)
- Innovation and Improvement download files PDF (1.2MB)  )
- Safe Schools and Citizenship Education download files PDF (1.9MB)
- English Language Acquisition download files PDF (622KB)
- Special Education download files PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services download files PDF (1.9MB)
- American Printing House for the Blind download files PDF (73KB)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf download files PDF (172KB)
- Gallaudet University download files PDF (228KB)
- Career, Technical, and Adult Education download files PDF (1.4MB)

### Volume II

- Student Aid Overview download files PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance download files PDF (1.8MB)
- Student Aid Administration download files PDF (1.0MB)
- TEACH Grants download files PDF (1.2MB)
- Student Loans Overview download files PDF (2.7MB)
- Free Community College download files PDF (2.7MB)
- Higher Education download files PDF (2.7MB)
- Howard University download files PDF (222KB)
- College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account download files PDF (162KB)
- Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account download files PDF (301KB)
- Institute of Education Sciences download files PDF (675KB)
- Salaries and Expenses Overview download files PDF (553KB)
- Program Administration download files PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights download files PDF (474KB)
- Office of Inspector General download files PDF (343KB)
#### School-District No. 31 of Le Sueur County *vs.*Patrick Roach and others.

June 19, 1890.

Judgment against School-District — From what Fund Payable. — Gen. St. 1878, c. 36, § 119, authorizes ttie treasurer of a school-district to pay a judgment against the trustees of the district only out'of money not otherwise appropriated. He has no authority to do so out of moneys of the district applicable only to other specific purposes.

Action against a former treasurer of plaintiff and the sureties on his bond, to recover a balance of $64.46, alleged to be still in the treasurer’s hands, with interest. Defence, payment of $41.40 on a judgment against plaintiff, and tender of $23.06 to plaintiff. At the trial in the district court for Le Sueur county, before *Edson,*J., the plaintiff had a verdict for the full amount claimed by it. The defendants appeal from an order refusing a new trial.

*Francis Cadwell*and *J. B. O’Medley,*for appellants.

*M. R. Everett,*for respondent.

Mitchell, J.

The only question in this case is whether the defendant Eoach was entitled to a credit in his accounts as treasurer of the plaintiff' school-district for the amount of an alleged judgment against the district, which he had assumed to pay out of school moneys in his hands. Gen. St. 1878, *c.*36, § 119, provides that “when a judgment is recovered against any trustees in any action prosecuted by or against them in their name of office, no execution shall issue on such judgment; but the same, if for the recovery of *496money, shall, unless reversed or stayed on appeal, be paid by the treasurer, upon demand and the delivery to him of the certified copy of the docket of the judgment, if there is sufficient money of such district in his hands *not otherwise appropriated."*This power of the treasurer to pay judgments is a rather dangerous one, as is illustrated by the present case. But it is only out of money “not otherwise appropriated,” that he has any authority in any case to pay judgments. He cannot do so out of moneys raised for and applicable only to other specific purposes. According to defendant’s own report as treasurer, which is in no way explained or contradicted, all the money which was in his hands was applicable only to certain specific purposes enumerated in the report, of which the payment of this judgment was not one. Hence, assuming that the evidence showed a valid judgment against the school-district, (of which there may at least be doubt,) the defendant had no right to pay it out of these funds. This point, upon which there was no conflict of evidence, being decisive of the case, the errors assigned as to other matters are immaterial.

Order affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130894 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130894 COA: 267608 Oakland CC: 05-202532-FH JULIUS MICHAEL RITCHIE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Country reports on human rightspractices [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc Number:S 1.142:C 63/

Item Number:0863-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:000588129
 
1999-2015 (StateDepartment Archived Content)
1996-1999(National Archives and Records Administration Web Harvest)
 
May 15, 2020
**Team III -- Accreditation**
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                         
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                     
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                    341
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          341
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     117
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              383
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          503
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           138
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       138
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           15.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                           15.58
        

</TABLE>
**The "Frequently Asked Questions about Racial Harassment" page has been revised and now resides on the "Frequently Asked Questions on Race and National Origin Discrimination" page.**

**Please update any bookmarks to reflect this new location.**

**The page you are currently on will be removed from this site May 1, 2017.**
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 10(g)
GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay Equitable of
Iowa Companies, an Iowa corporation, the sum of $25 million
($25,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 8.25%  per annum from
the date hereof, December 17, 1996 until paid.  In any event, this
note will mature on December 17, 2026.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate
to payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as
well as debts owed to all other classes of debtors of Golden American
Life Insurance Company in the event of (a) the institution of
bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or liquidation proceedings by
or against Golden American Life Insurance Company, or (b) the
appointment of a Trustee, receiver or other Conservator for a
substantial part of Golden American Life Insurance Company
properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of
the final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.


                                GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                By:  /s/ Terry L. Kendall
                                     ---------------------------------
                                     Terry L. Kendall, President and CEO


Attest by:


/s/ Myles R. Tashman
------------------------------
Myles R. Tashman
Executive Vice President and
General Counsel

<PAGE>
<PAGE>
FY 2010 project abstracts have now been posted for the following FIPSE programs:

- Comprehensive Program
- Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success
- Training for Realtime Writers

FIPSE Home
#### In the Matter of Josephine Wilber, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

Petitioner’s operator’s license was suspended (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 510, subd. 3, par. [a]) following an accident, on the ground that she then “ was proceeding at an imprudent rate of speed in violation of See. 1180-a V&TL ”, this determination being predicated upon the finding: “ Though the driver denied that she had any knowledge of the slippery condition of the highway, I find that the facts of the weather and the highway should have indicated to her that the highway was slippery and that she should have reduced her speed prior to negotiating the curve.” Upon quite similar facts, we recently annulled a revocation because there was “no basis for a finding that speed was the causative factor” in a skidding accident upon an S curve. *(Matter of Disney*v. *Hults,*16 A D 2d 494, 496.) The Court of Appeals has held that operating an automobile “at such a speed as to skid in the ordinary course of driving” would not support a conviction under subdivision (a) of section 1180 and that the statute *does not render*a driver guilty of a violation “if he is unaware of unforeseen conditions rendering his speed hazardous ”, but “ it does render a motorist guilty if, in view of existing conditions or actual and potential hazards reasonably to be anticipated, [he] is guilty of ordinary negligence with respect to speed alone.” *(People*v. *Lewis,*13 N Y 2d 180, 184; see, also, *Lahr*v. *Tirrill,*274 N. Y. 112, mot. for rearg. den. 274 N. Y. 611; *Matter of Fake*v. *Macduff,*281 App. Div. 630.) Asked by the Referee if she was aware that the road was slippery, petitioner replied, “No, not particularly.” The only other witness to the accident said, “I don’t believe she was going too fast.” The only additional evidence with respect to the road surface was adduced from a State Trooper’s report which contained little more than the generalization that “ the roads *in the area*” were *“*very slippery ”. (Emphasis supplied.) In this blanket characterization we find no substantial evidence that upon the stretch of highway approaching the curve there existed a condition of danger such as reasonably to require a further reduction of speed before the car should enter the curve. Determination annulled, with *$75*costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 14. The small Seabed Observation and Sampling System       (SEABOSS), a modified Van Veen grab equipped with still and video       photographic systems, mounted on the aft starboard side of the research       vessel Rafael. Note the winch mounted on the davit (left) and the       takeup reel for the video-signal and power cable (right).   

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig14.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:27:06 EDT
#### 243.170 Identification of foreign military sale (FMS) requirements.

Follow the procedures at PGI 243.170 for identifying contract modifications that add FMS requirements.

[70 FR 67922, Nov. 9, 2005]
#### In the Matter of Heller *&*Usdan, Inc., Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. This appeal is concerned with the unemployment insurance contributions rate of the appellant employer, Heller & Usdan, Inc., which was organized as a result of a consolidation April 1, *8711957 of two corporations, each subject to contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Law. One of the two corporations had a negative balance in its “ employer’s account ” (Unemployment Insurance Law, § 581, subd. 1, par. [d] [Labor Law, art. 18]); the other had a positive balance. The Industrial Commissioner has ruled, and his ruling has been sustained as a matter of law by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Boárd, that the appellant is required to assume the adverse effect of the negative balance of one of the consolidated components and is therefore not entitled to a reduced contribution rate. We think the governing statute must be read the other way (§ 581, subd. 4, par. [a]). This subdivision provides that where an employer transfers its *“*organization, trade or business ”, the transferee *“*shall take over * * """ the employer’s account, including its balance and all other aspects of its .experience ”, Although appellant continued the technical legal structure of the old corporation having the negative balance, which was a very small employing unit, it physically and in practice continued and assumed the business, including the organization, employees and place of business, of the larger unit which had the positive balance in its employer’s account at the periods relevant to this controversy. At two such periods the predecessor corporation having a positive account had a payroll of $324,879.74 and $338,403.28 respectively, against $14,067.04 and $2,496.26 of the corporation having the negative balance. The business of appellant is in reality a continuance of the business of the predecessor having the positive employer’s balance. To deprive the appellant of the benefit of this positive balance would be so unjust and inequitable as to require the support of a clear statutory mandate. There is no such mandate. The statute does not follow the lines of literal or technical corporate evaluation in dealing with transfers of accounts. It speaks, rather, of a transfer of *“*organization ” and of trade or business. There is, as appellant argues “ a complete continuity of employment between the employees ” of the predecessor corporation having a positive balance and appellant. It is not the transfer of corporate entity, but the employment aspect of the transfer which is important for the purposes of determining the effect of a negative or positive balance in the account *(Matter of Mark Hotel Corp. [Catherwood],*9 A D 2d 412). Decision reversed, with costs. Settle order.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
  
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        condition with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals
        Limited
        (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sharon
        L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that:
  (1)
              the
                  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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
  By  /s/
        Sharon L. Wardlaw
 Sharon
        L.
        Wardlaw,
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 April
        28,
        2006
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### B. Manuel Gutfreund, Respondent, v. Henry D. Russ, Appellant.

Order, entered on February 28, 1964, denying a motion by defendant Henry D. Russ to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction over his person, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant (see *Singer*v. *Walker,*21 A D 2d 285; *Simonson*v. *International Bank,*14 N Y 2d 281; *Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co.*v. *Barnes & Beinecke,*21 A D 2d 474). Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
- Overview of the law
- Questions and answers on race discrimination
- Race discrimination regulation (Title VI)
- Racial Harassment Resources
- Resource Comparability Materials
- Resources related to Limited-English Proficient Students ("English Language Learners")
- Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Resources

|Last Modified: 09/29/2014
|-------------------------
#### 247.271 Contracts for the preparation of personal property for shipment or storage or for performance of intra-city or intra-area movement.
**Stalking Scenario #1**

In September 2012, Bryan transferred into the same university as her ex-girlfriend, Fiona. Although Fiona had tried to be friends when they broke up after high school, she distanced herself while in college because Bryan often brought up suicide as a way to guilt her into speaking with him.

On Monday October 8, 2012, Bryan called Fiona for support, saying his brother was dying and that he was undergoing surgery soon. Fiona referred Bryan to the University Counseling Center instead. On Thursday, October 11, Bryan called Fiona to seek support after the procedure, but she did not answer the call. Bryan then approached Fiona on campus that afternoon when she was with his new boyfriend, Matt, again seeking her support. That Saturday, October 13, Bryan ran into Fiona at Matt’s birthday party and made a scene because she had not been there for him. Bryan was drunk and ran into a busy street, blaming Fiona for her behavior. Fiona had a friend take Bryan home, but later that night Bryan attempted suicide.

Later that month, Matt started receiving emails from unknown accounts telling him to break up with Fiona. By November, these emails had turned violent and threatening. During this time Fiona continued to experience several calls, texts and emails from Bryan saying something bad would happen to him if she did not respond. 

During winter break, on December 24, Bryan visited Fiona’s parent’s home leaving her a present and a romantic note. Bryan sent a series of messages while Fiona was staying with his parents over break alternating threats and requests for support and help. Fiona did not respond and told her parents not to accept Bryan over. On December 29, Fiona learned that Bryan attempted suicide again. On January 22, however Bryan was back on campus. Bryan started joining the same student organizations as Matt and spread rumors about Matt being unfaithful to Fiona there and to mutual friends. Bryan also showed up at social events and continued spreading these rumors and even sought to physically intimidate Matt on one occasion. Melanie began to withdraw from these groups as a result and felt unsafe on campus.

On February 2, Matt told his RA that Bryan’s behavior was intimidating and creating anxiety for him around campus. Matt also sought advice from the Dean’s office, reporting all the events that had occurred prior. Fiona likewise talked to the Dean and shared some of Bryan’s emails threatening suicide. On February 7, Fiona’s Facebook account was hacked. Bryan’s block was removed and he was added as a friend. Fiona believes Bryan hacked his account because of this. On February 11, Matt returns to his dorm room to find the door ajar and his room tossed. Matt is afraid it will escalate and considers seeking support from law enforcement.