alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0000318835
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                  560121
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  10158698
<DEPRECIATION>                          5853319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4903842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4903842
<SALES>                                 2502484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2522074
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1045468
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1045468
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1045468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000
18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
2406.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency. ( d ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) The HCA is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 6.302-2(d)(1)(ii).
[77 FR 73526, Dec. 10, 2012]
Educational and Employment Barriers for Adult & Adolescent ELs

EL Family Toolkit

EDTech for English Learners

Study on ELs for Gifted & Talented Programs

Tips for Identifying Gifted EL Students

NAM Cohorts Study

Webinars

Dear Colleague Letter 2015

Newcomer Tool Kit

English Learner Tool Kit

NCELA Fact Sheets

Provide Every Student with a Pathway to Multilingualism Infographic

WELCOME

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) provides national leadership to help ensure that English Learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency and achieve academic success. In addition to preserving heritage languages and cultures, OELA is committed to prompting opportunities for biliteracy or multiliteracy skills for all students. OELA accomplishes this in the following ways:

- Providing national leadership by informing policy decisions
- Administering discretionary grant programs to prepare professionals for teaching and supporting English Learners
- Investing in research and evaluation studies that have practical applications for preparing English Learners to meet college and career learning standards
- Disseminating information about educational research, practices, and policies for English Learners through our  National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA)
#### The People of the State of New York v. Jacob Wissenfeld.

Motion for leave to reargue granted and upon reargument motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. The order of this court, entered on December 1, 1959, dismissing said appeal is vacated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ .
| **You are here:**OESE Home > OSHS> About Us |
|-----------------------------------------------------|

The Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) administers, coordinates, and recommends policy for improving the quality and excellence of programs and activities that are designed to (1) provide all students with access to a well-rounded education, (2) improve school conditions for student learning, and (3) improve the use of technology in order to improve academic achievement and digital literacy. 

OSHS is headed by a Director, who reports to the Assistant Secretary and advises the Assistant Secretary on matters related to the programs administered by OSHS. The Office of the Director provides overall support, coordination, and leadership to the following program units:- Well-Rounded Educational Opportunities 
- Safe and Healthy Students 
- Education Technology 
- Education for Homeless Children and Youth 
- Neglected and Delinquent Youth

Please visit the following link for the OSHS State Liaisons (by state) for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment program (newly authorized under subpart 1 of Title IV, Part A). 
- OSHS State Liaisons
  Last Modified: 09/07/2017
#### C. Hooker O’Malley, Respondent, v Elizabeth F. O’Malley, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action in which the defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 14, 1977, which denied her motion to, *inter alia,*increase the monthly support being paid by the plaintiff for the parties’ two children. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith. Upon the disputed facts in this case, the questions involved should not have been decided without a hearing. A hearing is required to afford adequate opportunity for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and for evaluation of the documents produced. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### 252.222-7001 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 1

Fax number list 090413.xlsx

BEING FILED UNDER SEAL

Case: 1:12-cv-05105 Document #: 325-2 Filed: 11/21/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13819
#### (A) Laura A. Hock v. Franklin H. Hock. (B) Aron Bos, v. Rockefeller Center, Inc. (C) Kapp Records, Inc., v. John Hyland.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David A. Gray, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Delaware County which denied, without a hearing, an application by defendant for an order in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate a judgment of conviction. The denial of the application for insufficiency of the petition was *680proper. The naked, conclusory allegations as to what defendant was “led to believe * * * by acts of the sentencing court ” are unsupported by any factual averment; and the allegation of “trickery, fraud and deceit” on the part of the District Attorney is based upon the irrelevant contention that the District Attorney failed to “notify” defendant that upon conviction he would be treated as a multiple offender. The petition fails, also, to demonstrate more than the flimsiest factual basis for the additional conclusory allegations as to failure to permit sufficient time “ to plead or prepare to plead to the indictment ” and as to the lack of competence of assigned counsel. (Cf. *People*v. *Brown,*7 N Y 2d 359; *People*v. *Wise,*11 A D 2d 585.) Defendant’s contention as to the insufficiency of the indictment is without merit and would not, in any event, afford a basis for *coram nobis.*The petition does not effectually present, if at all, the issues which defendant’s argument seeks to raise as to the denial, on each resentence, of defendant’s application to withdraw his previous plea of guilty. In any event, the certified copies of the stenographer’s minutes of the proceedings on each occasion, filed in the County Clerk’s office and submitted on the argument (cf. *People ex rel. Williams*v. *Murphy,*6 N Y 2d 234; *Ripley*v. *Storer,*309 N. Y. 506; *People*v. *Trahan,*8 A D 2d 687), indicate no basis for relief, and certainly none by *coram nobis.*Order unanimously affirmed.
- Slide Number 1
- Blank Page
#### In the Matter of Marianne Byers et al., Appellants, v James S. Kirby, as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to *728subdivision (b) of section 651 of the Family Court Act to determine custody of a foster child, petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, entered March 29,1978, which dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners, if they be so advised, may resort to the administrative review provided in 18 NYCRR 431.10 within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be entered hereon together with notice of entry thereof. (On the argument of the appeal respondents agreed to waive any defense of time limitations set forth in that rule.) Where, pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 383 and section 400 of the Social Services Law and 18 NYCRR 431.10 (formerly 18 NYCRR 450.10), a county department of social services, which had originally placed a child with foster parents, advises the foster parents of its intent to remove the child, the foster parents must pursue their rights administratively and may not resort in the first instance to habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 651 of the Family Court Act, to prevent removal of the child *pendente lite (People ex rel Ninesling v Nassau County Dept, of Social Servs.,*46 NY2d 382; *Smith v Organization of Foster Families,*431 US 816). Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
4050

4050

4050

4000

4300

4100

4050

4250

4000

4200

4000

4300

4100

4100

3850

3900

4150

4200

4250

4000

4100

4200

4200

4150

4150

4150

3900

4100

3850

3850

3950

4100

4100

3900

4100

Castleberry

Ranch

Airport

54

54

54

F M 7 6 7

F M

7 6 7

R A N C H R D 3 2 9 6

54

54

54

F M 7 6 7

F M

7 6 7

R A N C H R D 3 2 9 6

Spring Creek

Sprin

g

Creek

Minneosa Creek

Minneosa Creek

Cramer Creek

Minneosa Creek

Bull

Spring

Sand

Hills

Romero

Castleberry

Ranch

Coots

Ranch

Romero SE Nara

Visa

Doyle

Hill

Spring

Creek

Ranch

Whiteaker

Ranch Amistad SE MiddleWater

Romero

Knoblaw

54

00'

N

87

N

6

92

6

35°

57'

6

39

39

39

45

30"

3

42'

47

51

90

84

103°

6 6

84

57'

39

39

6

54

39

39

E

52

48

85 000

57

91

42'

6

57

30"

30"

6

39

39

39

81

39

52

52'

39

39

880

88

55

000m 83

6

88

49

37'

30"

6

39

39

35° 6

30"

00'

E 000m 6

50

86 89 102°

30"

45'

000

55

90

39

39

920

50

35°

58

86 FEET

45

82 6

6

30"

39

000m

39

35°

30"

47

46

39

37'

40'

3

89

46

55'

6 83 6

52'

40'

102°

45'

103° 55'

000

240

6

6

6

39

39

39

39

6

6

39

39

000m

53

87

56

82

91

51

48

56

53

FEET

220 000 FEET

FEET

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 35102-323

ROMERO, TX

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

ROMERO QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Zone 13S

Imagery...................................................NAIP, August 2008

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2005

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2002

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(north zone)

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 12 ́

21 MILS

7° 41 ́

137 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

13S

FV

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
#### 206.102-70 Other competitive procedures.

Competitive selection of proposals based on a review by scientific, technological, or other subject-matter expert peers resulting from a commercial solutions opening as described in subpart 212.70 (10 U.S.C. 3458) is a competitive procedure.

[88 FR 55939, Aug. 17, 2023]
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge George M. Marovich Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3939 DATE 6/5/2012

CASE

TITLE

Deveaux v. University of Chicago, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Petitioner Clarinda Deveaux’s petition [4] to proceed in forma pauperis and her motion [5] for appointment

of counsel are denied without prejudice. 

 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Petitioner Clarinda Deveaux (“Deveaux”) seeks leave to file in forma pauperis her complaint against

the University of Chicago, Lionette Bursey (“Bursey”), Dagene Brown (“Brown”), Wanda Taylor (“Taylor”),

Yulanda Jones (“Jones”) and Shaz Rasul (“Rasul”). Against the University of Chicago, Deveaux asserts

claims for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Against the

individual defendants (who cannot be sued under Title VII), plaintiff asserts a tort claim for interference with

her contractual relationship with the University of Chicago. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, when determining whether a petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the Court examines whether the petitioner has sufficiently

demonstrated that she is impoverished within the meaning of the statute. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). Second, the Court considers whether the complaint is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

25, 31 (1992); Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 324. 

The Court finds that Deveaux has not sufficiently demonstrated that she is impoverished within the

meaning of the statute, because she has failed to answer all of the questions on the in forma pauperis

application and financial affidavit. Specifically, Deveaux failed to answer parts a., b., c., d., e. and g. of

question 4, which asks for information about the income (including wages, salary, business, selfemployment, rental, interest, dividends, pensions, social security, annuities, life insurance, disability,

workers’ compensation, alimony, child support, gifts, inheritances and any other type) received by the

applicant or anyone with whom the applicant shares a residence. Without this information, the Court cannot

determine whether Deveaux is sufficiently impoverished within the meaning of the statute to qualify to

proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Deveaux’s petition is denied without prejudice to her right to file a

new, complete petition. (The statute of limitations will continue to run until she either files a new petition or

pays the filing fee.)

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

Because the Court is denying Deveaux’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court also denies

without prejudice her motion for appointment of counsel.

Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

South Carolina Department of Education1006 Rutledge Building1429 Senate StreetColumbia, SC 29201Phone: (803) 734-8500Website: http://ed.sc.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

South Carolina Commission on Higher EducationSuite 4001122 Lady StreetColumbia, SC 29201Phone: (803) 737-2260Fax: (803) 737-2297Website: http://www.che.sc.gov/

### Special Education Agency

Office of Special EducationSouth Carolina State Department of Education1006 Rutledge Building1429 Senate StreetColumbia, SC 29201Phone: (803) 734-8224Fax: (803) 734-5021Website: http://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/special-education-services/

### State Adult Education Agency

Office of Adult Education State Department of Education Suite 908 1429 Senate Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 734-8300Fax: (803) 734-3643Website: https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/adult-education/

Back to state map
#### 242.771-2 Policy.

Defense contractors are encouraged to engage in independent research and development (IR&D) projects that will advance the needs of DoD for future technology and advanced capability (see 231.205-18(c)(iii)).

[88 FR 6600, Jan. 31, 2023]
2401.404 Class deviations. ( a ) The Senior Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 1.404(a).
[77 FR 73525, Dec. 10, 2012]
Order filed November 5, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00614

- CV

____________ MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L .P. , Appellant

V.
BERKEL & COMPANY CON TRACTORS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 75576

- CV



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due October 22, 2015

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 25,
2015 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      43,478,000
<SECURITIES>                                15,804,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              136,620,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,342,000
<INVENTORY>                                 88,873,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           319,767,000
<PP&E>                                     280,267,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             128,528,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             709,764,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      186,832,000
<BONDS>                                     56,555,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 297,995,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               709,764,000
<SALES>                                    329,421,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           332,993,000
<CGS>                                      124,771,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              307,805,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,999,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,188,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,327,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,861,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,861,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the inclusion  herein of our report dated  January 22, 1997,  with
respect  to  the  consolidated   balance  sheet  of  McDonnell  Douglas  Finance
Corporation  ("MDFC")  as of December  31,  1996,  and the related  consolidated
statements  of income and income  retained  for  growth,  and cash flows for the
years  ended  December  31,  1996 and 1995 in the Form  10-K for the year  ended
December 31, 1997 of Boeing  Capital  Corporation  (formerly  McDonnell  Douglas
Finance  Corporation) and to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement  of Boeing  Capital  Corporation  on Form S-3 (No.  33-58989)  and the
related Prospectus of our report dated January 22, 1997.

We also consent to the  inclusion  herein of our report dated  January 22, 1997,
with  respect to the  financial  statement  schedule of MDFC for the years ended
December  31,  1996 and 1995 in the Form 10-K for the year  ended  December  31,
1997,  of  Boeing  Capital  Corporation   (formerly  McDonnell  Douglas  Finance
Corporation) and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of Boeing Capital  Corporation on Form S-3 (No. 33-58989) and related Prospectus
of our report dated January 22, 1997.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 27, 1998
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 28. Segment of Chirp high-resolution seismic-reflection       profile and interpretation from research vessel Rafael cruise       08034 line 18 across the buried channel that extends seaward beneath       Edgartown Harbor. Some estuarine and transitional deposits consist of       gas-charged sediment. Location of profile is shown in figure 13. 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig28.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:14:02 EDT