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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,674,523
<SECURITIES>                                   570,848
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,145,863
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,184,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          689,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,960
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,495,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,184,463
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,068
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               102,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (146,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (136,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (136,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
### §602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.

The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that do not violate the stated mission of the institution, including religious mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an institution or program, including any offered through distance education or, correspondence courses, or direct assessment education,, is of sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of any accreditation or preaccreditation period granted by the agency..   The agency meets this requirement if the agency— 

(a) Has written specification of the requirements for accreditation and preaccreditation that include clear standards for an institution or program to be accredited; that take into account institutional mission;

(b) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of the agency's standards;

(c) Bases decisions regarding accreditation and preaccreditation on the agency's published standards;

(d) Has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the agency relies on for making accrediting decisions is accurate; and

(e

 (e) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards.;

(f) Does not deny preaccreditation or accreditation, or take action against an institution or program, due to an institution’s adherence to its religious mission; and  

(g) Publishes any policies for retroactive application of an accreditation decision. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b) 

1
#### 242.1203 Processing agreements.

The responsible contracting officer shall process and execute novation and change-of-name agreements in accordance with the procedures at PGI 242.1203.

[70 FR 67920, Nov. 9, 2005]
September 18, 2015

Mr. Brian Allred

970 South Main

Mapleton, UT 84664

Dear Mr. Allred:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 45.23(b), 61.3, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a)

and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and part

21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains w hy we cannot process

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We posted your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2712

, on July 2, 2015, but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This web site helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will c lose the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
Order filed, November 22, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00715-CV

____________

BOOTH CREEK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

NEW EXECUTIVE GROUP LIMITED, TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT 

GROUP, INC., AND JOHN BERRY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-24794

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 13, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On October 25, 2019, Cynthia Martinez filed a motion for extension 

of time to file the reporter’s record which was granted to November 4, 2019. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Cynthia Martinez, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Cynthia Martinez does not timely file the record as 

ordered, we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to 

determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
## Timeline

**Current Competition: FY 2023****Application Available:**May 18, 2023**Application Deadline:**July 17, 2023

## Federal Register Notice

- Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for FY 2023

Current Application

Applications for the FY 2023 Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education program is available on Grants.gov.

**TO APPLY:**

The FY 2023 Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education program application is available until July 17, 2023, via the Grants.gov website at www.grants.gov under Opportunity Number ED-GRANTS-051823-001.

Click here to access the FY 2023 TGIY Application Booklet 

Tips and Assistance

Please follow the guidance published in the Federal Register Notice and the application instructions in Grants.gov.

Click here for the FY 2023 Technical Assistance (TA) Pre-Application Webinar Schedule

 Click here for the FY 2023 Pre-Application Webinar Slides

Application Contact

Jymece Seward (202) 453-6138Jymece.Seward@ed.gov Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education ProgramU.S. Department of Education, OPE400 Maryland Avenue, S.W, LBJ, 5th Floor – 5C113Washington, DC 20202

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

FIPSE Home
# C_2016372EN.01000202.xml

| 11.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8186 — BC Partners/Keter and Jardin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 372/04)

On 3 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8186. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8186. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:312 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:443
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:313 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:444
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:314 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:445
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:315 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:446
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:316 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:447
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:317 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:448
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:318 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:449
Free Video Hosting. Secure Dedicated Servers. Mobile Ready. Sign Up or Take a Tour

Videobam - Fast, free video hosting

Upload Video

Register

Sign in

Login

Advertisement: pro users don't see ads

Mixitupboy.com DeAngelo Jackson vs Lil Niz

Upload by donho999

Mixitupboy.com DeAngelo Jackson vs Lil Niz http://videobam.com/kNQxo

1 of 5 10/6/11 1:05 PM

Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-7 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:319 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:450
1803.904 Procedures for filing complaints. ( a ) Any employee of a contractor or subcontractor who believes that he or she has been discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against contrary to the policy in 1803.903 may file a complaint with the Inspector General of NASA.
( b ) A complaint may not be brought under this section more than three years after the date on which the alleged reprisal took place.
( c ) The complaint shall be signed and shall contain— ( 1 ) The name of the contractor;
( 2 ) The contract number, if known; if not known, a description reasonably sufficient to identify the contract(s) involved;
( 3 ) The violation of law, rule, or regulation giving rise to the disclosure;
( 4 ) The nature of the disclosure giving rise to the discriminatory act, including the party to whom the information was disclosed; and
( 5 ) The specific nature and date of the reprisal.
Paul Riddle graduated from Dartmouth College in 1973 and received his law degree from Duke University in 1977, after which he joined the education branch of the General Counsel's office in ED's predecessor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  He has worked in the Division of Legislative Counsel since 1984, where he has been the Assistant General Counsel since September, 2004.
Order entered April 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00894-CV

ERIC DRAKE, Appellant

V.

KRISTINA KASTL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-09-01374-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 14, 2014 motion requesting the Court to order the release 

of sealed documents. We ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, on or before 

MAY 9, 2014, a sealed supplemental clerk’s record containing Exhibits A-1 and A-2 that were 

filed under seal as attachments to the defendants’ January 18, 2012 motion for summary 

judgment on their breach of contract counterclaim.

We GRANT appellant’s April 21, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

Appellant shall file his brief on or before June 2, 2014.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to John Warren and all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
#### Fannie F. Olsen et al., Respondents, v. St. Margaret *of*Scotland Roman Catholic Church, Appellant.

In an action by a wife and her husband to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 10, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Judgment reversed on the facts and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. According to plaintiffs’ proofs, the female plaintiff, Mrs. Olsen, an invitee in defendant’s rectory, sustained her injuries as a result of having tripped on a carpet runner which was on the highly-waxed and slippery floor of a hallway in the rectory; the runner itself slipped as Mrs. Olsen was trying to keep from falling. The plaintiffs claim that the cause of the tripping was a rumpled portion of the runner. There was no direct evidence which would make defendant responsible for the alleged rumpled condition of the runner, or which would support a finding that the runner was rumpled. Plaintiffs rely on circumstantial evidence, namely: that witnesses in the basement just below the hallway heard noises shortly before the accident, from which noises it could be inferred that a certain priest of the defendant church was pulling two boxes of bread on the floor of the hallway; and, on the basis of such inference, plaintiffs seek to have drawn the further inference that the pulling of the boxes caused the rumpling of the runner. Plaintiffs further contend that, even if the rumpling had been caused by someone else, defendant was nevertheless chargeable with notice of such condition. The asserted inferences that the runner was rumpled and that defendant was responsible for such condition are impermissible. An *828inference may not be based upon another inference *(Ruppert*v. *Brooklyn Hghts. R. R. Co.,*154 N. Y. 90, 93-94; *People*v. *Lewis,*275 N. Y. 33, 39; *Leonard*v. *Ashley Welding Mach. & Iron Co.,*11 A D 2d 1073, affd. 10 N Y 2d 993). Furthermore, there was undisputed proof in plaintiffs’ main ease that the priest, in bringing the boxes into the building and placing them down in the hallway, did not pass the area where it is claimed the runner was rumpled. Nevertheless, we believe plaintiffs’ proofs established negligence prima facie, on the theory that the runner was not secured to the floor and that the floor was slippery *(Braley*v. *Fleming,*266 App. Div. 1011, mot. for lv. to app. den. 267 App. Div. 764, 291 N. Y. 827; *Piculell*v. *Sargent,*268 App. Div. 871; *Ordway*v. *Hilliard,*266 App. Div. 1056). However, the trial court instructed the jury that plaintiffs were not entitled to a verdict in their favor unless they found that the runner was rumpled at the time of the accident. No exception to this instruction having been taken, it became the law of the case. Since there was no evidence upon which such a finding could be made, it follows that the verdict was against the evidence and that, therefore, the verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135889 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

TIMOTHY M. McCOY and ROBIN LaBARGE Robert P. Young, Jr. 

McCOY, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 135889 

 COA: 272440 

Sanilac CC: 04-030064-CK 

LAMOTTE COACHLIGHT CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

SCHULT HOMES CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
1 The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, Un ited States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1136

___________ Jennifer Miles, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2009 Filed: May 21, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jennifer Miles appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action. Judgment was entered on December 10, 2007, and Miles filed her notice of appeal 31 days later on January 10, 2008. The notice of appeal was thus untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in civil cases, notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order); Dill v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. , 525 F.3d 612, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2008) (timely notice of-2- appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). A ccordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2003 (the "Report") by Creative Computer Applications, Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to their knowledge:



|Date: November 21, 2003                                                                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/S/STEVEN M. BESBECKSteven M. Besbeck, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Creative Computer Applications, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
25.701 Restrictions administered by the Department of the Treasury on acquisitions of supplies or services from prohibited sources. ( a ) Except as authorized by OFAC, agencies and their contractors and subcontractors must not acquire any supplies or services if any proclamation, Executive order, or statute administered by OFAC, or if OFAC's implementing regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V, would prohibit such a transaction by a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
( b ) Except as authorized by OFAC, most transactions involving Cuba, Iran, and Sudan are prohibited, as are most imports from Burma or North Korea into the United States or its outlying areas. In addition, lists of entities and individuals subject to economic sanctions are included in OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons at *https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists* More information about these restrictions, as well as updates, is available in OFAC's regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V and/or on OFAC's website at *https://ofac.treasury.gov/*
( c ) Refer questions concerning the restrictions in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, (Telephone (202) 622-2490).
[73 FR 33638, June 12, 2008, as amended at 89 FR 61338, July 30, 2024]
Exhibit 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Nigel F. Penney , Chief Financial Officer of Chaparral Resources, Inc. (the
"company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

1.   The company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
     March 31, 2005 ("Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

2.   All of the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
     of the company.



Date: May 11, 2005




/s/  Nigel F. Penney
---------------------------------
Nigel F. Penney
Chief Financial Officer