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




<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                              <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,000                 121,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,000                 445,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               764,000               1,398,000
<PP&E>                                      36,287,000              32,354,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,000                  17,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,078,000              34,324,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,468,000               1,685,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,113,000               4,850,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,287,000              27,579,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,078,000              34,324,000
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,308,000                 805,000
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,652,000               2,213,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,536,000               1,223,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             309,000                 189,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,189,000)             (2,820,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,189,000)             (2,820,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,189,000)             (2,189,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.51)                  (3.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2,51)                  (3.58)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<CIK> 0000016104 
<NAME> CAGLE'S, INC. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997 
<CASH>                                             175 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19033 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       663 
<INVENTORY>                                      32908 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 52196 
<PP&E>                                           99604 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40931 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  137642 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            26182 
<BONDS>                                          46070 
<COMMON>                                          5006 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                       60384
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    137642
 
<SALES>                                          82532 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 82532 
<CGS>                                            79472 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    83668 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1136) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 828 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    392 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                242 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       242 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05 
         

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Yashio Enomoto et al., Respondents, v Philip L. Toia, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Same memorandum as in *Matter of Chen v Toia*(67 AD2d 1085). All concur, except Simons and Callahan, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and remit the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the same dissenting memorandum as in *Matter of Chen v Toia*(67 AD2d 1085, *supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
#### 203.909 Prohibition on providing funds to an entity that requires certain internal confidentiality agreements or statements.

[87 FR 65512, Oct. 28, 2022]
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30450,  333-65568,  333-73318,  333-104481 and 333-121445) of
Terabeam,  Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2006, relating to the consolidated
financial  statements and financial  statement schedule of Terabeam,  Inc. as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004 which appears in the company's  Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Fitzgerald, Snyder & Co., P.C.

Fitzgerald, Snyder & Co., P.C.
McLean, Virginia
March 30, 2006
#### The People of the State *of*New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Seaman, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, rendered January 9, 1962 after a trial, convicting him of unlawful entry, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and information dismissed. In our opinion, the evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered the church premises in question with intent to commit a crime. A mere entry, without intent to commit a crime, does not constitute “unlawful entry” under the statute (Penal Law, § 405; cf. *People*v. *Weiss,*290 N. Y. 160; *People*v. *Taddio,*292 N. Y. 488). Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J. and Kleinfeld, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: In the case at bar, defendant entered and walked from the front to the back of a dark church, three hours after the church closed; opened the door of the closed church office; put on the lights in the church office; was thereafter found by the minister of the church hiding behind the counter in the church office; then put out the lights in the church office when the minister left for a moment to get assistance; and hid behind the door of the church office. Defendant then told the detective on the latter’s arrival that he (the defendant) had been “nosing around;” and made a false statement that he was a member of the church. The fact that defendant did not have any tools or weapons or that none of the church property was damaged or missing is immaterial. Defendant was not on a sightseeing tour of the darkened church. We have here more than mere suspicion; the acts of defendant were not those of an innocent person. In our opinion the fact that defendant entered the church with intent to commit a crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage, Inc., formerly Storage
Equities, Inc., pertaining to the 1990 Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-55541) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-13463) pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-75327) pertaining to the 1994 Share Incentive Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50270) pertaining to the PS 401(k)/Profit Sharing
Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-52400) pertaining to the
2000 Non-Executive/Non-Director Stock Option and Incentive Plan, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-81041) and in the related
prospectus, the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86899) and in the
related prospectus, the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-84126) and
in the related prospectus, in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-101425) and in the related Prospectus and the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (No. 333-103190), and in the related prospectus of our report dated February
21, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Public Storage, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 2002 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 28, 2003
Los Angeles, California
The Ethics, Legislative, and Regulatory Service is under the direction of a Deputy General Counsel who reports directly to the General Counsel. The Deputy General Counsel supervises and coordinates the work of three Divisions, each of which is headed by an Assistant General Counsel and Deputy Assistant General Counsel:

The**Legislative Counsel Division** drafts the   Department’s legislation and related documents, reviews all education-related   legislation pending in Congress, and acts as the Department’s liaison to the   Office of Management and Budget with respect to the clearance of legislative   matters.

The **Regulatory Services Division** leads the development of the Department’s regulations and other   documents published in the Federal Register, gives legal advice on rulemaking   law, drafts selected regulations, and provides legal services respecting   rulemaking and other regulatory issues. The Division also participates in   government-wide and Department-wide regulatory groups.

The **Ethics Division** is responsible for   counseling current and past Department employees on ethics statutes and   regulations, the Hatch Act, and anti-lobbying provisions; reviewing and   approving public and confidential financial disclosure statements; financial   reports filed by regular and special government employees; reviewing and   clearing all requests for approval of outside activity and requests to accept   travel expenses from non-Federal sources; training employees on ethics statutes   and regulations; and advising the Department on actions necessary to ensure   compliance with ethics laws and policies. In addition, the Ethics Division   serves as the liaison with the Office of   Government Ethics and the Office of the President Counsel on ethics   matters.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2453

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2453 appear at 64 FR 46101, Aug. 23, 1999.

#### 2453.215 Contracting by negotiation.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the amendment to the annual report of American Building
Control, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Chris T. Sharng, Chief Financial Officer of 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:

a) This Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b) The information contained in this Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                                                                          | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ CHRIS T. SHARNG

Chris T. Sharng
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003 |
September 28, 2020

Dear Chief State School Officer:

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, an emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its devastation of our American families, schools, and communities. 

The Department of Education responded immediately, strongly, and effectively. Moving with unprecedented speed, we pushed billions of CARES Act dollars to States and local school districts. We made available every Federal government resource at our disposal to help all children receive the educational and other special services they need, deserve, and are entitled to under law.

We started from a premise that I believe with every fiber of my being:  all children are created equal, and all children matter.  In the CARES Act, there is nothing suggesting Congress intended to deny some American students the help they need. In the real world, the pandemic harmed everyone. Sadly, that fact did not stop some from suing us, attempting to deny private-school children and teachers help they needed.  Unfortunately for students, a U.S. District Court has vacated the Department's Interim Final Rule (IFR).

The Department strongly, but respectfully, disagrees with the ruling. However, we respect the rule of law and will enforce the law as the court has opined. The Department will not appeal this ruling. As you likely know, the IFR has not been in effect since the court’s decision on September 4, 2020, and we subsequently provided notice of the decision on our website.

The Department will not take any action against States or local districts that followed the guidance and/or the IFR prior to notice of the court’s decision. Going forward, districts must calculate the proportional share for CARES Act equitable services according to the formula provided in Section 1117(a)(4)(A) of the ESEA of 1965. Section 1117 requires robust consultation with private schools, among other things, and we will use our enforcement authority aggressively to ensure districts comply with this and other relevant equitable services requirements.

More broadly, the truth remains that *all* schools and *all* students have borne the pandemic's burden and need support.  We hope, through meaningful consultation and honest assessment, education leaders will do right by all students they serve. You know as well as I do that many private schools serve disadvantaged, lower income families, and it is bad for these communities when those private schools close. Not only does it place a burden on families that chose a different school for their child, but it also places a burden on public schools as well.

To that end, I strongly encourage you to use the CARES Act dollars we provided to assist public schools and to provide equitable services to private schools as soon as possible.

Thank you for your continued efforts to serve every member of America’s rising generation.

|  | Sincerely,  |
|--|-------------|
|  | /s/         |
|  | Betsy DeVos |
Case: 1:12-cv-03229 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:145
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Lee Morrison, Appellant, against Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden, Respondent.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers and five copies of handwritten brief from order entered January 15, 1960; orders entered March 2, 1960 and April 7,1960 vacated.
211.503 Contract clauses. ( b ) Use the clause at FAR 52.211-12, Liquidated Damages—Construction, in all construction contracts exceeding $750,000, except cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts or contracts where the contractor cannot control the pace of the work. Use of the clause in contracts of $750,000 or less is optional.
[60 FR 61594, Nov. 30, 1995. Redesignated at 66 FR 49861, Oct. 1, 2001; 71 FR 75892, Dec. 19, 2006; 75 FR 45073, Aug. 2, 2010; 80 FR 36904, June 26, 2015; 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00765-CV

Miles Anson Olson, Appellant

v.

Jacqueline Hannah Avery, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-08-002533, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On December 16, 2008, appellant Miles Anson Olson filed his notice of appeal from a

district court judgment that was ultimately signed on January 7, 2009. This appeal was assigned the

above-captioned cause number, 03-08-00765-CV. Subsequently, on February 3, 2009, Olson filed

a motion for new trial in the district court. After his motion was denied, Olson filed, on March 16,

2009, a second notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment. This Court assigned Olson’s

second appeal a separate cause number, 03-09-00144-CV. This appeal is currently proceeding, and

the clerk’s record has already been filed under that cause number.

Olson has filed a “Motion to Withdraw Premature Notice of Appeal” in which he

seeks to dismiss the original appeal he filed on December 16, 2008, Cause No. 03-08-00765-CV.

We grant Olson’s motion and dismiss that appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). This dismissal does

not affect Olson’s pending appeal in Cause No. 03-09-00144-CV.
2

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 11, 2009
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-45101) of International Lease Finance Corporation and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 3, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of International Lease Finance
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.
 
                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Los Angeles, California
March 9, 1998
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILSON M. CANNON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-407

[July 16, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF003480A.

Wilson M. Cannon, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### 225.870 Contracting with Canadian contractors.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48289) pertaining to the Information Resources, Inc.
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-48290) pertaining to the Information Resources, Inc. 1992 Incentive Stock
Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48291) pertaining to
the Information Resources, Inc. 1992 Executive Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52719) pertaining to the Information
Resources, Inc. Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-52721) pertaining to the Information Resources, Inc. Employee
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-54649) pertaining to the Information Resources, Inc. 1992 Executive Stock
Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-24041) pertaining
to the Information Resources, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and Trust of
our report dated February 11, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Information Resources, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.



                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 29, 1999
FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan: download filesPDF (2M)

**APR Individual Sections:**

- Mission and Organizational Structure download filesPDF(169KB)
- About This Report and Overview download filesPDF (52KB)
- Performance Results Details download filesPDF (643KB)
- Performance Plan Summary download filesPDF (220KB)
- Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification Assurance  download filesPDF (146KB)
- Appendix B: Performance Results for Discontinued Measures download filesPDF (70KB)
- Appendix C: Additional Programs by Goal download filesPDF (63KB)
- Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During FY 2013 and Expected During FY 2014–15  download filesPDF (135KB)
- Appendix E: Selected Department Web Links and Education Resources  download filesPDF (37KB)
- Appendix F: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations download filesPDF (33KB)



President's FY 2015 Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Education

|Last Modified: 03/24/2014
|-------------------------
236.606-70 Statutory fee limitation. ( a ) The statutes at 10 U.S.C. 7540, 8612, and 9540, for the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively, limit the contract price (or fee) for architect-engineer services for the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications to 10 percent of the project's estimated construction cost.
( b ) The 10 percent limit also applies to contract modifications, including modifications involving— ( 1 ) Work not initially included in the contract; apply the 10 percent limit to the revised total estimated construction cost; and
( 2 ) Redesign work; apply the 10 percent limit by— ( i ) Adding the estimated construction cost of the redesign features to the original estimated construction cost;
( ii ) Adding the contract cost for the original design to the contract cost for redesign; and
( iii ) Dividing the total contract design cost by the total estimated construction cost. The resulting percentage may not exceed the 10 percent statutory limitation.
( c ) The 10 percent limit applies only to that portion of the contract (or modification) price attributable to the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. If a contract or modification also includes other services, the part of the price attributable to the other services is not subject to the 10 percent limit.
[89 FR 53504, June 27, 2024]