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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         27,865
<SECURITIES>                                   13,158
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (250)
<INVENTORY>                                     7,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,480
<PP&E>                                         25,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 65,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,214
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          167
<OTHER-SE>                                     49,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   65,538
<SALES>                                        24,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,753
<CGS>                                          29,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,479)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,113)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.64)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2398

JEROME J. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOFFMAN COMPANY, LLC; PRESIDENT LAUREN K. DOUGLAS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-01364-LMB-TRJ)

Submitted: February 5, 2014 Decided: February 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome J. Brown appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Brown v. Hoffman Co., No. 1:13-cv01364-LMB-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 7, 2013; entered Nov. 15, 

2013). We grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
*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

- ESEA Overview download files PDF (78KB)
- Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity download files PDF (1.4MB)
- School Readiness download files PDF (1.4MB)
- Impact Aid download files  PDF (1.2MB)
- Education Improvement Programs download files PDF (2.0MB)
- Supporting Student Success download files PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Student Education download files PDF (1.2MB)  )
- Innovation and Instructional Teams download files PDF (1.9MB)
- English Learner Education download files PDF (622KB)
- Special Education download files PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research download files PDF (1.9MB)

### Volume II

- 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)
- Student Aid Overview download files PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance download files PDF (1.8MB)
- Teacher Education Assistance Overview download files PDF (1.0MB)
- Student Loans Overview download files PDF (1.2MB)
- 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)
- Student Aid Administration download files PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights download files PDF (474KB)
- Office of the Inspector General download files PDF (343KB)

|Last Modified: 04/10/2013
|-------------------------
# C_2016470EN.01000101.xml

| 16.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 470/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 470/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 December 2016

(2016/C 470/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0419 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4350 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83598 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7688 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0733 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9993 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,17 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4450 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5223 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,6840 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4109 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3902 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0851 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4752 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5008 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 235,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6283 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2262 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5413 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 987,51 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6596 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,027 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 64,3953 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,290 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5298 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5200 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6425 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0419

JPY

Japanese yen

123,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4350

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83598

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7688

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0733

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9993

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,17

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4450

RON

Romanian leu

4,5223

TRY

Turkish lira

3,6840

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4109

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3902

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0851

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4752

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5008

KRW

South Korean won

1 235,83

ZAR

South African rand

14,6283

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2262

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5413

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 987,51

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6596

PHP

Philippine peso

52,027

RUB

Russian rouble

64,3953

THB

Thai baht

37,290

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5298

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5200

INR

Indian rupee

70,6425

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
246.202-4 Higher-level contract quality requirements. ( 1 ) Higher-level contract quality requirements are used in addition to a standard inspection requirement.
( 2 ) Higher-level contract quality requirements, including nongovernment quality system standards adopted to meet DoD needs, are listed in the DoD Index of Specifications and Standards.
[60 FR 33145, June 27, 1995. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 61599, Nov. 30, 1995]
#### 2452.216-79 Estimated cost (no fee).

As prescribed in 2416.307(b), insert the following clause:

# Estimated Cost (No Fee) (DEC 2012)

(a) It is estimated that the total reimbursable cost to the Government for full performance of this contract will be $____ [*Contracting Officer insert amount*].

(b) If this contract is incrementally funded, the following shall apply:

(1) Total funds currently available for payment and allotted to this contract are $____ [*Contracting Officer insert amount*] (see also the clause at FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds” herein).

(2) If and when the contract is fully funded, as specified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the clause at FAR 52.232-20, Limitation of Cost, herein, shall become applicable.

(3) The Contracting Officer may allot additional funds to the contract up to the total specified in paragraph (a) of this clause without the concurrence of the contractor.

(End of clause)

[77 FR 73533, Dec. 10, 2012]
#### PEOPLE v. KOERNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against William J. Koerner.

No opinion. Motion denied.
Case: 1:12-cv-05077 Document #: 11 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:75
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 11 CR 800-2

)

SALIOU MBAYE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM

Under Section 230.36(a) of the Criminal Justice Act ("CJA") Guidelines, entitled 

"Notification of Proposed Rejection of CJA Compensation Vouchers," a judge considering the 

possibility of such a reduction is required to provide the CJA-appointed counsel with:

prior notice of the proposed reduction with a brief statement of the reason(s) for 

it, and

an opportunity to address the matter.

That provision is ordinarily invoked in situations where the fee application of a federal defender 

program attorney may be viewed as excessive and an evidentiary hearing is needed to inquire 

into that subject. This case is unusual in that respect, for it has posed the question whether the 

CJA application by former federal defender Francis Baumgart ("Baumgart"), whose membership 

on this District Court's CJA panel was revoked so that his services thereafter were rendered as a 

compensated retained counsel, should be rejected in its entirety -- not for the reasons that gave 

rise to that revocation (reasons not known to this Court, for the federal defender program in this 

judicial district maintains confidentiality in making such seldom-taken and unusual decisions), 

but rather for reasons attributable to attorney Baumgart's handling of this case.
That circumstance clearly called for an evidentiary hearing, and this Court so ordered. 

Attorney Baumgart shared that view, for on January 13, 2015 he filed a motion (Dkt. No. 198, 

presented on January 16) for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 230.36(a). That hearing 

has finally been completed on April 7, 2016, and on April 13 this Court issued its memorandum 

opinion and order that denied attorney Baumgart's request in its entirety. That opinion has been 

filed under seal because of the special circumstances it describes, and Baumgart's CJA voucher 

has been returned to this District Court's Financial Specialist Kari Goodmay together with a copy 

of this memorandum.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 14, 2016

- 2 -
#### Alfred Sturmthal, Respondent, v. All Transport, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on July 10, 1964, granting motion to open default unanimously reversed on the facts and the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion denied. Plaintiff defaulted on a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and a judgment of dismissal resulted. It is elementary that a proper affidavit of merits is an essential to open such a default. The affidavit submitted completely lacked evidentiary matter. In view of the difficulty plaintiff has had in supplying particulars of his claim, we cannot deem the failure to supply a proper affidavit of merits inadvertent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Boris Khavich

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04443

Honorable Milton I. Shadur

FinnAir, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 5, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Milton I. Shadur:The 9/28/12 status hearing is

vacated and reset for 10/29/2012 at 09:00 AM. If counsel files a stipulation to dismiss

before the 10/29 status date the status will be stricken. Mailed notice(srn, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04443 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:48
1339.270 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) Insert provision substantially similar to 1352.239-71, *Electronic and Information Technology,* in solicitations for Electronic and Information (EIT) to which it applies.
( b ) Insert clause 1352.239-72, *Security Requirements for Information Technology Resources,* in all DOC solicitations and contracts for Information Technology services. The clause language may only be modified by adding more restrictive agency- or operating unit counsel -specific guidance
1909.404 Consolidated list of debarred, suspended, and ineligible contractors. ( a ) The Policy and Procedures Staff, Office of Contracts, shall be responsible for the maintenance and distribution of the GSA Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended, and Ineligible Contractors. It will be coordinated with the Solicitation Mailing List and appropriate notations will be made on both lists, when additions or deletions are necessary. Contracting Officers shall notify the Policy and Procedures Staff, Office of Contracts, of their distribution needs and shall ensure the list is used effectively.
( b ) The Board Procurement Executive (or designee) is responsible for notifying GSA of the information required by FAR 9.404(b).
#### 217.502 Procedures.
217.7404-1 Authorization. The contracting officer shall obtain approval from the head of the contracting activity before— ( a ) Entering into a UCA. The request for approval must fully explain the need to begin performance before definitization, including the adverse impact on agency requirements resulting from delays in beginning performance.
( b ) Including requirements for non-urgent spare parts and support equipment in a UCA. The request should show that inclusion of the non-urgent items is consistent with good business practices and in the best interest of the United States.
( c ) Modifying the scope of a UCA when performance has already begun. The request should show that the modification is consistent with good business practices and in the best interests of the United States.
----

**FORM 10-QSB**

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington D.C.  20549

Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15 (d)Of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Quarter Ended                                                  June 30, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leo Joseph Mleczko, Appellant, v. Charles C. McCloskey, Jr., as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Chautauqua Supreme Court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.) Present ■—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 2432.114 Unusual contract financing.

The Senior Procurement Executive is the agency head for the purpose of FAR 32.114.

[65 FR 3573, Jan. 21, 2000; 65 FR 6444, Feb. 9, 2000]
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40173 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ROBERT C. GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-93-1
- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court did not err in denying Robert C. Griffin a decrease in his Sentencing Guidelines offense level on the ground that he twice tested positive for the use of cocaine while he was on pretrial release. United States v. Siebe , 58 F.3d 161, 163 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor did the Government breach the plea agreement by not moving for a downward departure. United States v. Underwood , 61 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 244 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 244

  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in 
          United States of America v. Robert Menendez, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2017

  Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in 
          United States of America v. Robert Menendez, et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. Robert Menendez, et al., Cr. 
        No. 15-155, pending in the United States District Court for the District 
        of New Jersey, testimony and the production of documents may be needed 
        from various current and former Members and employees of the Senate, 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current or former Members and employees 
        of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for 
        testimony relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That current and former Members and employees of the 
Senate are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case of 
United States of America v. Robert Menendez, et al., and related 
proceedings, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
current and former Members and employees of the Senate in connection 
with the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Marie W. Arnold et al. v. Benjamin Pesikoff.

Motion for a stay granted on the terms and conditions contained in the order to show cause, dated November 1,1960. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
#### 211.275 [Reserved]
| Photo Options  |
|---------------------|

David J. Cantrell, Ph.D., serves as the deputy director in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the U.S. Department of Education (Department). In this role, he assists the OSEP director in overseeing administration of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which authorizes formula grants to states under IDEA Part B and to lead agencies for the infants and families program under IDEA Part C. IDEA also authorizes discretionary grants under IDEA Part D to institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations to support grants for state personnel development, technical assistance and dissemination, technology, and parent training and information centers.

Prior to joining OSEP, Cantrell worked as a director in the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education where he administered grants to states and local education agencies for the Rural Education Achievement Program and the Consolidated Grant to the Insular Areas. Additionally, he spearheaded technical assistance activities for states by leading the Office of Program and Grantee Support Services which oversees the Equity Assistance Centers and Comprehensive Centers.

Prior to working at the U.S. Department of Education, Cantrell worked at the U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity  where he taught students with disabilities, served as a district coordinator, school administrator, and then as director of special education and student support services.

Cantrell holds a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish from the University of Louisville, a Master of Education in special education from North Carolina State University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in special education policy from the University of Maryland-College Park.
Performance Reports

If you receive a grant under this competition, you must ensure that the necessary processes and systems are developed to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition.  This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

At the end of the project period, the grantee must submit a Final Performance Report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary.  If a grantee receives a multi-year award, it must submit an Annual Performance Report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118.  The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

Performance Measures

Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the Department will use the following performance measures to evaluate the success of the Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education Program:
- (a)	Number of project participants enrolled in the postsecondary education program
- (b)	Number of project participants earning a certificate, degree, or other credential
- (c)	Number of project participants active in paid internships, apprenticeships, or other work experiences

Grantees will be asked to collect and report data on this measure in the annual performance report (EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.590).

FIPSE Home
  Last Modified: 11/05/2021