alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1374 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1374

              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1995

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fee. Upon the granting of permanent residence to such alien as 
provided for in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by the proper number, during the current 
fiscal year or the fiscal year next following, the total number of 
immigrant visas which are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of such Act, or if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas which are made available to natives 
of the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6316-9 Interest, additions to tax, etc.

Any reference in §§ 301.6316-1 to 301.6316-8, inclusive, to “tax” shall be deemed also to refer to the interest, additions to the tax, additional amounts, and penalties attributable to the tax.

Lien for Taxes
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 359.10 What is the fixed rate of return?

The Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, determines the fixed rate of return. The fixed rate is established for the life of the bond. The fixed rate will always be greater than or equal to 0.00%.[1] The most recently announced fixed rate is only for bonds purchased during the six months following the announcement, or for any other period of time announced by the Secretary.

[73 FR 65543, Nov. 4, 1008]

###### Footnotes -
  359.10

[1] However, the fixed rate is not a guaranteed minimum rate. The composite rate is composed of both the fixed rate and a semiannual inflation rate, which could possibly be less than the fixed rate or negative in deflationary situations. In all cases, however, the composite rate will always be greater than or equal to 0.00%.
#### Thomas J. BURNS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7132.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 22, 2001.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Thomas J. Burns died on September 1, 2000. His counsel moves to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand with instructions to the Veterans Court to vacate the decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the VA Regional Office.

We deem the proper course is to have the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determine whether vacatur is appropriate. *See e.g., U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall*Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (“a court of appeals presented with a request for vacatur of a ... judgment may remand the case with instructions that the [lower] court consider the request”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Counsel’s motion for vacatur is denied.

(2) The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
HomeAssisted Schools...Maseru, Lesotho: American International School of Lesotho: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Maseru, Lesotho: American International School of Lesotho: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 21, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +266 22322987 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: admissions@aisl.co.ls | Website: www.aislesotho.com 
        -  This Fact Sheet is intended to provide general information. For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (overseasschools@state.gov / +1-202-261-8200) or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Maseru- 2024 Special Needs- Lesotho)for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **American International School of Lesotho** (AISL) is a non-profit, independent coeducational day school, which offers an American style educational program to students from preschool (age three) through grade eight. The school, founded in 1991, serves the needs of the wider American community and other students seeking an American style education delivered in English. The school year is divided into three trimesters extending from August to November, December to March and March to mid-June. AISL is accredited through Middle States Accreditation (MSA). Our next MSA visit will be approximately April 2023.

“While saying yes to many of the above questions, being a small school we have limited resources to provide to a wide range of needs. Having said that, our custom is to talk with potential parents to find out the exact needs of the child to be able to make an informed decision, in consultation with the parents, as to whether what we can provide is enough. There are limited resources for support in the community, but there are more options in the nearby towns in South Africa. Again, depends on the level of support required.”–AISL representative.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

LesothoOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
# L_2020109EN.01000101.xml

| 7.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 109/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2020/499

of 3 April 2020

correcting certain language versions of Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 setting maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats in food resulting from the unavoidable carry-over of these substances in non-target feed

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Bulgarian, Croatian and Lithuanian language versions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 (2) contain an error in the Annex, in the header of the third column of the table, as regards the maximum content of substances in foodstuffs. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Bulgarian, Croatian and Lithuanian language versions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 (2) contain an error in the Annex, in the header of the third column of the table, as regards the maximum content of substances in foodstuffs.

| (2) | The Bulgarian, Croatian and Lithuanian language versions of Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Bulgarian, Croatian and Lithuanian language versions of Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(does not concern the English language)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 April 2020.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 37, 13.2.1993, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2009 of 10 February 2009 setting maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats in food resulting from the unavoidable carry-over of these substances in non-target feed (OJ L 40, 11.2.2009, p. 7).

2

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7294

ROBERTO ORTEGA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-03-975) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberto Ortega, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roberto Ortega, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortega has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of James Williams, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 320]

Crew III, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner was conditionally released on parole supervision in February 2003. Thereafter, in April 2003, petitioner was declared delinquent and, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, four charges alleging various violations of the conditions of his parole were levied against him. A final revocation hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner’s parole was revoked and he was ordered held until the maximum expiration of his sentence. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 contending, among other things, that the evidence presented failed to support the underlying charges.

It is well settled that *“a*determination to revoke parole will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination” *(Matter of Layne v New York State Bd. of Parole,*256 AD2d 990, 992 [1998], *Iv dismissed*93 NY2d 886 [1999]). Here, the testimony of petitioner’s spouse provides substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated certain conditions of his parole by possessing a butcher knife and approaching his spouse and daughter in a threatening manner. Similarly, the testimony offered by petitioner’s parole officer establishes that the incident at issue occurred past petitioner’s 9:00 p.m. curfew. Although petitioner denied any violent behavior and contended that his curfew was violated only because he was in police custody, this presented a credibility is*801sue for the Board of Parole to resolve *(see Matter of Ciccarelli v New York State Div. of Parole,*11 AD3d 843, 844 [2004]). In short, inasmuch as the underlying determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, it will not be disturbed. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence and his assertion that the hold imposed was excessive, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                   DIGITAL POWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED   FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                            JUNE 30,                   JUNE 30,
<S>                                         <C>             <C>            <C>          <C>

                                               1997                1996         1997         1996
             PRIMARY

Net income                                    $    366,832   $    230,775   $   601,465  $   343,208
Less - preferred stock dividends                             $     15,227                $    38,069
Net income applicable to common shareholders  $    366,832   $    215,548   $   601,465  $   305,139

Weighted average number of common shares         2,521,627        965,221     2,512,137      964,475
Add - common stock equivalent shares
   (determined using the treasury stock
   method) representing shares issuable
   upon exercise of stock options                  496,067        311,557       468,246      312,303
Add - common stock equivalent shares
   (determined using the treasury stock
   method) representing shares issuable
   upon exercise of warrants                       390,250              -       332,022            -
Weighted average number of shares
   used in calculation of primary income
   per share                                     3,407,944       1,276,778    3,312,405    1,276,778

Primary net income per common share            $      0.11    $       0.17  $      0.18  $      0.24

             FULLY DILUTED

Net income for primary income per share        $   366,832    $    215,548  $   601,465  $   305,139
Add - perferred stock dividend                 $         -    $     15,227  $        -   $    38,069
Net income used for fully diluted income
   per share                                   $   366,832    $    230,775  $   601,465  $   343,208

Weighted average number of shares
   used in calculation of primary income
   per share                                     3,407,944       1,276,778    3,312,405    1,276,778
Add - weighted average number of
   shares using closing stock value
   In diluted eps calculation                       82,877                      157,978
Add - weighted average number of
   shares issuable upon conversion of
   preferred stock                                       -         415,302            -      415,302
Weighted average number of shares
   used in calculation of fully diluted
   income per share                              3,490,821       1,692,080    3,470,383    1,692,080
Fully diluted net income per common
   share                                       $      0.11    $       0.14  $      0.17  $      0.20


</TABLE>
Welcome to Eat Smart, Live Strong 

 

Updated March 2013 

The Eat Smart, Live Strong Activity Kit is designed to encourage older adults to increase fruit and vegetable 

consumption to at least 3 1⁄2 cups (1 1⁄2 cups fruit and 2 cups vegetable) and to participate in at least 30 minutes 

of moderate-intensity physical activity each day. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service developed this 

intervention specifically for program participants 60-74 years old to help nutrition education providers deliver 

services to a growing older adult population. The Activity Kit was updated in 2012 to reflect the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate.

Developed and tested by professionals and experts in aging, nutrition education, and intervention 

development, Eat Smart, Live Strong contains activities and resources that can be tailored and adapted to help 

promote key behaviors. 

In the Activity Kit, you will find: 

• A Leader’s Guide with an overview about the nutrition and physical activity needs of older adults, tips to 

help you implement and promote Eat Smart, Live Strong, as well as suggestions for assisting older adults 

with physical or social challenges. 

• Four ready-to-use, flexible skill-building sessions designed to assist educators in delivering fun,

behavior-focused activities and exercises. 

• Participant resources such as a marketing flyer, handouts, and participant feedback forms designed to 

reinforce Eat Smart, Live Strong behaviors among older adults. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Education providers can download and print the Activity Kit 

from the SNAP-Ed Connection web site at:

http://snap.nal.usda.gov/resource-library/nutrition-education-materials-fns/eat-smart-live-stong. Please note 

that these materials will not be printed for distribution. However, print-ready files may be made available to 

states by request. 

If you have questions or comments about the Activity Kit, please send them to the SNAP-Ed Connection at 

SNAP-Ed@ars.usda.gov. 

Enjoy using Eat Smart, Live Strong! 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000857571
<NAME> AEP GENERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      353,816
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          6
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          45,345
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,242
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,333
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       33,235
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              4,311
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  38,546
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            44,794
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               5,575
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        823
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   311
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 318,284
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  408,333
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       52,827
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,097
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      49,370 
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      50,467
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          2,360
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 856
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   3,216
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           602
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,614
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,614
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,073
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          24,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Benfordene Butler SMITH *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-1190

959 S.W.2d 54

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 19, 1998

*Willard Proctor, Jr.,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Benfordene Butler Smith, by her attorney, Willard Proctor, Jr., has filed a motion to extend time for filing brief.

Appellant’s brief was due on November 15, 1997. Appellant’s attorney admits that the brief has not been filed in a timely manner due to an error on his part. Specifically, appellant’s attorney failed to maintain the briefing schedule on his calendar. Furthermore, appellant’s motion to extend time for filing brief was not filed until January 14, 1998, after the Supreme Court Clerk sent a letter to appellant’s attorney regarding the status of briefing.

The motion to file belated brief is granted.

We routinely grant motions to file belated briefs. However, because of the long delay by appellant’s attorney, a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVIA J. BRADSHAW,

Appellant,

v.

CLINTON B. SESSION JR., and IBM SOUTHEAST EMPLOYEES’ 

CREDIT UNION,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-942

[May 12, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Howard K. Coates, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 

FMCE2012006285 (44).

Sara Lawrence of Law Office of Sara Lawrence, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Adam B. Swickle of Swickle & Associates, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee Clinton B. Session, Jr.

Patrick G. Brugger of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Miami, for appellee IBM 

Southeast Employees’ Credit Union.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.