alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss; Opinion Filed December 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01411-CV

TABLETOP MEDIA, LLC D/B/A ZIOSK AND ZIOSK PAYROLL, LLC, Appellants

V.

E LA CARTE, INC. D/B/A PRESTO, GREG YODER, JAMES WYBORNY, AND 

NATHAN SALYER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02256

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Schenck

We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court's order partially 

granting a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) as it appeared the 

interlocutory order was not appealable. See TEX.CIV. PRAC.REM.CODE § 51.014(a)(12) (allowing 

interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to dismiss under TCPA); Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. 

Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (noting interlocutory orders are appealable only if 

allowed by statute); Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford, 472 S.W.3d 881, 891 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (dismissing appeal from partial grant of TCPA motion to dismiss for want 

of jurisdiction). Although we directed appellants to file a letter brief addressing our concern and 

cautioned them that failure to comply by December 5, 2019 could result in dismissal of the appeal 
–2–

without further notice, they have not complied. Accordingly, because the challenged order is not 

appealable, we dismiss the appeal and all pending motions for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a); Schlumberger, 472 S.W.3d at 891. 

191411F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TABLETOP MEDIA, LLC D/B/A ZIOSK 

AND ZIOSK PAYROLL, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-19-01411-CV V.

E LA CARTE, INC. D/B/A PRESTO, 

GREG YODER, JAMES WYBORNY, 

AND NATHAN SALYER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02256.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees E La Carte, Inc. d/b/a Presto, Greg Yoder, James Wyborny, 

and Nathan Salyer recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Tabletop Media, LLC 

d/b/a Ziosk and Ziosk Payroll, LLC.

Judgment entered this 20th day of December, 2019.
**Secondary Market Report**
**January 1999**
TABLE 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     IMTEC, Inc., EX-27, FDS for 10-Q, September 30, 1996 
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000730045
<NAME>                        IMTEC, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         782533
<SECURITIES>                                   54671
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1229510
<ALLOWANCES>                                   64500
<INVENTORY>                                    1571157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3772241
<PP&E>                                         3965620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2692203
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5437565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          909459
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15451
<OTHER-SE>                                     2449517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5437565
<SALES>                                        2100143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2100143
<CGS>                                          579985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1038799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               797744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               64501
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                251336
<INCOME-TAX>                                   104954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            158646
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.10
        


</TABLE>
HomeDiplomatic Security Memorial...Patrick Kwiatkowski

# 									Patrick Kwiatkowski							

DS Memorial

June 19, 1985

**U.S. Military—Marine Security Guard****Year of Death: 1985**

Sgt. Patrick R. Kwiatkowski, Marine Security Guard, died on June 19, 1985, in San Salvador, El Salvador. He was shot byleftist guerrillas. His hometown is Wausau, Wisconsin.

**Photo: U.S. Government image**

Tags

DS Military Marine SecurityEl Salvador

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                        209,924
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,987
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        8,625,702
<DEPRECIATION>                (5,199,331)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,942,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         6,454,551
<BONDS>                       000
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    (2,512,371)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,942,180
<SALES>                       1,310,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,327,123
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 632,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              116,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            617,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (417,257)
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (417,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     00
<NET-INCOME>                  (417,257)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (37.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (37.28)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.50 Types of respirators to be approved; scope of approval.

Approvals shall be issued for the types of respirators which have been classified pursuant to this subpart F, have been inspected, examined and tested by the Institute, in accordance with the provisions of subparts G through L of this part, and have been found to provide respiratory protection for fixed periods of time against the hazards specified in such approval.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 07-0119

IN RE  BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s emergency motion to stay deposition, filed February 14, 2007, is granted.   The order dated October 11, 2006, in Cause No. 05-CV0337-A, styled *In re  Texas City Explosion*, in the 212th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this February 22, 2007.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.144 Petition from requirement for restriction.

After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).

[62 FR 53195, Oct. 10, 1997]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1978 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street 

in Sherman, Texas, as the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2007 

Mr. HALL of Texas (for himself, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. POE, 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. 

HENSARLING, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARTON

of Texas, Mr. THORNBERRY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. EDWARDS, and Mr. ORTIZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 

East Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ‘‘Paul 

Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 101 East 

5 Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Courthouse’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1978 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Court6 house’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Resources
- Events
- State Magazine

HomeBureau of Global Talent Management...Remarks and Releases – Bureau of Global Talent Management

# 						Remarks and Releases – Bureau of Global Talent Management					

30 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20242023202220212020201920182011

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAntony J. BlinkenJonathan Moore

Select a Release TypeDipNoteDipNote: Human Rights and DemocracyMedia NoteNotice to the PressOther ReleaseVideo Remarks

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of AdministrationBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Diplomatic SecurityBureau of Global Talent ManagementBureau of Intelligence and ResearchBureau of Medical ServicesDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of Language ServicesOffice of the Legal AdviserOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateUnder Secretary for Management

          -    DipNote  		State Department Honors Outstanding Public Servants on Foreign Affairs Day	  May 7, 2021 
          -    Media Note  		Calling All Virtual Visionaries!	  May 6, 2021 
          -    Media Note  		Department of State Named 2020 Government Employer of the Year   by CAREERS& the disABLED Magazine	  January 29, 2021 
          -    		Bureau of Global Talent Management	  January 20, 2021 
          -    		Katie Stana	  August 3, 2020 
          -    		Jeanne M. Juliao	  May 1, 2019 
          -    		About Us	   
          -    		Robert T. Yamate	  October 1, 2018 
          -    		Kenneth H. Merten	  August 1, 2018 
          -    		Philippe Lussier	  January 13, 2011 

previous page123

Back to Top
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128983 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128983 

 COA: 252374 

Wayne CC: 02-008857-01 

GREGORY MARCEL WARLAW-BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2005 

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. 

s1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **October 1998**
|--------------------------- | ----------------



---

### TABLE 3
Effective FHA Primary Rates



---

`"Dominant" Contract Rate                         
                        -----------------------
                        Oct'98  Sep'98  Oct'97
                        ------  ------  ------
United States           6.50%   7.00%   7.50%
                        

                           Average Points                       
                        --------------------                    
Northeast                *      1.00    0.00 
Middle Atlantic         0.00    0.00    0.70 
Southeast               0.08    0.00    0.17 
North Central           0.00    0.08    0.00 
Southwest               0.00    0.00    0.00 
West                    0.14    0.13    0.17 
                        
United States           0.06    0.12    0.18 
                        

                           Effective Rate                       
                        ---------------------                   
Northeast                *      7.27%   7.50%
Middle Atlantic         6.50%   7.00%   7.60%
Southeast               6.51%   7.00%   7.52%
North Central           6.50%   7.01%   7.50%
Southwest               6.50%   7.00%   7.50%
West                    6.52%   7.02%   7.52%
                        
United States           6.51%   7.02%   7.52%

                                        
                                        
	Data as of: October 1, 1998                   HQE:  10-26-98`

HSG/FHA Home Page**|**Reports Menu**|**Email Us****

Date Last Modified: 10/26/98
U.S. Planting Seed Exports by Group

July-January 1988/89 Through 1997/98

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

TC&SD/C&MP/FAS/USDA

1988/89

1989/90

1990/91

1991/92

1992/93

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Marketing Years

$ Millions

Miscellaneous

Kinds

Pulses

Grasses

Other

Forages

Vegetables

Field

Crops
Canadian Planting Seed Imports by Major Suppliers

July-June 1992/93 Through 1996/97

Source: Statistics Canada

TC&SD/C&MP/FAS/USDA

1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Marketing Years

$ Millions

All

Others

Denmark

Germany

Chile

Netherlands

United

States
#### § 93.210 Good faith.

*Good faith* as applied to a complainant or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one's allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the complainant's or witness's position could have based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good faith as applied to a committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. A committee member does not act in good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 30 June 2004         

on the State aid which the Netherlands is planning to implement in favour of four shipyards to support six shipbuilding contracts

(notified under document number C(2004) 2213)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/122/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having regard to the Commission Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (1),

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments (2), pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

I.   PROCEDURE

II.   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

Legal basis — the aid scheme

Grounds for initiating the procedure

III.   COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

IV.   COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS

V.   ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

Legal basis for the assessment

Assessment of whether the aid is contrary to general principles of EC law

Assessment whether the aid could be approved based on the BSE scheme

Proof of illegal aid to match

Assessment as ad hoc aid

Legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries

VI.   CONCLUSION

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The State aid which the Netherlands is planning to implement for Bodewes Scheepswerven BV, amounting to EUR [...], for Scheepswerf Visser, amounting to EUR [...], for Bodewes Scheepswerf Volharding Foxhol, amounting to EUR [...] and for Scheepswerf De Merwede, amounting to EUR [...] is incompatible with the common market.

The aid may accordingly not be implemented.

Article 2

The Netherlands shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 2004.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p. 11.

(2)OJ C 11, 15.1.2004, p. 5.

(*1)  Confidential information.

(3)OJ C 203, 11.8.1992.

(4)OJ C 253, 12.8.1998, p. 13.

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1).

(6)  See Case 78/79, Steinike 1 Weinlig v Federal Republic of Germany [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 24.

(7)  Not underlined in the 1997 decision.

(8)  Not underlined in the Framework.

----
§ 86.31 Eligibility; minimum requirements. In order to be eligible for an award under this subpart an applicant must: ( a ) Have been accepted by a public or private institution for the purpose of the activity for which the traineeship is sought.
( b ) Be a U.S. citizen, an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or a permanent resident of Guam, American Samoa, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
[40 FR 29076, July 10, 1975, as amended at 47 FR 53012, Nov. 24, 1982]
HomeAssisted Schools...Pristina, Kosovo: QSI International School of Kosovo: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Pristina, Kosovo: QSI International School of Kosovo: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 29, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +386-49-775-731 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: kosovo@qsi.org | Website: www.kosovo.qsi.org 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

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

 

The **QSI International School of Kosovo** (QSIK) is a nonprofit, independent, coeducational day school which is part of the greater QSI organization that operates 38 schools in 31 countries. QSIK offers quality education in the English language for students from three to 18 years of age for students from around the world. The educational philosophy of QSI is based on mastery learning and outcome-based education. QSI believes in the success of all students and uses time as a resource for learning. QSI teachers create the conditions for student success, with the goal of fostering the love of learning for a lifetime.

*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

KosovoOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top