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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      1,346,700 
<SECURITIES>                                4,311,000 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41,600 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,699,300       
<PP&E>                                     10,668,500      
<DEPRECIATION>                              3,565,400    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             12,803,700      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,279,600    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                 10,516,500       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               12,803,700         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,106,000          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,262,900          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              140,800       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,166,000       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,166,000      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                2,166,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   25.56 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   25.56 
        

</TABLE>
HomeAssisted Schools...Bratislava, Slovakia: QSI International School of Bratislava: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Bratislava, Slovakia: QSI International School of Bratislava: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 29, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +421-31-321-3500 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Office: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: bratislava@qsi.org | Website: www.bratislava.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** (Bratislava 2024 Special Needs Profile Slovakia) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

**The****QSI International School of Bratislava** (QSIB) is an independent, coeducational day school, which offers an educational program from age two and a half (early childhood program) through grade 12 for students of all nationalities. The school was founded in 1994. The school year is divided into three terms extending from late August to mid-December, from early January to late March, and from early April to mid-June. Students receive status reports (report cards) five times during the school year.

*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

Office of Overseas SchoolsSlovakia

Back to Top
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00335-CR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the State’s motion to dismiss petition for writ of 

mandamus, and concludes that the State’s motion should be granted and the petition for writ of 

mandamus should be dismissed as moot. We therefore grant the State’s motion and dismiss the 

petition for writ of mandamus as moot, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – May 29, 2023

# 									Public Schedule – May 29, 2023							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

May 29, 2023

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

The Department is closed in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Sweden, Norway, and Finland from May 29-June 2, 2023.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
41692.

#### DAUGHERTY v. PRUITT et al.

Jordan, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s general and special demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition which sought to recover property damages arising out of a collision of the plaintiff’s automobile and that of the defendant. *Held:*

1. As against general demurrer, the general allegations of the petition that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep his automobile under proper control, in failing to keep his vehicle a reasonable distance to the rear of the plaintiff’s *89stopped automobile and in driving his automobile into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages, were sufficient to set forth a cause of action since such allegations were not contradicted by the facts alleged in the petition. *Sarno v. Hoffman,*110 Ga. App. 164 (1b) (138 SE2d 96); *Stone v. McMeekin Constr.*Co., 110 Ga. App. 546 (7) (139 SE2d 421); *Pullman’s Palace-Car Co. v. Martin,*92 Ga. 161 (18 SE 364).

Submitted January 10, 1966

Decided February 8, 1966.

*Greer, Morris & Murray, Malcolm S. Murray,*for appellant.

2. The petition was clearly defective in numerous particulars, however, as against special demurrer, and the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s special demurrers 3, 4 and 5 which properly called for additional information relating to the respective positions of the vehicles involved in the collision and the manner in which the collision occurred *(Wright Contracting Co. v. Davis,*90 Ga. App. 548 (83 SE2d 232)), and in overruling special demurrers 6, 7, and 8 which attacked the general allegations of the petition that the defendant was negligent in driving his automobile into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, in failing to keep his vehicle under proper control and in failing to drive at a reasonable distance to the rear of the plaintiff’s automobile, on the grounds that the same constituted conclusions of the pleader unsupported by well pleaded facts showing how or in what manner the defendant was negligent as alleged. *Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. Hollomon,*97 Ga. App. 16, 23 (7) (102 SE2d 185).

The trial court also erred in overruling special demurrers 9 and 10 which attacked the plaintiff’s assessment of damages on the ground that the petition did not allege the market value of the plaintiff’s automobile both before and after the collision and did not show that the period of time for which the plaintiff claimed damages for loss of use of his automobile for the purpose of repairs was a reasonable period of time for the making of repairs. *Leggett v. Brewton,*104 Ga. App. 580 (2) (122 SE2d 469); *Webb v. May,*91 Ga. App. 437 (2) (85 SE2d 641).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
From: Michael McCabe [mailto:michaeljmccabe@verizon.net] 

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:55 AM

To: Cohen, Daniel

Subject: Nats Games

Dan, here are the games that we have tickets for. As I mentioned, we are in 

two groups, the second group has tickets in section 314 (green highlight) and 

Phil's group is in the yellow highlight. Mary is the friend and neighbor that we 

share tickets with. 

See you at the games.

Also, on the business side, I have been giving the new LCC calculation some 

more thought. I don't like it and I don't believe the Department satisfies 

section 325(o) by using it. Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) requires the 

Department to consider "the savings in operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard." The new LCC calculation includes operating costs 

of products purchased in place of the covered class (non-weatherized gas 

furnaces). By abandoning the earlier LCC calculation and using this new 

procedure with fuel switching, the Department no longer can demonstrate 

what the "savings in operating costs" of the more energy efficient products 

(particularly max tech) and therefore, I believe, without that information, DOE 

doesn't meet the requirement of section 325(o).

Michael
#### Hugo Boessneck et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Jacob Bab, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

May, 1899.)

Replevin — Right of surety to come in and defend.

A surety, upon an undertaking given by the defendant in an action of replevin to regain possession of the chattels replevied, will be permitted to come in and defend the action to protect itself from liability upon the undertaking.

Motion of National Surety Company for leave to come in and defend an action of replevin in which it had become surety for the defendant upon his undertaking, given to reclaim chattels which had been replevied by the plaintiffs. The affidavits upon which the motion was made alleged the insolvency of the defendant, that it would not, according to its own statements, proceed with the defense of the action, that the goods in question were not the goods of the plaintiffs, and had been seized under a second writ by another party.

Myers, Goldsmith & Bronner, for motion.

Epstein Brothers (Maurice S. Hyman, of counsel), opposed.

Truax, J.

It was held by the General Term of this court in this department in Jewett v. Crane, 35 Barb. 208, that sureties upon an undertaking executed by the defendants on an attachment in order to procure the discharge of the attachment may be allowed for their own protection to defend an .action brought against their principal. That case was followed in Hoffman v. Steineau, 34 Hun, 239, in which case an application was made by a surety upon an undertaking in replevin for leave to prosecute ■ the action brought by his principal after the latter had abandoned' it. It was held in this last case that a surety had a right to appear in the action and prosecute the same on behalf of the plaintiff in order to protect himself from liability upon his undertaking. I cannot see why if a surety has the right to prosecute an action in order to protect himself from liability upon his undertaking, he should not have the same right to defend an action in order to protect himself from liability on the undertaking.

Motion granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,314,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,317,400
<PP&E>                                       1,141,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,854,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,801,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   (413,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,854,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               340,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (487,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (487,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (487,800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
###### 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.

#### § 42.207 Preliminary response to petition.

(a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. The response is limited to setting forth the reasons why no post-grant review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 324 and can include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the word count under § 42.24.

(b) *Due date.* The preliminary response must be filed no later than three months after the date of a notice indicating that the request to institute a post-grant review has been granted a filing date. A patent owner may expedite the proceeding by filing an election to waive the patent owner preliminary response.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) *No amendment.* The preliminary response shall not include any amendment.

(e) *Disclaim Patent Claims.* The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a), disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.

[77 FR 48729, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 18766, Apr. 1, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
     ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK ASSOCIATES, L.P.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THR QUARTER ENDED
     SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
     <CIK>                    0000730408
     <NAME>                   ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                         1,036,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,366,000
<PP&E>                                       184,218,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               109,641,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               105,189,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,479,000
<BONDS>                                       75,939,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                   20,771,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                105,189,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             21,481,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 8,777,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              4,539,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            9,239,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,074,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,074,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,074,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                               EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Comm Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Scott
A. Seasock, Executive Vice President and 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:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date: November 12, 2003                      /s/ Scott A. Seasock
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Scott A. Seasock
                                             Executive Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written Statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       52
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Shelter Properties VI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: May 14, 2008     
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: May 14, 2008     





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.