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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         542,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  231,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    250,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,519,198
<PP&E>                                         118,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,717,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,819,798
<BONDS>                                        120,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                         2,536
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,224,930)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,717,483
<SALES>                                        714,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               714,674
<CGS>                                          473,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,033,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               982,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,809,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,809,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,809,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3916 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3916

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
                  for educational assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2020

 Mrs. Loeffler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
                  for educational assistance programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Workforce Development 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 127(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$5,250'' each place it 
appears in the text and the heading and inserting ``$11,500''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 127(c) of such Code is amended 
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Inflation adjustment.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of any calendar year 
                after 2019, each dollar amount in subsection (a)(2) 
                shall be increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which such taxable year begins 
                        by substituting `calendar year 2017' for 
                        `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
                        thereof.
                    ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
                subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $50, such 
                increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple 
                of $50.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
Chapter 2: Alternatives and Proposed Action

US Fish & Wildlife Service
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Jefferson County, CO

Lode

Ow JRY

P Soxslieek

outer Coun

— =o =a igh ae Se el o —

/ oe
/ Notional Wind
sechngy Crier

]

INDIANA STREET

eserval
4
4
4
Prescribed Fire and Grazing 4 = me ON
Wr
[] areas Where Prescribed Fire and Grazing May Be Used December 2m
[-] Areas Where Grazing May Be Used
(© _ DOE Retained Area (Subject to Change)
Figure no. 8

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EIS 63
MAYO·· 

CLINIC 

COJ 

August 9, 2012 

Ms. Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

gth Floor, Room W86-310, 

1200New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington D.C. 20590 

'' 1 Lt ;;: ., 

200 First Street SW 

Rochester, Minnesota 55905 ·· 

507-284-2511 

John H. Noseworthy, M.D. 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Subject: Rochester International Airport small community air service development grant application , 

' Dear Ms. Ley, 

Safe, efficient and reliable transportation options are critical to the ongoing success and growth of Mayo 

Clinic, the largest private employer in Minnesota and a world renowned medical center which generates over 

$22 billion in economic impact nationwide, including $9.6 billion in Minnesota. Unlike other major medical 

centers in the US, Mayo Clinic in Rochester is the only one not located in a major metropolitan area. Over 

half of the 1. 5 million patient visits to Rochester involve patients who live more than 200 miles from 

Rochester, including all 50 states and over 50 foreign countries. 

Mayo Clinic is very dependent on local air service for both our patients and staff to support our local, 

nationwide and global operations. Local air service is essential for a positive patient experience for those 

traveling to Rochester from great distances. Our staff, as well as visiting physicians and scientists, rely on air 

service as they come to Rochester or travel the world to learn and share the latest advances in health and 

wellness. 

We are fortunate to have two major air carriers (Delta and American Airlines) serve Rochester International 

Airport. However, Delta has significantly reduced our daily flight schedule and Americ~ Airlines is now in 

bankruptcy. As a result, Rochester air service has declined by a third in the past four years. At this rate of 

decline, by airport management company projections, the viability of the airport will be in jeopard~ in 2-3 

years. 

Rochester International Airport has submitted a Small Community Air Service Development Grant in 

response to the Departments request for proposals under Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069. This $500,000 grant 

request will he combined with $200,000 in local non-airport funding to recruit critically needed new air 

service. We fully support this application and will work closely with the Airport and other members of the 

community to ensure these dollars are used wisely and successfully. 

Rochester, Minnesota is one of the most prosperous small market economies in the Midwest. As a 

community business leader, I urge you to award Rochester International Airport this grant as a vital 

component of our community's airport revitalization strategy so we can continue to be an economic engine 

for the state, region and nation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,
Section 16 Objective Classification—Discontinued Operations 95 Discontinued Operations. ( a ) Record here the earnings (losses) of discontinued nontransport operations. For the purposes of this system of accounts and reports discontinued operations shall refer to the disposal of investor controlled companies and nontransport ventures whether sold, abandoned, spun off, or otherwise disposed of. This account shall not include earnings or losses from discontinued transport or transport-related operations.
( b ) This account shall be subdivided as follows by all air carrier groups:
95.1 *Income from Discontinued Operations.* Record here the results of operations of the discontinued operations. 95.2 *Loss of Disposal of Discontinued Operations.* Record here the gain or loss on the disposal of an operation. If loss is anticipated it should be provided for at the measurement date. If gain is anticipated it should be recognized when realized.
[ER-948, 41 FR 12296, Mar. 25, 1976]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3247

___________

Christine V. Gregory, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation, *

Yale Hoists Division; Yale Industrial * [UNPUBLISHED]

Products, Inc., its subsidiary, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 10, 2000

Filed: October 16, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christine V. Gregory appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in

favor of Gregory's employer, Columbus McKinnon Corporation, and its subsidiary,

Yale Industrial Products, Inc., in her gender discrimination suit. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we cannot find any evidence suggesting that

Gregory was discharged because of her gender. We thus affirm for the reasons stated

in the district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### WILLIS I. THOMSON v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. L-357.

Decided April 2, 1934]

*Messrs. Metellus Thomson*and *Lloyd, Anderson*for the-plaintiff.

*Mr. Louis R.*Mehlinger, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George G.*Sweeney, for the defendant.

*226Green, *Judge,*

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff brings this suit to recover the difference between the pay authorized for an enlisted man in training for a commission and that of a sergeant from January 4, 1918, to June 1,1918, and also the difference between the pay authorized for a second lieutenant on foreign service and that received by him as an enlisted man, sergeant, from June 1, 1918, to July 12,1918.

The defendant insists that the action on both of these claims is barred by the statute of limitations. It is obvious that if the claim for additional compensation accrued on the first of the months following the dates that the plaintiff •claims he is entitled to the pay, that is from February 1, 1918, and August 1, 1918, respectively, plaintiff’s action 'begun September 8, 1930, cannot be maintained.

The argument on behalf of plaintiff is that this is not an •action for pay which became due at the end of each month .but to recover fees and that the case is controlled by section 145 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A., sec. 250) which provides in part—

> “That no suit against the Government of the United States, brought by any officer of the United States to recover fees for services alleged to have been performed for the United States, shall be allowed under this chapter until an account for said fees shall have been rendered and finally acted upon as required by law, unless the General Accounting Office fails to act finally thereon within six months after the account is received in said office.”

It is therefore contended that the cause of action did not arise until the General Accounting Office acted upon the claim.

If plaintiff is correct in this construction of the portion of the statute quoted above, the case was begun in time.

The point raised by plaintiff does not seem to have ever been made before, and we can find nothing in the authorities to aid us in our decision. We are, however, quite clear that fhe portion of the statute quoted above has no application *227to the case at bar. In construing the statute we must give-to the word “ fees ” the meaning in which it is ordinarily-understood. While the word “ fee ” was occasionally used in former times to mean pay or wages, the dictionary states that this use is now obsolete. For the purpose of this case alone, we think we might say that the distinction between a fee and a salary or wages is that a salary or wages is an amount paid for service for a definite length of time while-a fee is a payment for a service, the amount of which is-not necessarily determined by the length of time which it. occupied.

Plaintiff’s action must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
Collection Activity

Number of 

Respondents

Number of 

Responses 

per Party

Total Number 

of Responses

Time per 

Response

Cost per 

Response 

(Dollars) Total Hours

Total Cost 

(Dollars)

80.1450 - Registration

(b)(1) at $103/hour 75 1 75 8 824 600 61800

(b)(2) at $206/hour 75 1 75 24 4944 1800 370800

CDX Registration 75 1 75 2 206 150 15450

TOTALS 225 225 2550 448050

Information Collection Burden by Type of Party

Table II: Importers of Renewable Fuels
#### § 248.5 Withholding from public disclosure.

The special reports required to be filed by § 248.2 shall be withheld from public disclosure, until further order of the BTS, if such treatment is requested by the air carrier at the time of filing.

[ER-420, 29 FR 13799, Oct. 7, 1964, as amended at 60 FR 66725, Dec. 26, 1995]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10903]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SKILL STANDARDS BOARD


Notice of Open Meeting

AGENCY: National Skill Standards Board.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Skill Standards Board was established by an Act 
of Congress, the National Skill Standards Act, Title V, Public Law 103-
227. The 23-member National Skill Standards Board will serve as a 
catalyst and be responsible for the development and implementation of a 
voluntary national system of skill standards and certification through 
voluntary partnerships which have the full and balanced participation 
of business, labor, education, civil rights organizations and other key 
groups.
    Time and Place: The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 
approximately 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17th, at the Holiday Inn 
Select, 480 King Street, Old Towne Alexandria, VA 22314, (703-549-
6080).
    Agenda: The agenda for the Board Meeting will include: an update 
from the Board's committees; presentations from representatives of the 
Sales & Service Voluntary Partnership (SSVP), Education and Training 
Voluntary Partnership (E&TVP) and Manufacturing Skill Standards Council 
(MSSC).
    Public Participation: The meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., is 
open to the public. Seating is limited and will be available on a 
first-come, first-served basis. Seats will be reserved for the media. 
Individuals with disabilities should contact Leslie Donaldson at (202) 
254-8628 if special accommodations are needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Wilcox, Executive Deputy Director 
at (202) 254-8628.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of April, 2000.
Dave Wilcox,
Deputy Director, National Skill Standards Board.
[FR Doc. 00-10903 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-23-M
# L_2008313EN.01S00301.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 313/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 313/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
```

[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Notices]               
[Page 11620]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-107]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6918]

 
Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to Cambodia

    Pursuant to section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, 
Pub. L. 111-117) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of 
Cambodia, and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 1, 2010.
Jacob J. Lew,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-5261 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-30-P
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,860 & AP-75,861

EX PARTE DANIEL ELI ARANDA JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 0837134A & 0837136A IN THE 213th DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two

aggravated robberies and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in each cause. 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he

failed to timely file notices of appeal. 

The trial court has determined, after obtaining an affidavit from trial counsel, that trial

counsel failed to timely file notices of appeal. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the
opportunity to file out-of-time appeals of the judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. 0837134A and

0837136A from the 213th Judicial District Court of TARRANT County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which he may give written notices of appeal so that he may then, with the aid

of counsel, obtain meaningful appeals. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentences had

been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute appeals in these causes, he must take affirmative steps to file written notices of

appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Applicant’s other claims are dismissed.

Delivered: March 5, 2008

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32

                               LETTER OF AGREEMENT

12th November 2002

It is hereby agreed that the words "change of chief executive officer" be
deleted from clause 7 of the agreement between Usborne and EDC dated 25th
November 1998.

Except as amended by this agreement, clause 7 remains in full force and effect
in accordance with its terms as originally executed.

Signed /s/ Randall White
       ------------------
Randall White for EDC

Signed /s/ Peter Usborne
       ------------------
Peter Usborne for Usborne Publishing Ltd.
§ 25.1585 Operating procedures. ( a ) Operating procedures must be furnished for— ( 1 ) Normal procedures peculiar to the particular type or model encountered in connection with routine operations;
( 2 ) Non-normal procedures for malfunction cases and failure conditions involving the use of special systems or the alternative use of regular systems; and
( 3 ) Emergency procedures for foreseeable but unusual situations in which immediate and precise action by the crew may be expected to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophe.
( b ) Information or procedures not directly related to airworthiness or not under the control of the crew, must not be included, nor must any procedure that is accepted as basic airmanship.
( c ) Information identifying each operating condition in which the fuel system independence prescribed in § 25.953 is necessary for safety must be furnished, together with instructions for placing the fuel system in a configuration used to show compliance with that section.
( d ) The buffet onset envelopes, determined under § 25.251 must be furnished. The buffet onset envelopes presented may reflect the center of gravity at which the airplane is normally loaded during cruise if corrections for the effect of different center of gravity locations are furnished.
( e ) Information must be furnished that indicates that when the fuel quantity indicator reads “zero” in level flight, any fuel remaining in the fuel tank cannot be used safely in flight.
( f ) Information on the total quantity of usable fuel for each fuel tank must be furnished.
[Doc. No. 2000-8511, 66 FR 34024, June 26, 2001]
#### § 187.7 Copies; seal.

The fees for furnishing photostatic or similar copies of documents and for affixation of the seal for a certification or validation are the same as those provided in subpart H of 49 CFR part 7.