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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UNITED LEISURE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IN REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,845,653
<SECURITIES>                                   511,766
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,095,762
<PP&E>                                      10,831,288
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,252,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,754,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          891,235
<BONDS>                                        842,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,688
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,897,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,754,886
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,495,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,055,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               422,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,156,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,156,506
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,128,973
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (403,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 182/15 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 182 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4715 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 182

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4715 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 182/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 182/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3477 — Land NRW/NRW Bank) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 182/3 | State Aid — Spain — State aid No C 14/2004 (ex N 67/2003) — State aid to the coal industry concerning 2003 and a restructuring plan — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 182/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 182/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3477 — Land NRW/NRW Bank) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2004/C 182/3

State Aid — Spain — State aid No C 14/2004 (ex N 67/2003) — State aid to the coal industry concerning 2003 and a restructuring plan — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 104 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 16, 2008, promotes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 
2 

•SCON 104 ES 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Passed the Senate September 26 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 104 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national 

celebration of after school programs.
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Special Education /
              - 11.5 Special Education—Students Ages 14-21 Served under IDEA, Part B, Left School, by Reason

## Table 11.5: Special Education—Students Ages 14 to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B, Left School, by Reason: 2010-2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
13218

#### CROSBY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.

(159 S. E., 926)

*520*Messrs. Elliott, McLain, Wardlaw •& Elliott*and *McDonald, Macaulay & McDonald,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Gaston, Hamilton & Gaston,*for respondent.

August 3, 1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Coti-iran.

This is an appeal from an order of his Llonor, Judge Greene, overruling a demurrer interposed by the defendant to the complaint upon the ground that several causes of action have been improperly united, to wit, a cause of action based upon contract and one or more causes of action based upon tort, and refusing a motion by the defendant for an order requiring the plaintiff to make the complaint more definite and certain by separately stating the various causes of action which are jumbled together in one cause of action.

As we construe the exceedingly prolix and confused complaint, disregarding such allegations as are in support of other complaints in other actions which appear to be pending between the parties, the complaint contains a single cause of action, for damages on account of the alleged fraud of the company in delivering to the plaintiff a policy upon the life of one Nettie Archer, payable in the event of her death to her personal representatives, when it had been agreed that in consideration of the payment of the premiums by the plain*521tiff herein, Hannah Crosby, she should have been named as beneficiary of the proceeds of the insurance.

In view of this construction, the demurrer and the motion must be held to have been properly overruled and refused. The question of the sufficiency of the complaint as stating such a cause of action is not properly before the Court.

The judgment of this Court is that the orders appealed from be affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Blease and Messrs. Justices Stabler, Carter and Bonham concur.
#### KEYS v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Lawrence Co

Decided April 9, 1930

A. J. Layne, Ironton, for Keys.

Lee D. Andrews, Prosecuting Attorney, Ironton, for State.

BY THE COURT.

Keys was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and prosecutes error from that judgment. The affidavit charged that it was a second offense and1 he was found guilty as charged.

He complains, first, that having filed a plea in abatement, in which he set forth that he had already been twice convicted of violating the prohibition laws and proved the truth of the plea in abatement, the trial court nevertheless denied his plea and proceeded to try him as for a second offense when in fact he was guilty of a third offense if anything. We find no error in this. The state may not have known of both prior convictions, and in any c,ase he can not complain because he was tried for a minor offense when he was subject to trial for a major offense.

After the plea in abatement had been denied the trial proceeded and the state did not offer any testimony upon the trial proper showing that the accused was being tried for a second offense. The court having before it, however, the accused’s plea in abatement, in which he directly acknowledged that he had been twice convicted of violating the state prohibition laws, the court was warranted in finding that it was a second offense if anything. Moreover, the accused was on the stand and testified that he had paid two fines for violating the liquors laws, and it may well be presumed that the two fines to which he testified related to the two offenses set up in his plea in abatement.

The only substantial question in the case is whether or not the judgment is supported by sufficient testimony. The prohibition officers entered a barn which the defendant had been occupying for a number of years. The defendant was not in the barn at the time, having as he says left town early *318that morning and not returning until shortly .after the raid was completed. They found near an old organ in the barn a small amount of intoxicating liquor in a half pint bottle. They discovered a path leading from the barn some thirty feet or more over a railroad fill, and following that path found a number of jugs of whiskey. Keys was not proven to have had physical contact with any of the liquor so found, but there was also found in the barn 151 gallon jugs, hundreds of bottles, quarts, pints and half pints, and hundreds of new corks, which strongly indicate that the whiskey concealed near the barn was being used by Keys in selling whiskey. This impression, which doubtless the trial court had, was strengthened by Keys’ own testimony. He says that he bought these bottles and jugs of junk dealers for re-sale. The fact is, however, that a lot of them were new and had never been uncrated. His explanation seemed to be wholly inadequate to the trial judge. And as that court was satisfied of his guilt, and as we are not clear that the trial court erred in that respect, we affirm the judgment.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
NETTIE MAYERSOHN

Assemblywoman 27th District

ALBANY OFFICE

Room 746, Legislative Office Building

Albany, New York 12248

(518) 455-4404

DISTRICT OFFICE

159-06 71st Avenue

Flushing, New York 11365

(718) 969-1508 

THE ASSEMBLY

STATE OF NEW YORK

ALBANY

DEAN

Queens Assembly Delegation

COMMITTEES

Health

Labor

May 21, 2010

Mr. Chris Ward

Executive Director

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

225 Park Avenue, South

New York, NY 10003

Dear Mr. Ward: 

As the New York State Assemblywoman representing the College Point community, I write to 

reiterate my strong concerns regarding the New York City Department of Sanitation’s Marine 

Transfer Station (MTS) at College Point, Queens, NY and the additional safeguards 

recommended in the April 2010 study entitled, “Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer 

Station and its Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia 

Airport” (Document ID DOT-OST-2010-0104-0001). 

Given the close proximity to LaGuardia Airport’s Runway 13-31 and the MTS being a natural 

attractant for birds, the placement of the MTS increases the danger of bird strikes to approaching 

aircraft. While I recognize the additional precautions against bird strikes recommended by the 

study, I am concerned that the study did not address how these changes will be implemented.

Specifically, the study recommends several additional design modifications, operational 

procedures and a wildlife management program during the planning, construction and 

operational phases of the MTS. These changes to the design, construction and operation of the 

MTS will require long-term commitments and extensive coordination from several city, state and 

federal agencies, including: the Department of Sanitation, New York City; the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation; the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Wildlife 

Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This oversight and coordination is not 

delineated in the report, and while there are worthy safeguards recommended in this study, they 

will be of no value if there is not the required commitment and authority to carry them out.
 

Marine Transfer Station Letter – Page 2

In light of the serious threat that bird strikes pose, I must reiterate my concerns over the 

placement of the MTS in College Point. Given the number of bird strikes that already occur at 

LaGuardia, I am sure you will agree that we must be absolutely certain that this MTS is not 

going to add to the problem. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this 

important safety issue.

Sincerely,

Nettie Mayersohn

Member of Assembly
#### Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant, *v.*Robert Moses et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 26, 1937;

decided April 30, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 631.)
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Demondre Deshawn Holiness, Appellant

No. 06-21-00038-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2027954). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Demondre Deshawn Holiness, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 1, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32114-32115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under 
review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a 
copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the 
HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301)-443-1129.
    The following request has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995:

Proposed Project: The Black Lung Clinic Program Guidelines (42 CFR 
55a) (OMB No. 0915-0081) Extension

    The purpose of the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) is to 
stimulate and encourage local public and private agencies to improve 
the health status of coal workers and to increase coordination with 
other programs to assist the coal worker population. The goal of the 
BLCP is to provide services to minimize the effects of respiratory and 
pulmonary impairments of coal miners. Grantees provide specific 
diagnostic and treatment procedures required in the management of 
problems associated with black lung disease which improve the 
functional status, i.e., ``quality of life'', of the miner and reduces 
economic costs associated with morbidity and mortality arising from 
pulmonary diseases.
    This request is for approval of the application requirements which 
are included in the program guidelines and the program regulation (42 
CFR 55a.201 and 55a.301). Grantees must submit applications annually 
for continued grant support. The regulations outline the requirements 
for grant applications for States (55a.201) and entities other than 
States (55a.301). The program guidelines further elaborate on these 
requirements.
    The grant application form is cleared under another OMB approval 
(OMB No.

[[Page 32115]]

0920-0428). The burden for completing the application is not reflected 
in the Black Lung clearance request because the burden is reported in 
the clearance of the application form. The current request for 
clearance includes one hour of burden, to keep the clearance of the 
program-specific application requirements on the OMB database.
    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: 
Wendy A. Taylor, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of 
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Jane Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 00-12751 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
#### SEILER v CINO THEATRE CO et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3557.

Decided Jan 13, 1930

Pott, Stockmeier, Kruse, Baker & Kops, Cincinnati, for Seiler.

Dolle, O’Donnell & Cash, Cincinnati, for Theatre Co.

James R. Clark, Cincinnati, for Defendant in error Robert Fuerst.

*511ROSS, J.

Upon this state of the record, the trial court instructed a verdict for both defendants. There being no answer filed to the amended petition by the Cino Theater Com-, pany, the only duty incumbent upon the trial court was to submit the amount of damage to the jury as far as that defendant was concerned.

“An answer to a petition filed before the filing of an amendment to such petition is not an answer to such amendment to the petition, and only becomes so when adopted as such.” Elec. Ry. v. Express Co., 105 Ohio St., at page 345.

There is ample evidence to show an obligation of care to the plaintiff upon the part of both the defendants, and there was evidence to go to the jury that this duty had been neglected, and that such neglect proximately caused the injuries complained of.

The trial court found as a matter of law that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, in that he proceeded along a dark passage-way and stumbled into the hole in the floor of said passage, which the plaintiff testified he had never before seen open or uncovered.

The plaintiff was asked:

> “Q. You don’t know, and you didn’t know at the time, as I understand you, whether or not that hole was opened and left open the day before you had your accident or not?”

To which he answered:

> “A. No, I didn’t; if I had known I would have been careful; I just figured it was like it always was.”

It is without the province of any court, in the face of such evidence, to constitute itself a trier of facts, and, thereupon, determine what was the proximate cause of the injury. In order to reach the same conclusion as the trial court, it would be necessary for this court to determine from the evidence that the plaintiff failed to use the care that a prudent and careful person would have exercised under circumstances similar to those in the instant case, and that failure was the natural and proximate cause of the consequential injuries.

We are cited to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of this state which it is claimed fix the law in what is commonly called “Step in the Darkness Cases”. In none of these do we find any rule of law stated which would be applicable to the facts in the instant case, and until we are cited to a binding authority, fixing, as a matter of law, a standard of care in cases involving circumstances similar to those involved in the case at b,ar, and finding that the failure to exercise that care is the proximate cause of the injuries involved, we must continue to hold the jury the proper arbiter of such facts.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court of common pleas must be, and is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, concur.