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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   390
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       390
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,052)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.002)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART 5 FDS FOR 1995 FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          32,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,119
<PP&E>                                               5
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,509
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (73)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (55)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  20,593
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    272
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.53
        

</TABLE>
they suffered monetary damages for their remaining claims to be viable. 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment.' 

In light of our conclusion that summary judgment was 

improperly granted, we vacate the district court's June 5, 2012, order 

awarding attorney fees, costs, and damages to Rosemere, as Rosemere at 

this point is not the prevailing party. For the same reasons, we vacate the 

district court's August 13, 2012, order awarding supplemental attorney 

fees that the Lytles are challenging in Docket No. 61308. 

Consistent with the foregoing, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 2 

Saitta 

m79244 , J. 

Gibbons 

1We have considered Rosemere's alternative arguments as to why 

the Lytles' claims fail on their merits. Based on the current record, we are 

unable to determine that all aspects of the Lytles' claims would fail as a 

matter of law. 

2To the extent that our resolution of these appeals may appear 

inconsistent with our resolution of the appeal in Docket No. 63942, we 

note that our resolution of these appeals was premised in part on the 

Lytles' stipulation as to the amended CC&Rs' validity. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A CaTip 
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge 

Sterling Law, LLC 

Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 

3 

r.:Suga
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          58,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                       690
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,401
<PP&E>                                           8,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,728,87
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,049
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,541,02
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,728,87
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,058
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (798)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,431
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,518
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       913
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### § 4901.16 Extensions of time.

In unusual circumstances (as described in section 552(a)(6)(B) of FOIA), the time to respond to a disclosure request under § 4901.14(a) or an appeal under § 4901.15(b) may be extended as reasonably necessary to process the request or appeal. The Disclosure Officer will notify the requester in writing within the original time period of the unusual circumstances and the date when a response is expected to be sent. When the extension for a disclosure request exceeds 10 working days, the notice will provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the disclosure request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request. This notice will also alert the requester of the availability of a PBGC FOIA Public Liaison for assistance and the Office of Government Information Services for dispute resolution services. The maximum extension for responding to an appeal is 10 working days minus the amount of any extension on the request to which the appeal relates.

[87 FR 43996, July 25, 2022]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 04/12/2010 

Receipt of Delivery 

TO: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

 Speaker of the House of Representatives 

 The Capitol, H-209 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations [FRL # 9136-6, Region 8] Direct Final Rule 

2. Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the State of Louisiana [FRL # 9132-2, Region 6] Direct Final Rule 

 

RECEIVED BY: ______________________________ Date:________________ 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 04/12/2010 

Receipt of Delivery 

TO: The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr. 

 President of the Senate 

 The Capitol, S-212 

 Washington, DC 20510 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations [FRL # 9136-6, Region 8] Direct Final Rule 

2. Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the State of Louisiana [FRL # 9132-2, Region 6] Direct Final Rule 

RECEIVED BY: ____________________________ Date:________________ 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 04/12/2010 

Receipt of Delivery 

 

 

TO: General Counsel 

 Government Accountability Office 

 Room 7175 

 441 G Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20548 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations [FRL # 9136-6, Region 8] Direct Final Rule 

2. Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the State of Louisiana [FRL # 9132-2, Region 6] Direct Final Rule 

RECEIVED BY: ___________________________ Date:________________
#### Hurley *et al. v.*Oakley Land & Improvement Co. *et al.*

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*Feb. 13, 1896.)*

[24 S. E. Rep. 237.]

Chancery Practice — Bill for Rescission of Contract — Directing Issue.

In a bill for the rescission of a contract of purchase of real property on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation the court will not direct the issue to a jury, where the evidence clearly determines it.

Appeal from circuit court, Lynchburg county.

Bill by J. *J.*Hurley and others against the Oakley Land & Improvement Company and others, to rescind a contract. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*W. White, L. L. Lewis,*and *G. W.*Hansbrough, for appellants.

*John H. Lewis*and *Kirhjpatriclc & Blachford,*for appellees.

Harrison, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In December, 1890, the appellants purchased certain lots of the appellee, the Oakley Land and Improvement Company, paid part of the purchase money in cash, received a deed, and secured the deferred purchase money by deed of trust on the property. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, asking to have that contract of purchase rescinded, and all money paid by them on account of said purchase refunded, upon the *320ground that they had been induced to buy the lots by the false representations of their vendor in regard to certain industrial enterprises being erected in the immediate vicinity of the lots they had bought.

It can serve no good purpose to review the mass of evidence before us. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful examination of the voluminous record of nearly 300 pages presented by appellants, we find that the evidence wholly fails to sustain the charge of fraud and misrepresentation made in the bill, or to furnish any sufficient ground for a rescission of the contract referred to.

This court has so recently and repeatedly decided cases involving questions similar to those presented here that it is deemed unnecessary to again repeat the well-settled law governing courts of equity, when called upon to rescind a contract upon the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The case at bar is controlled by the cases of Improvement Co. v. Brady (Va.) 22 S. E. 845 ; Watkins v. Improvement Co., Id. 554, and Beckley v. Land Co. (decided at the November term of this court) 23 S. E. 778.

It is insisted by the appellants that there ought to have been an issue out of chancery in this case to be tried by a jury. The principles which govern the courts in directing issues are well understood. The object of an issue is generally to satisfy the conscience of the chancellor, when the evidence is so nearly balanced or so contradictory as to make it difficult to reach a conclusion upon it. This case presents no such difficulty, and was properly dealt with by the court itself. Crebs v. Jones, 79 Va. 381.

There is no error in the decree complained of, and it is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.191 San Joaquin River. ( a ) The draw of the Port of Stockton railroad bridge, mile 39.7 at Stockton, shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given to the Port Director.
( b ) The draws of the U.S. Navy Draw-bridge, mile 39.8, Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bridge, mile 40.6, and California Highway 4 bridge (Garwood Bridge), mile 41.6, need not be opened for the passage of vessels. The owners or agencies controlling the bridges shall restore the draws to full operation within six months of notification to take such action from the District Commander.
( c ) Drawbridges above the Old River junction need not open for the passage of vessels.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD 12-85-06, 50 FR 31177, Aug. 1, 1985; CGD 88-052, 53 FR 25120, July 1, 1988; USCG-1999-5832, 64 FR 34712, June 29, 1999]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 March 11, 2010 In Reply AIR-3 ReferTo: SE 98-01 Jon Boyer Environmental Manager High Desert Power Project, LLC I9000 PerimeterRoad Victorville, CA 92394


### Re: Final Revised PSD Permitfor the High Desert PowerProject(SE 98-01)
Dear Mr. Boyer: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.7401 et seq.), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the application materials submitted by the High Desert Power Project (HDPP) to revise its existing Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) permit. After reviewing the materials, EPA drafted proposed revised PSD permit conditions and a public notice ofour decision to allow the alternative startup scenario and other minorchanges as the conditions in the proposed revised PSD permit, iffinalized. A request for public commentregarding EPA'sproposed action and proposed revised PSD permit was published onFebruary 6, 2010, in the San Bernardino Sun, Victorville Daily Press, and EIMojave. EPA also sentthe public notice requesting comments onour proposed action to several parties, including those specified in 40 CFRPart 124. EPA made the proposed revised PSD permit and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report available at the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, the Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto Public Libraries, on EPA's website, and at ourRegion IX office in San Francisco, California. EPA received no comments regardingthe proposed action and revised PSD permit. The final revised PSD permit is enclosed. This document, along with other documents relevant to the final revised PSD permit, and the index for the entire administrative record are available online at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID# EPA-R09-0AR-2010-0129), and on our website at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd. This final revised PSD permit shall be effective on the date ofissuance pursuant to 40 CFR 124.15(b)(3). Ifyou have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Leslie Ramirez ofourPermits office at (415) 972-3978.

Pnnred on Recycled PaperSincerely, 

### / 7 

# !f;lit t

# Iln)i

# rLbO~~ ]Ord'!

# t Director, Air Division

Enclosure
cc: Alan De Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Mike Tollstrup, California Air Resources Board Mary Dyas, California Energy Commission
### Attachment A**- 3**  **. School Principal**  **Follow -**  **up Email** 

**Dear [High School Principal],** We recently contacted you regarding REL Southwest’s study examining changes in the mathematics course requirements for high school graduation being implemented under Texas House Bill 5 (the Foundation High School Program). The study will investigate whether providing the parents of students entering grade 9 durin g the 2014
- 15 school year with information about the changes to the mathematics course requirements and how they compare to the admissions requirements for most four
- year, public universities and colleges in Texas. Since we did not get a response from you, we wanted to take the time extend the invitation to participate in the study one more time. Below are some FAQ’s about study procedures. Please read them over to learn more about the study and how your school can participate. **Who is eligible to participa te?**  We are looking for high schools that are willing to mail informational materials describing the changes to the high school graduation mathematics requirements to parents of students entering grade 9 during the 2014
- 15 school year. Materials will be dis tributed during the early spring of 2015 and 2016. **How will the study be conducted?** The study will be conducted as a randomized controlled trial. At the beginning of the study, one - half of the participating high schools will be randomly assigned to receive study materials and asked to distribute these materials during the spring of 2015 and 2016. The remaining high schools will conduct business
- as - usual during this time period but will receive study materials at the conclusion of the study, if desired. **Wha t are the study materials and how will they be distributed?**  The study materials will consist of information brochures — provided in English and Spanish — to be mailed to students’ homes. Schools randomly assigned to receive study materials will receive a box o f prepaid, pre
- stuffed envelopes containing the informational brochures, and they will be asked to print and adhere mailing labels containing student addresses to the envelopes and place them in the U.S. Mail. REL Southwest will reimburse schools up to $15 0 to cover the cost of staff time and address label printing materials. Schools will not be asked to provide any student data to REL Southwest.**How will you benefit?**

Participating schools will receive informational brochures describing the new mathematic s requirements being implemented under the new Foundation High School Program graduation plans and how they compare to the admissions requirements for most four
- year, public universities and colleges in Texas to distribute to parents. The brochures will be available in English and Spanish. **How can I receive more information or sign up for the study?** For more information or to participate in the study, contact Deborah Van Kummer at (512) 391
- 6551 or deborah. vankummer@sedl.org .
THANK YOU!
#### IN RE MARTIN K.*

(AC 18917)

O’Connell, C. J., and Foti and Daly, Js.

Argued September 20

officially released November 30, 1999

*Mary Ann Barile,*for the appellant (respondent mother).

*Stephen G. Vitelli,*assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was *Richard Blumenthal,*attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

*

 In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79-3, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the Appellate Court.

*11*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The respondent mother1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her son. The sole issue is whether the court had clear- and convincing evidence to support its decision to terminate the parental rights of the respondent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On appeal, the respondent asks this court to review the trial court’s findings of fact. It is well established that an appellate court cannot retry the facts. Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. *Northeast Parking, Inc.*v. *Planning & Zoning Commission,*47 Conn. App. 284, 290-91, 703 A.2d 797 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 969, 707 A.2d 1269 (1998).

In this case, the court filed a detailed and comprehensive memorandum of decision reciting the facts that it found to support its decision. “This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. ... In a case that is tried to the court . . . the judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to their specific testimony.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *Wieler v. Commissioner of Correction,*47 Conn. App. 59, 61, 702 A.2d 1195, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 957, 704 A.2d 806 (1997). Because the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, we cannot disturb them.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The trial court terminated the parental rights of the respondent mother, who participated in the termination proceedings, and two putative fathers, who did not appear at trial. Only the respondent mother has appealed. We refer to her as the respondent in this opinion.