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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         13,041
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         331,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                 92,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        224,955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,275
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               57,778
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,519)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                2,255
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,116)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (4.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.39)



</TABLE>
[4916-13-1'1 ro~ ~~ ANEISOENI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Adminismtlolll 

### 14eFR Part 39 ~~ ANEI50MG [Do<ket No. FAA-2007-27346; Direeto •.•• te Identifier 200S-NM-20S-AD; 

# Ic?l'JiP !G 

## 20IC-C: -0"" Amendment 

### 39--•.•.tt

### *"'; AD 2609-tll2'_"'*] RIN 2128-AA64 Airworthiness DJrectivei; Sicma Aero Seat 90XX and 92XX Series Passenger Seats. -G.-h" 

### !:,- -.. ,1<,: ~r'-,,- .. -or' 1'...;'-,' ,,' " Installed on, but not Limiled to ATR'Model ATR42 Airpl~es and Model ATRn


# c. L:t~

ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation Airplanes



# - iJ7;,,~ SUMMARY: We are adopting anew 

### airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed 

### j~

# C-l,

~~ above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) (DOT).



### -/ originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe ./ condition on an aviation product. The 

### MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: Cracks have been found in central spreaders 

### PIN [part number] 92·000100-20(}'] or

### PIN 92-000101·200-1. This may beavily affect the structural integrity ofthe seat. Failure of the central spreaders could result in injury to an occupant 

### during emergency conditions. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective [insert date 35 days after date ofpublication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
#### Abraham URIBE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73559

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Joan Ivette Del Valle, Attorney, Law Office of Joan Del Valle, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Abraham Uribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to terminate proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Uribe’s unexhausted contentions regarding the effect of California Penal Code § 1203.43 on his controlled substance conviction. *See Tijani v.*Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the agency in the alien’s proceedings).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Ur-ibe’s request for remand for purposes of seeking a favorable exercise of prosecuto-rial discretion. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### M. V. Weber, *et al.,*v. Mary J. Harvey, a Widow.

154 So. 927.

Decision Filed April 24, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 18, 1934.

*Blackwell &. Gray*and *A. Y. Clement,*for Plaintiffs in Error ;

*Malcolm M. MacDonald,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— Suit at law on promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff for principal, interest and attorney’s fees. No reversible error.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of KKR Real Estate Finance Trust Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended
          December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mostafa Nagaty, 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 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
                    Company.
 
 By:
            /s/ Mostafa NagatyMostafa NagatyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) 
 February 21, 2019
 
 * The foregoing certification is
          being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of March1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2015-C27, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2015-C27  **(WFCM 2015-C27)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.      All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.      A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofJanuary 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordancewith the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.      To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby:  /s/ AdamSinger                                               Date:  March 1, 2018

      AdamSinger, Managing Director
# C_2022165EN.01002802.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-62/22)

(2022/C 165/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IA

Defendant: DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his or her contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad, with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his or her place of domicile as a supplement to national rules?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K into Reunion Industries, Inc.'s previously
filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-77566) and Form S-8 (No.
33-77232).



                                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Houston, Texas
March 28, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6

[RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

                      CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

     As independent petroleum consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby
consents to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about April 29, 2003, of information from our reserve reports
for Plains Exploration and Production Company and Affiliates as of December 31,
2002, December 31, 2001, December 31, 2000 and December 31, 1999. We further
consent to references to our firm under the subsection Experts and in the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 2, 2003 in regards to reserve
reporting as of December 31, 2002.


                                        /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Houston, Texas
April 29, 2003
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

            - taxonomy view
            - Kentucky 

# Kentucky 

# Kentucky 

                      -  August 12, 2021  U.S. Department of Education Approves Kentucky’s Plan for Use of American Rescue Plan Funds to Support K-12 Schools and Students, Distributes Remaining $611 Million to State  
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced the approval of Kentucky’s American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP  ESSER) plan and distributed remaining ARP ESSER funds to them.
  **Tags:**KentuckyAmerican Rescue PlanPress Releases

## How Do I Find...?

                      - Student loans, forgiveness
                      - Higher Education Rulemaking
                      - College accreditation
                      - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
                      - FERPA
                      - FAFSA
                      - 1098, tax forms
                      - More...

## Information About...

                      - Elevating Teaching
                      - Early Learning
                      - Engage Every Student
                      - Unlocking Career Success
                      - Cybersecurity

----

*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

          - Student Loans
          - Repaying Loans
          - Defaulted Loans
          - Loan Forgiveness
          - Loan Servicers
          - Grants & Programs
          - Apply for Pell Grants
          - Grants Forecast
          - Apply for a Grant

          - Laws & Guidance
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - Civil Rights
          - IDEA Website
          - Data & Research
          - Education Statistics
          - Postsecondary Education Data
          - ED Data Express
          - Nation's Report Card
          - What Works Clearinghouse
          - Open Data Platform
          - COVID Relief Data

          - About Us
          - Contact Us
          - ED Offices
          - Jobs
          - Press Releases
          - FAQs
          - Recursos en español
          - Budget, Performance
          - Privacy Program
          - Homeroom Blog

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information Quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8813 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide to a member of the uniformed services who is denied 

a traumatic injury protection claim under Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance certain information related to that denial. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself and Mr. BERGMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide to a member of 

the uniformed services who is denied a traumatic injury 

protection claim under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance certain information related to that denial. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency for 

5 Wounded Warriors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8813 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR TRAUMATIC INJURY PRO2 TECTION UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP 

3 LIFE INSURANCE. 

4 Section 1980A of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(l)(1) If a claim for benefits under this section is 

8 denied, the Secretary concerned shall provide to the mem9 ber at the same time as the member is informed of such 

10 denial a description of the following: 

11 ‘‘(A) Each reason for that denial, including a 

12 description of all the information upon which the de13 nial is based and a description of the applicable 

14 laws, regulations, or policies, with appropriate cita15 tions, and an explanation of how such laws, regula16 tions, or policies affected the denial. 

17 ‘‘(B) Each finding that is favorable to the mem18 ber. 

19 ‘‘(2) Any finding favorable to the member as de20 scribed in paragraph (1)(B) shall be binding on all subse21 quent reviews or appeals of the denial of the claim, unless 

22 clear and convincing evidence is shown to the contrary to 

23 rebut such favorable finding.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 84-1947.

#### Cerbone, Justice of the Village Court, Village of Mt. Kisco, New York, et al. *v.*Conway.

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 1100.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied.
#### BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant SoundHound, Inc., Defendant

2016-1075

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 7, 2018

Randall T. Garteiser, Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, TX, argued for plaintiff-ap-pellee. Also represented by Kirk Anderson, Christopher A. Honea,

Eugene Y. Mar, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Jeffrey M. Fisher, Daniel C. Callaway.

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

(Lourie, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### IN RE: ADOPTION OF: K.N.L., a Minor

846 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

2016-A0184

(Montgomery)

Affirmed
(function ($, Drupal, drupalSettings, once) {
  Drupal.behaviors.mtflexsliderInPage = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {
      once('mtflexsliderInPageInit', "#in-page-images-slider.flexslider", context).forEach(function(item) {
        $(item).flexslider({
          animation: drupalSettings.levelplus.flexsliderInPageInit.inPageSliderEffect, // Select your animation type, "fade" or "slide"
          prevText: "",
          nextText: "",
          pauseOnAction: false,
          useCSS: false,
          slideshow: false,
        });
        $(item).fadeIn("slow");
      });
    }
  };
})(jQuery, Drupal, drupalSettings, once);
# C_2022359EN.01003601.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-398/22)

(2022/C 359/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Other party: RQ

Questions referred

| 1. | Where appeal proceedings have been conducted, is the concept of ‘trial’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) to be interpreted as relating to the trial which preceded the decision at first instance if only the requested person lodged an appeal and either it was dismissed without examination of the merits or the judgment at first instance was varied in his or her favour? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where appeal proceedings have been conducted, is the concept of ‘trial’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) to be interpreted as relating to the trial which preceded the decision at first instance if only the requested person lodged an appeal and either it was dismissed without examination of the merits or the judgment at first instance was varied in his or her favour?

| 2. | Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).

---