alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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
            - Alabama 

# Alabama 

# Alabama 

                      -  August 12, 2021  U.S. Department of Education Approves Alabama’s Plan for Use of American Rescue Plan Funds to Support K-12 Schools and Students, Distributes Remaining $674 Million to State  
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced the approval of  Alabama’s American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) plan and distributed remaining ARP ESSER funds to them.
  **Tags:**AlabamaAmerican 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
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00317-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 017-307531-19

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE ANIL KUMAR KESANI, M.D., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: August 11, 2022
#### A. C. Thomas v. Harry Hand, Sheriff.

153 So. 847.

En Banc.

Opinion Filed April 4, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied April 20, 1934.

*467
      *G. P. Garrett,*for Petitioner;

*Herbert B. Frederick*and *Horace D. Riegle,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

— Petitioner was' arrested and committed under a warrant charging him with the violation of Chapter 14778, Acts of 1931, as amended by Chapter 16091, Acts of 1933, regulating the practice of optometry. By habeas corpus in this Court, he challenges the validity'of that Act.

It is contended that Chapter 14778, Acts of 1931, is violative of Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution of Florida, in that the title to said Act is misleading and in that it relates to more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith.

It is contended that the said Act is in violation of Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights, in that it deprives the petitioner of the right of possessing and protecting property, that it is in violation of Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights in that it deprives petitioner of his liberty without due process of law and that said Act is in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States safeguarding persons in their constitutional privileges and immunities against the states, in depriving persons of their liberty without due process of law and in safeguarding all persons in the equal protection of the law.

An examination of the title to Chapter 14778, Acts of 1931, discloses' it to be an Act to regulate the practice of optometry and we fail to find a suggestion in the title or provision in the body of the Act that does not in some way *468relate to the examination, qualification or licensing of persons engaged in or proposing to engage in the practice of optometry, unless' it be the provision for exempting registered optometrists from jury duty and that provision was repealed by Chapter 16091, Acts of 1933.

In Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248, 147 So. 282, we considered and construed Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931, being an Act to regulate the practice of dentistry and dental surgery in the State of Florida and to provide penalties for the violation thereof. We held the last named Act good as against the assault made on it.

The Act brought in question in its application to optometrists is very similar to Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931, as' ap.plied to dentists and dental surgery, and the questions raised here are very similar to the questions raised and discussed in Spencer v. Hunt, *supra.*We have examined the record in the light of each question raised and have reached the conclusion that the Act under review should be upheld on. authority of Spencer v. Hunt, *supra.*

The petitioner is remanded.

. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Davis, C. J.

(concurring). — I concur in holding the Act valid as a whole, but reserve for future consideration any expression of opinion as to the efficacy of the Act when applied to particular facts which may or may not be within the legitimate scope of the legislative power to interfere with at all under a statute like that here considered.
<PAGE>


================================================================================


                                  United States
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 14, 2002



                         ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


       Texas                       1-13565                     76-0535259
  (State or Other                (Commission                (I.R.S. Employer
    Jurisdiction                 File Number)             Identification No.)
 of Incorporation)


         3 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000
                Houston, Texas                                 77046
       (Address of principal executive                       (Zip Code)
                   offices)


       Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (713) 860-0100


================================================================================


<PAGE>

                    INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

     (c) Exhibits.

Exhibit No.     Exhibit
-----------     -------
  99.1          Certification of Chief Executive Officer
  99.2          Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Item 9. Regulation FD Disclosure.

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the SEC on August 14, 2002, Encompass
Services Corporation filed as correspondence the certifications of its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code). Copies of the certifications are attached
hereto as exhibits.


<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                    ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION



                                    By:      /s/ Gray H. Muzzy
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                             Gray H. Muzzy
                                             Senior Vice President,
                                             General Counsel and Secretary


Date: August 14, 2002


<PAGE>


Exhibit Index

99.1    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

99.2    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-9925.

No. 11-10026.

No. 11-10480.

#### Thomas *v.*California. Postolache *v.*Postolache. Trivedi *v.*Internal Revenue Service.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.;

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioners are allowed until July 16, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
13,319

0

1,784

15,103

BallotsCounted

24

140

0

164

BallotsRejected

NEW JERSEY

Mail,Fax,Email

Election/Registrar's

Office

Internet

DM

V

Public

Assistance

Office

DisabilitiesAgency

Military

RecruitmentOffice

OtherState

Agency

RegistrationDrives

Registration:Other

867,555 820,261

50,184 37,478 15,488 66,326

0 0 8,381 0

RegistrationFormSource

TotalRegisteredVoters

5,751,090

SectionA-VoterRegistration

RegistrationFormsReceived

1,865,833

ConfirmationNotificationsSent

334,287

Polling

Place

UOCAVA Absentee Provisional

Ballot

EarlyVote

Center

Voteby

Mail

Turnout:

Other

3,530,479

355,457

15,276 56,091 0 0 0

SectionF-TurnoutbyMethod

CountedFull Counted

Part

Rejected Provisional:

Other

45,503

10,588

0 0

SectionE-ProvisionalBallots

UniformedService

Non-militaryOverseas

Other

SectionB-UOCAVA

2,507

16,349

0

18,856

BallotsTransmitted

TOTAL TOTAL

ProvisionalBallotTotal:56,091 TurnoutTotal:3,957,303

Select: NEW JERSEY

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

  

2016EAVSDataBrief 

U i
# C_2021422EN.01003702.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/37

---

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Agrarfrost v EUIPO — McCain (Shape of a smiley)

(Case T-553/21)

(2021/C 422/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Agrarfrost GmbH & Co. KG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Förster and A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McCain GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a smiley) –European Union trade mark No 1 801 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1088/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the defendant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---
<PAGE>   

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                           EXHIBIT 12(B)
 
                    PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                 PLUS PREFERRED SECURITIES DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
 
                                                               YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                            -------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1991         1992        1993         1994       1995
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------  ----------   ----------
                                                              (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
<S>                                      <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>           <C>
Net Income................................$  545,479   $  475,936  $  614,868   $  659,406   $  616,964
Plus Income Taxes (A).....................   261,912      223,782     307,414      301,447      325,737
                                            ----------   ----------   ---------   ----------   ----------
Income Before Income Taxes................   807,391      699,718     922,282      960,853      942,701
                                            ----------   ----------   ---------   ----------   ----------
Fixed Charges and Preferred Securities
  Dividend Requirements:
  Interest Charges (B)....................   358,517      401,902     389,956      395,925      406,869
  Interest Factor in Rentals..............     9,311        9,591      11,090       12,120       11,956
  Preferred Securities Dividend
    Requirements (Pre-tax) (C)............    42,703       46,675      56,957       60,910       72,854
                                            ----------   ----------   ---------   ----------   ----------
          Total...........................   410,531      458,168     458,003      468,955      491,679
                                            ----------   ----------   ---------   ----------   ----------
Earnings Before Fixed Charges and
  Preferred Securities Dividend
  Requirements............................$1,175,219   $1,111,211  $1,323,328   $1,368,898   $1,361,526
                                            ==========   ==========  ==========   ==========   ==========

Ratio................................        2.86         2.43        2.89         2.92         2.77
                                             ====         ====        ====         ====         ====

(A)  Includes state income taxes and federal income taxes for other income.

(B)  Excludes 1991 and 1992 interest expense on decommissioning costs of $6,956 and $5,208, respectively.
     Effective January 1, 1992, accounting was changed to follow Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     guidelines.

(C)  Includes a reduction for tax-deductible preferred dividends in accordance with Sections 244(a) and 
     11(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, before applying accounting Rule S-K of 
     Regulation 229.503.  Item 503(6).  
</TABLE>
ffxhei 

e 

kxjlh 

flxoll 

ʜalloVUʑoWnVed 

pk 

fkp 

e 

gkj 

ʜalloVUejecVed 

HI 

M#'#& 

&.#)(/R!#.,, 

OȨ

I(.,(.

!MV 

P/&#˽ #.(

OȨ

!##&#.# ˽!(3 

M#&#.,3 

R,/#.'(.OȨ 

O. ,S..˽!(3 R!#.,.#)(!,#0

R!#.,.#)(O. , 

1252978 

819906 

505461 

322889 

174657 

397257 

0 4314 1110 

19464 

egiUVTaVion#oTmoWTce 

oValegiUVeTedSoVeTU 

7F861F025 

ecVionʛVSoVeTegiUVTaVion 

R gistr[tionFormsR ]i;^ 

3F498F036 

ʑon˄TmaVionoVi˄caVionUenV 

2F195F778 

P)&&#(! 

P& 

UO˳˽V˽ ˽(. P,)0##)(& 

ˏ&&). 

,&3V). 

˳(., 

V).3 

M#& 

T/,()/. 

O.,

3585835 

1206416 

131987 

665526 

17877 0 0 

ecVion#VWTnoWVb[
eVhod 

˳)/(.#/&& ˳)/(. 

P,. 

R$. P,)0##)(& 

O.,

130533 

22978 

1454 0 

S_]tionE-Pro;ision[lB[llots 

U(#),'S,0# 

N)('#&#.,3O0,

O., 

ecVionʜVʑʛSʛ 

8F566 

13F264 

0 

21F830 

ʜalloVUTanUmiVVed 

ʛ ʛ 

ToXiUionalʜalloVoValyfjixpkj WTnoWVoValyjxkelxkif 

Sl]tG  

ʛ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	

_ __ _

- - -

---

- -

- -

gefk"ʛS!aVaʜTief __

U ' 

"

"

" - '-

"

- "

- - - "

" "
# C_2021182EN.01005902.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/59

---

Action brought on 1 March 2021 — QK v ECB

(Case T-133/21)

(2021/C 182/80)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: QK (represented by: A. Bērziņš, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | find the application admissible and examine the substance of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

find the application admissible and examine the substance of the case;

| — | order the ECB to pay the applicant EUR 15 583 195 in compensation for the losses sustained; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the applicant EUR 15 583 195 in compensation for the losses sustained;

| — | order the ECB to pay all the applicant’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay all the applicant’s costs;

| — | require the ECB to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

require the ECB to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Relying on Article 268 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the applicant has raised a single plea in law. In that plea the applicant submits that, by adopting on 3 March 2016 the allegedly unfounded decision to withdraw the operating licence of Trasta Komercbanka AS, (1) a bank partly owned by the applicant, the ECB was responsible for the loss in the value of the applicant’s shares in that bank.

---

(1)  European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of 3 March 2016 on the withdrawal of the licence (authorisation) of Trasta Komercbanka, replaced by Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/2 of 11 July 2016, which is the subject of an application for annulment lodged with the General Court in Case T-698/16, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB, in which proceedings are pending (OJ 2016 C 441, p. 29; corrigendum in OJ 2017 C 6, p. 57).

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT RESERVE ENGINEER

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 2
to Form S-3 by McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. (the "Company") of our reserve
report as of December 31, 1996 in the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1996.


                                       CRESCENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.



                                   By: /s/WAYNE FORMAN
                                       -------------------------

September 2, 1997
New Orleans, Louisiana
<PAGE>
 
                             SEQUOIA SYSTEMS, INC.                 EXHIBIT 10.25
                                        

           AMENDMENT No. 2 TO THE 1993 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
           
                            EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 1997


The 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended by deleting
Paragraph 4, OFFERING DATES, AND REPLACING IT WITH THE FOLLOWING:

      OFFERING DATES

      The Plan will be implemented by twelve (12) semi-annual offerings of
      shares of Common Stock (referred to herein individually and collectively
      as the "Offerings") during the period commencing July 1, 1993 and
      terminating June 30, 1999.  The first four Offerings shall each be of a
      maximum of 62,500 shares (subject to adjustment as provided in Paragraphs
      12(a) and 17), the second four Offerings shall each be of a maximum of
      125,000 shares and the third four Offerings, commencing July 1, 1997 and
      ending June 30, 1999, shall include only those shares of Common Stock as
      were not purchased in one or more of the first eight Offerings (as the
      number of such shares may be subject to adjustment as provided in
      Paragraphs 12(a) and 17).

This Amendment shall be effective from and after April 16, 1997.  Except as
specified above, all terms and conditions of the Plan remain in full force and
effect.


                                             Sequoia Systems, Inc.



                                             By /s/ J. MICHAEL STEWART
                                                ----------------------
                                                J. Michael Stewart
                                                President and CEO

Attest: /s/ K.R. Sumrall                        April 16, 1997
        -----------------------                 --------------
            K.R. Sumrall                        Date