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

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   86361
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1284241
<ALLOWANCES>                                            127000
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       1348188
<PP&E>                                                  183158
<DEPRECIATION>                                          122146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1936289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  2671336
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                               1000
<COMMON>                                                243199
<OTHER-SE>                                            (1440884)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1936289
<SALES>                                                1422653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1422653
<CGS>                                                   811469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        440884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       18686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         151614
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     151614
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            151614
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.01


</TABLE>
# C_2023015EN.01004201.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/42

---

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2022 — Swords v Commission and ECDC

(Case T-55/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Measures introduced in the European Union in the fight against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic - Risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) - Acts not open to challenge - European Commission communication and coordinated approach published on the basis of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the ECDC - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 15/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by G. Byrne, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by A. Szmytkowska and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by R. Malacalza, M.-A. Ekström and E. Sinclair, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on 24 and 26 November and on 2 and 15 December 2021 and also the inapplicability, under Article 277 TFEU, of the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, of 1 December 2021, entitled, ‘Addressing together current and new COVID-19 challenges’ (COM/2021/764 final) and the coordinated approach, as accepted by the Health Security Committee (HSC), published by the Commission on 8 December 2021, which were based on the contested scientific opinions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Patrick Swords shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Patrick Swords shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---
1 

### Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 4:55 PM To: Werner, Christopher Cc: Lorang, Phil; Beaver, Melinda Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirem ents for State Plans (RIN 2060- AS55) Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E0135 63_Regional Haze_ 2060....docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Categories: Regional Haze



### Attached please find the summary of additional inte ragency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the d raft proposed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55).

Thank you and please let me know if you have any co mments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
# C_2023063EN.01001201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Save Roscam Peninsula CLG, SC-F, MF, PH, Abbey Park and District Residents Association Baldoyle v An Bord Pleanála, Galway City Council, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, the Attorney General and Fingal County Council

(Case C-543/22) (1)

(Aarhus Convention - Access to justice - Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive - Scope - Obligation to interpret in accordance with the national procedural law)

(2023/C 63/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Save Roscam Peninsula CLG, SC-F, MF, PH, Abbey Park and District Residents Association Baldoyle

Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Galway City Council, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, the Attorney General and Fingal County Council

Operative part of the order

By Order of 8 December 2022, the President of the Ninth Chamber ordered the removal of Case C-543/22 from the register.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 11.8.2022.

---
No. 12-5149.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<CIK>                           0000818674
<NAME>                          INTELLICALL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                  3,565
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          28,282
<ALLOWANCES>                            3,615
<INVENTORY>                            13,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       42,985
<PP&E>                                 10,517
<DEPRECIATION>                          8,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         54,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  33,780
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   77   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0 
<PREFERRED>                                 0    
<OTHER-SE>                             17,305  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           54,600
<SALES>                                 4,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       19,231
<CGS>                                   4,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          17,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        3,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        622         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0 
<CHANGES>                                   0 
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,858)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        

</TABLE>
LiDAR Drone Services, LLC

Transmitter Protocols

Ground Station Set up Checklist

A. PIC Operator

a. Unit: Transmitter Spektrum DX18

b. Battery: Check for Full Voltage Li­Po Battery Packs (Test with Proper Battery

Testing Unit for Actuals)

B. Remove Transmitter from Case, Inspect for damage Cracks, Antenna Secure, switches,

nobs, stick work properly.

C. Make Sure All Switches are in Start Positions

a. All switches flipped away from operator

b. LD and RD are Center

D. Power On Unit

a. Take note of Voltage and Time

E. Make Sure correct aircraft model is selected under “model”

a. Reset Timers (Timers are programmed to start when throttle is engaged)

F. Make sure all Trims are Centered

G. Connection, Test and Check UAS to Transmitter Parity

H. Perform Antenna Strength Test on Transmit

Gimbal Control

I. PIC Operator

a. Unit: Transmitter Protocols (Transmitter make and model)

b. Battery: Check for Full Voltage on Li­Po Battery Packs (Test with Proper Battery

Testing Unit for Actuals)

J. Remove Transmitter from Case, Inspect for damage Cracks, Antenna Secure, switches,

nobs, stick work properly.

K. Make Sure All Switches are in Start Positions

a. All switches flipped away from operator

b. LD and RD are Center

L. Power On Unit

a. Take note of Voltage and Time

M. Make sure all Trims are Centered

N. Make Sure correct Video Downlink is selected under “model”

O. Reset Timers (Timers are programmed to start when you push start)

P. Power Off Unit

Q. Connect Video Downlink according to User Manual

R. Make Sure Antennas on Video Downlink are tight and secure

S. Power On Video Downlink

T. Connection Test w/ Video Downlink Receiver

a. Perform Antenna Strength Test on Transmitter

U. Make sure Gimbal Functions are working correctly

V. Make sure Video Connection is Clear and signal is strong.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000819577
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         357,474
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               357,474
<PP&E>                                      16,220,841
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,971,966)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,606,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          349,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,257,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,606,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               450,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                266,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            266,039
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   266,039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.00
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5041.

#### Kitchen *v.*Ballard, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10885.

#### Quintanilla *v.*Grounds, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
- 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
            - Hawaii 

# Hawaii 

# Hawaii 

                      -  August 5, 2021  U.S. Department of Education Approves Hawaii's Plan for Use of American Rescue Plan Funds to Support K-12 Schools and Students, Distributes Remaining $137 Million To State    **Tags:**HawaiiAmerican 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
# C_2023063EN.01005201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/52

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Belavia v Council

(Case T-116/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2023/C 63/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belavia — Belarusian Airlines AAT (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Boggio-Tomasaz and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, the suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 16) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2023063EN.01001401.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2022 — Expedia Inc. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-663/22)

(2023/C 63/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Expedia Inc.

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, (1) and in particular Article 15 thereof, as well as the principle of proportionality, preclude legislation of a Member State or a measure adopted by an independent national authority — such as those indicated in the grounds of the order for reference — requiring foreign providers of online intermediation services to submit a report containing information that is irrelevant as regards the aims of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, (1) and in particular Article 15 thereof, as well as the principle of proportionality, preclude legislation of a Member State or a measure adopted by an independent national authority — such as those indicated in the grounds of the order for reference — requiring foreign providers of online intermediation services to submit a report containing information that is irrelevant as regards the aims of that regulation?

| 2. | In any event, can the information requested through the submission of the ESI be considered relevant and instrumental for the adequate and effective implementation of Regulation 2019/1150? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, can the information requested through the submission of the ESI be considered relevant and instrumental for the adequate and effective implementation of Regulation 2019/1150?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ 2019 L 186, p. 57).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SUN
INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES
THERETO INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         $33,805<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   $8,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                    $3,758
<INVENTORY>                                     $1,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $44,522
<PP&E>                                        $210,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $552,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $52,305
<BONDS>                                       $261,543<F2>
<COMMON>                                            $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    $193,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $552,848
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $291,945<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 $220,414<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               $12,386<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $28,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   $263
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               $263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      $263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NON-RESTRICTED CASH EQUIVALENTS OF $11,926 AND RESTRICTED CASH
    EQUIVALENTS OF $4,538.
<F2>INCLUDING UNAMORTIZED PREMIUMS.
<F3>CERTAIN RECLASSIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE 1996 BALANCES TO CONFORM
    WITH CURRENT YEAR PRESENTATION.
<F4>DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Stephen LAW, Debtor. Stephen Law, Appellant, v. Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Appellee.

No. 16-60041

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Stephen Law, Pro Se

Jessica L. Bagdanov, Steven Todd Gub-ner, I, Esquire, Attorney, Brutzkus Gub-ner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellee

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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Stephen Law appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his appeal as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

In his opening brief, Law fails to address the basis for the BAP’s order dismissing his appeal. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are *389deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

The BAP properly dismissed Law’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order imposing conditions on the release of funds because the appeal was rendered moot by Law’s later receipt of the funds at issue. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is moot if no present controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant effective relief.”).

The BAP properly declined to address issues not addressed in the bankruptcy court’s order that is the subject of this appeal. We also decline the parties’ requests to address issues beyond the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10738.

#### Rosas-Jimenez *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.