alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Media contact: Lyndi McMillan, lyndi.mcmillan@navistar.com, 331-332-3181


Investor contact: Marty Ketelaar, marty.ketelaar@navistar.com, 331-332-2706


Web site: www.Navistar.com








NAVISTAR TO ANNOUNCE FISCAL 2018 THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL RESULTS ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018





LISLE, Ill. - August 27, 2018 - Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) today announced that it will report its fiscal 2018 third quarter financial results on Thursday, September 6, 2018.


The company will host a conference call and present via a live webcast its fiscal 2018 third quarter financial results on Thursday, September 6, at approximately 9:00 a.m. Eastern (8:00 a.m. Central). Speakers on the webcast will include Troy Clarke, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Walter Borst, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, among other company leaders.


Those who wish to participate in the conference call may do so by dialing: (877) 303-3199. Additionally, the webcast can be accessed through the investor relations page of the company's website at http://www.navistar.com/navistar/investors/webcasts. Investors are advised to log on to the website at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the webcast to allow sufficient time for downloading any necessary software. The webcast will be available for replay at the same address approximately three hours following its conclusion and will remain available for a limited time.





About Navistar


Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce International ® brand commercial and military trucks, proprietary diesel engines, and IC Bus TM brand school and commercial buses. An affiliate also provides truck and diesel engine service parts. Another affiliate offers financing services. Additional information is available at www.Navistar.com .








# # #
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ALEXANDER WALTERS, a/k/a Dave, a/k/a Rohan Williams, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-157, CA-00-878-2) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan Alexander Walters, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rohan Alexander Walters seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Walters , Nos. CR-97-157; CA-00-878-2 (S.D.W. Va. June 5, 2001). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10955 Conference Calendar

__________________ STANLEY J. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ALAN DOLBERG; CAGEL, Lt.; HAMPTON, Lt.; WILKERSHINE, Sgt.; WOODS, Officer; BROWN, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-155

- - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Stevens appeals the dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Stevens does not specifically raise or brief an issue relating to the basis of the district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b), other than to state that he did supplement the record with three additional copies of his complaint and was not required to produce six copies because he allegedly "did not know."No. 95-10955 -2- We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Further, we find that Stevens' appeal is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Stevens was warned in Stevens v. Hay's Pharmacy , No. 95-10119 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 1995) that filing future frivolous appeals would result in disciplinary sanctions. Accordingly, Stevens is hereby sanctioned in the amount of $100, and he is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court, or any pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Stevens, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
#### Dorothy W. Temple v. Phillip Liebmann.

Application denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
Order entered October ,, 2012

In The

Qtourt of tppcat

flit!, itrlct of Z!Icxa at aUa

No. 05-12-00358-CR

LOIS NELL MAURICE JERKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-61508-I

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES this appeal.

On August 2, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding the date

appellant delivered his pro se notice of appeal to Texas Department of Criminal Justice

authorities for mailing and whether appellant desires to pursue the appeal. We ADOPT the

findings that: (1) Tammy Shelby, Supervisor of the Mail System Coordinators Panel, checked

the records for February through March 2012; (2) Ms. Shelby found no record of when appellant

delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing; (3) appellant’s notice of appeal

was post-marked March 7, 2012 and was filed-stamped March 13, 2012; and (4) there is no

indication appellant filed his notice of appeal by February 21, 2012.
The Court will dispose of the appeal in due course.

/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
|                                  |
|----------------------------------|
|                                  |  |  |  |  |
| Signature                        |   | Title |   | Date |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   TROY A. CLARKE        |   | President andChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer) |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Troy A. Clarke                   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   WALTER G. BORST       |   | Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Walter G. Borst                  |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   SAMARA A. STRYCKER    |   | Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller (Principal Accounting Officer) |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Samara A. Strycker               |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   MICHAEL N. HAMMES     |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Michael N. Hammes                |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   VINCENT J. INTRIERI   |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Vincent J. Intrieri              |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   JAMES H. KEYES        |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| James H. Keyes                   |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   STANLEY A. MCCHRYSTAL |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Stanley A. McChrystal            |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   SAMUEL J. MERKSAMER   |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Samuel J. Merksamer              |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   MARK H. RACHESKY      |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Mark H. Rachesky                 |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   DENNIS D. WILLIAMS    |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Dennis D. Williams               |   |   |   |   |
|                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/   MICHAEL F. SIRIGNANO       |   | Director |   | December 17, 2015 |
| Michael F. Sirignano             |   |   |   |   |
MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: James K. O’Connell, ERG

DATE: March 18, 2015

SUBJECT: McKeesport POTW (DCN SGE01090)

On January 26, 2015, EPA Region 3 communicated with the Municipal Authority of the 

City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania (Municipal Authority). The correspondence was about the 

McKeesport Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). EPA Region 3 asked for the detention 

time of the POTW. The Municipal Authority stated that the detention time would have varied 

based on the flow and how many tanks were in use. The approximate detention time for the 

facility was between 8 and 12 hours. The detention time is the length of time between when the 

water enters the plant and the time it is discharged.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herman Morgan, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered July 24, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, so serve a term of 15 to 30 years. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, J'J. concur.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60581

Summary Calendar

YAN QU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A096 636 974

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yan Qu (Qu) petitions this court for review of the dismissal by the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order

denying his application for withholding of removal. He does not challenge, and

did not challenge before the BIA, the denial of withholding under the Convention

Against Torture.

On an alien’s petition for review, this court reviews questions of law de

novo and reviews factual findings “under the substantial evidence test, reversing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 24, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60581 Document: 00511119867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
No. 09-60581

2

only when the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail

to find the petitioner statutorily eligible for relief.” Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d

677, 679-80 (5th Cir. 2007) (footnote, citation, and internal quotation marks

omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact

are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary.”). The determination that an alien is not eligible for withholding

of removal is a factual finding reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). To be eligible for

withholding of removal, the alien must prove that his life or freedom would be

threatened because of, inter alia, his religion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b). An alien, such as Qu, who has not suffered past persecution may

meet his burden of proof by demonstrating that it is more likely than not that

he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if removed to a certain

country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); see also Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595

(5th Cir. 2006).

The determination that Qu would not face persecution based on his

religion if returned to China is supported by substantial evidence, including Qu’s

testimony that he did not know to what kind of punishment he would be subject

for his mailing, emailing, and instant messaging of contraband religious

material to China, by his testimony that he did not know what happened

following his friend’s arrest, and by the country reports that do not indicate that

Baptists, qua Baptists, are targeted for persecution. The evidence pointed to and

arguments made by Qu are insufficient to show that a reasonable factfinder

would be compelled to conclude that he is eligible for withholding of removal. 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 09-60581 Document: 00511119867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3497 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3497

 To ensure that when Federal law allows a court to award attorney fees 
 to one party, the law must allow the court to award attorney fees to 
                               any party.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

  Mr. Istook introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that when Federal law allows a court to award attorney fees 
 to one party, the law must allow the court to award attorney fees to 
                               any party.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Loser Pays Legal Fee Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY IN AWARDS OF ATTORNEY FEES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
whenever Federal law provides a basis on which a court may award 
attorney fees to one prevailing party, the court may award attorney 
fees to any prevailing party on that basis.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a Federal law that 
provides a basis on which a court may award attorney fees only to the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
### §28301. General

(a) Eight Hour Day.—In contracts for labor and service, 8 hours shall be a day's work and the standard day's work for determining the compensation for services of an employee employed by a common carrier by railroad subject to subtitle IV of this title and actually engaged in any capacity in operating trains used for transporting passengers or property on railroads from—

(1) a State of the United States or the District of Columbia to any other State or the District of Columbia;

(2) one place in a territory or possession of the United States to another place in the same territory or possession;

(3) a place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country; or

(4) a place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States.

(b) Application.—Subsection (a) of this section—

(1) does not apply to—

(A) an independently owned and operated railroad not exceeding one hundred miles in length;

(B) an electric street railroad; and

(C) an electric interurban railroad; but

(2) does apply to an independently owned and operated railroad less than one hundred miles in length—

(A) whose principal business is leasing or providing terminal or transfer facilities to other railroads; or

(B) engaged in transfers of freight between railroads or between railroads and industrial plants.

(Added Pub. L. 104–287, §5(56)(A), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3394.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 28301 | 45:65. | Sept. 3, 5, 1916, ch. 436, §1, 39 Stat. 721. |
| | (uncodified). | Sept. 3, 5, 1916, ch. 436, §§2, 3, 39 Stat. 721. |

Section

In subsection (a), the word "determining" is substituted for "reckoning" for clarity. The words "who are not or may hereafter be employed" are omitted as surplus. In clause (1), the words "or territory" are omitted because the existing territories of the United States are now connected to the United States by rail. In clause (2), the words "or possession of the United States" are added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

The text of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of September 3, 5, 1916 (ch. 436, 39 Stat. 721), is omitted to eliminate executed provisions.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9376 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9376

To require the Federal Communications Commission to amend the rules of 
   the Commission to include a shark attack as an event for which a 
  wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 2024

Mr. Palmer (for himself, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Moore of 
Alabama, Mr. Strong, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, and Mr. Carl) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to amend the rules of 
   the Commission to include a shark attack as an event for which a 
  wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Lulu's Law''.

SEC. 2. WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Alert Message'' has 
the meaning given the term in section 10.10(a) of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
    (b) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
amend part 10 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
successor regulations, to provide that a shark attack is an event for 
which an Alert Message may be transmitted under that part (or 
successor, if applicable).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 285.801 How must I conduct my approved activities to protect marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, and designated critical habitat?

You must comply with all measures required under 30 CFR 585.701.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1726 When must I submit an initial platform removal application and what must it include? An initial platform removal application is required only for leases and pipeline rights-of-way in the Pacific OCS Region or the Alaska OCS Region. It must include the following information: ( a ) Platform or other facility removal procedures, including the types of vessels and equipment you will use;
( b ) Facilities (including pipelines) you plan to remove or leave in place;
( c ) Platform or other facility transportation and disposal plans;
( d ) Plans to protect marine life and the environment during decommissioning operations, including a brief assessment of the environmental impacts of the operations, and procedures and mitigation measures that you will take to minimize the impacts; and
( e ) A projected decommissioning schedule.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                    2,134
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             3,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                293
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,945
<PP&E>                                    5,659
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           10,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,795
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 24,793
<OTHER-SE>                              (19,616)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5,177
<SALES>                                  15,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         15,373
<CGS>                                    12,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            12,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         12,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            341
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (156)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (9,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (9,117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (9,117)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.816 Subsurface safety devices in injection wells—dry trees.

You must install a surface-controlled SSSV or an injection valve capable of preventing backflow in all injection wells. This requirement is not applicable if the District Manager determines that the well is incapable of natural flow. You must verify the no-flow condition of the well annually.
#### § 56.12016 Work on electrically-powered equipment.

Electrically powered equipment shall be deenergized before mechanical work is done on such equipment. Power switches shall be locked out or other measures taken which shall prevent the equipment from being energized without the knowledge of the individuals working on it. Suitable warning notices shall be posted at the power switch and signed by the individuals who are to do the work. Such locks or preventive devices shall be removed only by the persons who installed them or by authorized personnel.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.611 Traveling-block safety device.

You must equip all units being used for well-workover operations that have both a traveling block and a crown block with a safety device that is designed to prevent the traveling block from striking the crown block. You must check the device for proper operation weekly and after each drill-line slipping operation. You must enter the results of the operational check in the operations log.

[81 FR 36149, June 6, 2016]