alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States governmentSkip to main content
end of header


Census.gov
                                    >                                
                                Business and Economy    >Retail - Monthly    >State Retail Sales
 Skip to looking for section Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us Back to Our Surveys & Programs
 Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us
                                Back to Our Surveys & Programs
  Monthly State Retail Sales
 Experimental Tables Logo The Monthly State Retail Sales (MSRS) is the Census Bureau's new experimental data product featuring modeled state-level retail sales. This is a blended data product using Monthly Retail Trade Survey data, administrative data, and third-party data. Year-over-year percentage changes are available for Total Retail Sales excluding Nonstore Retailers as well as 11 retail North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) retail subsectors. These data are provided by state and NAICS codes beginning with January 2019. The Census Bureau plans to continue to improve the methodology to be able to publish more data in the future.
Please email us with any questions or feedback at EID.Monthly.State.Retail@census.gov Data December 2023 Monthly State Retail Sales were released on March 28, 2024 and are available in the csv files and data visualization below. For explanatory materials for these experimental statistics, please visit the Monthly State Retail Sales Overview and the technical documentation. For more information on the content of the data files, please reference the Monthly State Retail Sales Data Dictionary December 2023 Monthly State Retail Sales Report: PDF
	Not Adjusted State Retail Sales Year-over-Year Percentage Changes: CSV
	Standard Errors: CSV
	Coverage Measures: CSV
 Interactive Visualization
 Other Information January 2024 Monthly State Retail Sales data will be released at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2024. The MSRS release date schedule is available here. For questions or feedback, please email EID.Monthly.State.Retail@census.gov The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data (Project No. P-7506880, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY24-0004).


CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.42 Written interrogatories to parties. ( a ) Without leave, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party to whom the interrogatories are directed; or, if that party is a public or private corporation or partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who will furnish the information available to that party.
( b ) The maximum number of interrogatories served will not exceed 30, including all subparts, unless the Agency Decisionmaker or Administrative Law Judge permits a larger number on motion and for good cause shown. Other interrogatories may be added without leave, so long as the total number of approved and additional interrogatories does not exceed 30.
( c ) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath unless it is objected to, in which event the grounds for objection shall be stated and signed by the party, or counsel for the party, if represented, making the response. The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall serve the answers and any objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories, or within such shortened or longer period as the Agency Decisionmaker or the Administrative Law Judge may allow.
( d ) Motions to compel may be made in accordance with § 386.45.
( e ) A notice of discovery must be served on the Agency Decisionmaker or, in cases that have been referred to the Office of Hearings, on the Administrative Law Judge. A copy of the interrogatories, answers, and all related pleadings must be served on all parties to the proceeding.
( f ) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the Agency Decisionmaker or Administrative Law Judge may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a prehearing conference or other later time.
[70 FR 28483, May 18, 2005]
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements No. 33-85224, No. 333-22283, No. 333-43323, No. 333-64539,
No. 333-64529, No. 333-73255, No. 333-49276, No. 333-53688 and No. 333-62540 on
Form S-3 of Tyco Capital Corporation (formerly The CIT Group, Inc.) of our
reports dated October 18, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Tyco Capital Corporation and its subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholder's equity and cash flows
for the period from June 2, 2001 through September 30, 2001 and the period from
January 1, 2001 through June 1, 2001, which appear in this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

New York, New York
December 26, 2001
#### § 375.215 How must I collect charges?

You must issue an honest, truthful invoice that includes all the information required by subpart A of part 373 of this chapter. All rates and charges for the transportation and related services must be in accordance with your appropriately published tariff provisions in effect, including the method of payment.

[87 FR 24447, Apr. 26, 2022]
#### § 368.8 Appeals.

An applicant has the right to appeal denial of the application. The appeal must be in writing and specify in detail why the Agency's decision to deny the application was wrong. The appeal must be filed with FMCSA, ATTN: § 368.8 Appeal, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, within 20 days of the date of the letter denying the application.

[80 FR 63707, Oct. 21, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 57068, Oct. 14, 2021]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 82 FR 5304, Jan. 17, 2017, § 368.8 was suspended, effective Jan. 14, 2017. At 86 FR 57068, Oct. 14, 2021, the suspension was lifted and amendments were made to § 368.8. In that same document, § 368.8 was again suspended indefinitely.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD HAGY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-95-10044, CA-97-776-R)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Hagy, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Albert Lloret, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 11, 1997;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 1998, which is

beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
-----Original Message-----

From: Gary Miller [mailto:gary@trustedfinancial.com] 

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:47 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

As a Registered Investment Advisor (California) and Certified Financial Planner (TM), I am writing in 

support of DOL's proposed expansion of the definition of "Fiduciary" with regard to those advising 

retirement plans, including IRA accounts.

Deep conflicts of interest lie with those who resist taking responsibility for offering advice that is in the 

best interests of their clients who are retirement plan beneficiaries. Having operated under a "fiduciary" 

mandate for some 25 years, I find no quarrel with meeting this standard, nor should any entity that 

wishes to participate in the large and lucrative retirement market.

We live In an era when millions of our fellow citizens are rapidly entering their retirement years, and 

becoming increasingly dependent upon their personal savings to supplement government benefits in 

retirement. In the private sector, guaranteed pension income or subsidized health benefits has become 

a rarity, even for those who have loyally served a single employer for many years. The current 

generation of "Baby Boomer"Americans must rely to a greater degree on their own savings and 

investments than their parents' generation to maintain a decent quality of life when they are no longer 

able to work or to find gainful employment. As your proposed rule making points out, the "Fiduciary" 

definition was developed in 1975, a time when the benefits landscape allowed retirees a greater degree 

of institutional support from benefit plan sponsors who were likely to be more sophisticated when 

managing retiree assets. Today, individuals are rarely educated in the many investment options 

potentially available to them, and often fall victim to confusing, unnecessary or over priced schemes. 

This change in the landscape from 1975 , coupled with our aging population, justifies in my opinion, 

DOL's efforts to expand the definition of Fiduciary. All citizens particularly the "little guy" need to be 

protected from inappropriate investment advice and hidden, often egregious fee impositions. 

I would however, urge DOL to avoid using this expansion of the Fiduciary definition to justify a regime of 

annual filings and the bureaucratic build-up that is likely to go with such a requirement. Why? Because 

it would seem to me that as the Fiduciary standard expands, investors and plan sponsors will be able to 

afford themselves of the robust legal and/or arbitration process potentially available to them through 

established channels.

I hope the Department of Labor is able to resist the lobbying that has already become apparent from 

questionable sales organizations who wish to shirk their implied responsibility to individual citizens and 

retirement plan sponsors by curtailing this effort by DOL to expand the definition of "Fiduciary"

Sincerely

Gary E Miller, CFP(R)

Trusted Financial Advisors

30101 Town Center Drive

Suite 100

Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Alfacell Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kuslima Shogen,
Chief Executive Officer and Acting 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.

Date:  December 15, 2003


                                         /s/ Kuslima Shogen
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Name: Kuslima Shogen
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer,
                                                Principal Financial Officer
                                                and Chief Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alfacell Corporation and will be retained by Alfacell Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from     
 the  Alfacell  Corporation  Balance  Sheet as of January  31,  1997 and the
 Statements of  Operations  for the six months ended January 31, 1997 and is
 qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.      
 </LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JAN-31-1997 
<CASH>                                  $8,546,686 
<SECURITIES>                                     0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0 
<INVENTORY>                                      0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         8,668,470 
<PP&E>                                     951,440 
<DEPRECIATION>                             707,001 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           8,946,330 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,710,273 
<BONDS>                                          0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0 
<COMMON>                                    14,577 
<OTHER-SE>                               7,201,431 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             8,946,330 
<SALES>                                          0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           229,048 
<CGS>                                            0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,248,188  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          63,043  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (2,082,183)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (2,082,183)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0  
<CHANGES>                                        0  
<NET-INCOME>                           (2,082,183)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.14)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.14)  
                                     
                              

</TABLE>
H. Res. 235

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 13, 2001.

Whereas the Jerusalem Fund has launched a Words Can

Heal Campaign on September 4, 2001, to reduce verbal

violence and gossip and to promote the value and practice

of ethical speech in order improve our democracy, build

mutual respect, honor, and dignity in our country;

Whereas words used unfairly, whether expressed through excessive anger, unfair criticism, public and private humiliation, bigoted comments, cruel jokes, or rumors and malicious gossip, can traumatize and damage many lives;

Whereas an unwillingness or inability of many parents to

control what they say when angry causes the infliction of

potentially damaging verbal abuse on many children;

Whereas bigoted words are often used to dehumanize entire

religious, racial, and ethnic groups, and can inflame hostility;

Whereas the spreading of negative and often unfair, untrue,

or exaggerated comments or rumors about others often

inflicts irrevocable damage on the victim of such rumors;

Whereas the Words Can Heal Campaign will raise awareness

regarding the damage that can be caused by destructive

language; and
2

•HRES 235 EH

Whereas the House of Representatives supports the goals of

the Words Can Heal Campaign: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the House of Representatives supports the goals

of the Words Can Heal Campaign; and

(2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to support the

goals of such campaign with appropriate programs and

activities.

Attest:

Clerk.
1210-AB32-2-1355.html[7/26/2015 2:20:38 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvz-d9hi

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1851

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I reject The Department of Labor enacting regulations that would restrict how I use my money for my retirement.

 The DOL needs to stay out of the peoples business, We are well aware and capable of planning our own

 retirement thank you, and I will make my voice heard.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAP-12-0000018 

16-JUL-2013 

02:08 PM 

SCAP-12-0000018
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

LIBERTY DIALYSIS-HAWAII, LLC,


a Delaware limited liability company,


Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
 

vs.
 

RAINBOW DIALYSIS, LLC,


a Delaware limited liability company,


Respondent/Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
 

and
 

STATE HEALTH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF HAWAI'I,

an administrative agency of the State of Hawai'i,

Respondent/Appellee-Appellee. 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT


(CAAP-12-0000018; CIV. NO. 11-1-0532-03)
 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ.,


with Acoba, J., dissenting, with whom Pollack, J., joins)
 

Upon consideration of Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/
 

Cross-Appellee Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC’s motion for
 

reconsideration filed on July 8, 2013, and the records and files
 

herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 16, 2013. 

Michael L. Lam, Lisa K.

Johnson, Daniel P. Collins,


and Allison B. Stein for 

petitioner/appellantappellant/cross-appellee 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama


/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

DISSENT
 

Based on the concurring and dissenting opinion filed
 

herein on June 27, 2013, I would respectfully grant the motion
 

for reconsideration.
 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

-2­
§ 382.715 Authorization to enter information into the Clearinghouse. ( a ) *C/TPAs.* No C/TPA or other service agent may enter information into the Clearinghouse on an employer's behalf unless the employer designates the C/TPA or other service agent.
( b ) *SAPs.* A driver must designate a SAP before that SAP can enter any information about the driver's return-to-duty process into the Clearinghouse.
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.51 Amendment and withdrawal of pleadings. ( a ) Except in instances covered by other rules, any time more than 15 days prior to the hearing, a party may amend his/her pleadings by serving the amended pleading on the Agency Decisionmaker or the administrative law judge, if one has been appointed, and on all parties. Within 15 days prior to the hearing, an amendment shall be allowed only at the discretion of the Administrative law judge. When an amended pleading is filed, other parties may file a response and objection within 10 days.
( b ) A party may withdraw his/her pleading any time more than 15 days prior to the hearing by serving a notice of withdrawal on the Agency Decisionmaker or the Administrative Law Judge. Within 15 days prior to the hearing a withdrawal may be made only at the discretion of the Agency Decisionmaker or the Administrative Law Judge. The withdrawal will be granted absent a finding that the withdrawal will result in injustice, prejudice, or irreparable harm to the non-moving party, or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
[50 FR 40306, Oct. 2, 1985, as amended at 70 FR 28484, May 18, 2005; 78 FR 58481, Sept. 24, 2013]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2014

h0527

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2014

149333 & (26)

ESTATE OF MOORY TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149333

COA: 319305

Wayne CC: 13-006256-AV

LAVERN HOLLOWAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Emor Haines and others, *Appellants, v.*William C. Herrick and others, *Respondents.*

Judgment and order dismissing complaint affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Hykman, J., not sitting.
#### Cassius M. Scott, by Guardian, Respondent, v. Oscar Hopkins, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court of Otsego county, affirming a. justice’s judgment, affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, P. J.