alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Monthly Wholesale Trade
 You are here: Census.gov › Business 
    & Industry › Wholesale › 
    Monthly › FAQs Skip 
  top of page navigation
 Main
      About the Survey
      Get Forms
      Historical Data
      How the Survey is Collected
      Definitions
      FAQs
  Are you in a survey? Is this form legitimate?
    Get Help With Your Form Related Sites Business and Industry
    Annual Wholesale Trade
    Economic Census
    Economic Indicators
    E-Stats
                North American Industry Classification System
    Nonemployer Statistics
   Business Help Site
   Manufacturing & Trade Inventories & Sales
   Advance Economic Indicators
 FAQs  General FAQs
                Sample 
                  Revision FAQs
		Natural Disaster FAQs
    What is a sample revision and why is it necessary? A sample revision is the process used to re-design and re-select 
                  the samples for the Census Bureau's surveys of the retail, 
                  wholesale, and service industries. This process is performed 
                  to: improve the efficiency of each sample
  incorporate updates to the industry classification structure
  expand industry coverage of the survey
  update questions and instructions to obtain more accurate data, and
  redistribute burden for small and medium size businesses.
 How often is a sample revision performed for the 
                Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey?  What is the size of the Monthly Wholesale Trade 
                Survey sample?  Are the estimates from the prior and new samples comparable? In most cases, yes. Whenever possible, estimates from the prior and new samples have been put on a comparable basis. For a detailed description of the process used to link the estimates from the prior and new samples and for specific information on which industry estimates are not comparable, please refer to http://www.census.gov/wholesale/pdf/mwts/methods/MWTS_Stratification.pdf.
 What is the impact of adopting the 2012 North American Industry 
                  Classification System (NAICS) definitions for the Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey? The new sample was designed with the 2012 NAICS definitions in mind. All estimates on the new 
                     sample are in terms of those definitions. In order to have consistent time series, all estimates from 
                     prior samples, that were in terms of 2007 NAICS definitions were restated to be in terms of 2012
                     NAICS definitions. For MWTS, only estimates for NAICS 4236 and 4237 were changed. 
                    For more information on NAICS, please see http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.




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
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Fran k and Humphreys Argued at Rich mond, Virginia

LEVI MILTON WA LKER, S/K/A LEVY MILTON WALKER MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2653-99-2 JU DGE RUDOLPH BU MGARDNER, III OCTOBER 10, 2000 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill , Jr., Judge Emmet D. Alexander for appellant. Larry S. Hogan, As sistant Comm onwealth's Attorney (William W. Davenport, Commonwealth's Attorney ; B. Scott McMichael, Third Year Law Intern, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. Levi Milton Walker appeals his conviction of driving under the influence. He contends that Chesterfield County improperly enacted its driving under the influence ordinance. Finding no error, we affirm. The arrest warrant charged the defendant did "drive or operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcoholic beverages or other self administered intoxicants and/or drugs as described in Section 18.2-266(I), (II), (III) and/or (IV) 1950 code of Virginia as amended." It then cited both the localordinance and the state code, "13-1/18.2-266." The defendant pleaded not guilty but stipulated the Commonwealth's evidence and presented no defense evidence. The trial court convicted the defendant of driving under the influence in violation of Code § 18.2-266. The defendant argues the county ordinance was invalid because the General Assembly amended the code after the county adopted its ordinance. See Code § 46.2-1313. However, the final order clearly states the trial court convicted the defendant of violating Code § 18.2-266, not of violating the local ordinance. The order from which the defendant appeals does not reflect the issue he raises. We cannot consider the issue raised because a court speaks only through its orders.

See Cunningham v. Smith , 205 Va. 205, 208, 135 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1964). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. Affirmed.

- 2 -
#### § 840.6 Priority of Board investigations.

Any investigation of an accident conducted by the Safety Board shall have priority over all other investigations of such accident conducted by other Federal agencies. The Safety Board shall provide for the appropriate participation by other Federal agencies in any such investigation, except that such agencies may not participate in the Safety Board's determination of the probable cause of the accident. Nothing in this section impairs the authority of other Federal agencies to conduct investigations of an accident under applicable provisions of law or to obtain information directly from parties involved in, and witnesses to, the transportation accident. The Safety Board and other Federal agencies shall assure that appropriate information obtained or developed in the course of their investigations is exchanged in a timely manner.

[47 FR 49408, Nov. 1, 1982]
§ 825.1 Applicability. The provisions of this part govern all proceedings before the National Transportation Safety Board (Board) on appeals taken from decisions, on or after April 1, 1975, of the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, sustaining orders of an administrative law judge, revoking, suspending, or denying a license, certificate, document, or register in proceedings under: ( a ) R.S. 4450, as amended (46 U.S.C. 239);
( b ) Act of July 15, 1954 (46 U.S.C. 239a-b); or
( c ) Section 4, Great Lakes Pilotage Act (46 U.S.C. 216(b)).
§ 800.43 Processing of petition. ( a ) Unless the NTSB otherwise specifies, no public hearing, argument, or other proceeding is held directly on a petition before its disposition under this section.
( b ) *Grants.* If the agency determines the petition contains adequate justification, it initiates rule making action this subpart.
( c ) *Denials.* If the agency determines the petition does not justify rulemaking, it denies the petition.
( d ) *Notification.* Whenever the agency determines a petition should be granted or denied, the Office of the General Counsel prepares a notice of the grant or denial for issuance to the petitioner, and the agency issues it to the petitioner.
In-Person Attendees: The Residential Clothes Dryer Test Procedures Rulemaking Meeting Meeting Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Armstrong, Ashley General Engineer U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW WashingtonDC 20585-0121 Battaglia, James Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 90 Park Ave, 10th FloorNew York NY 10016 Berringer, Bryan Lead Mechanical Engineer Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue SW Mailstop EE-2J WashingtonDC 20585 Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 Butler, Sarah GC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Denkenberger, DavidTechnical Specialist Ecova 1199 Maine Ave #242 Durango CO 81301 Fiffer, Melissa ENERGY STAR Appliances Product Manager U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW WashingtonDC 20460 Gopal, Sriram Policy Analyst Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 402 WashingtonDC 20036 Lyman, Jessica Associate ICF International 1725 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1000 WashingtonDC 20006 Mauer, Joanna Technical Advocacy Coordinator Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600 WashingtonDC 20045 Mouw, Nathan A. Director, Regulatory Affairs Whirlpool Corporation 2000 N M-63, MD3005 Benton Harbor MI 49022 Reich, Judith Associate Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington MA 01803 Staebler, Manfred Vice President, Government Affairs BSH Home Appliances Corporation 1901 Main Street, Suite 600 Irvine CA 92614 Stephens, Charlie Senior Energy Codes & Standards Engineer Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)421 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 600 Portland OR 97204
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 101 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 101

   Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that schools 
 across the Nation should teach about the role of Native Americans in 
 American history and culture and lead community service projects that 
                        further that education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

   Mr. Baca (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Carson of 
 Oklahoma, Mr. English, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Honda, Mr. Frost, 
Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Kind, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stupak, 
and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) submitted the following resolution; which 
      was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that schools 
 across the Nation should teach about the role of Native Americans in 
 American history and culture and lead community service projects that 
                        further that education.

Whereas Native Americans have given much to this country;
Whereas an emphasis on freedom, justice, patriotism, and representative 
        government have always been elements of Native American culture;
Whereas Native Americans have shown their willingness to fight and die for this 
        Nation in foreign lands;
Whereas Native Americans honor the American flag at every powwow and at many 
        gatherings and remember all veterans through song, music, and dance;
Whereas Native Americans honor, through song, the men and women of this country 
        who have fought for freedom;
Whereas Native Americans love the land that has nurtured their parents, 
        grandparents, and unnamed elders since the beginning of their recorded 
        history; and
Whereas Native Americans honor the Earth that has brought life to the people 
        since time immemorial: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) schools across the Nation should teach about the role 
        of Native Americans in American history and culture and lead 
        community service projects that further that education; and
            (2) there should be a legal public holiday honoring Native 
        Americans.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01097-CR

JOHN HENRY ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-52271-P

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Lisabeth Kellett’s January 17, 2019 second request for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time 

to file the reporter’s record until February 6, 2019.

If Ms. Kellett fails to file the record by February 6, 2019, the Court may utilize its 

available remedies, including ordering that she not sit until the complete reporter’s record is 

filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Lisabeth Kellett and to counsel for the parties.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SAMUEL PAINTER

, 1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

LOUISE PAINTER

,

Respondent Below

, Appellee

. §

§ No. 262 , 20 21

§

§ Court Below: Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ File No. CN1 4

- 02909

§ Petition No. 20

- 13918

§

§

Submitted: September 14 , 20 21

Decided: September 17 , 20 21

O R D E R

(1) T he appellant (“ Father ”) filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court

order , dated July 19, 2021, that considered Father’s petition for modification of

visitation with the parties’ child . The Family Court’s decision ordered Father and

the child to begin engaging in family therapy to work toward increased contact and

provided that the court would hold a review hearing on December 9, 2021, to

consider what progress had been made before taking further action.

(2) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders. 2 An order is final

,

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 Hines v. Williams , 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018).2

rather than interlocutory, when it “leaves nothing for future determination or

consideration.” 3

(3) The Clerk issued a notice directing Father to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in

taking an appeal from an interlocutory order

. On September 2, 2021, the Court

received the certified mail receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had been

delivered. A time ly response to the notice to show cause would have been due on

or before September 13, 2021. The appellant having failed to respond to the notice

to show cause within the required ten

- day period, dismissal of this action is deemed

to be unopposed.

NOW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ G ary F. Traynor

Justice

3 Werb v. D’Alessandro , 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Protection And Detection Surface (PADS) for damage toleranceA protection and detection surface (PADS) concept was studied for application to composite primary aircraft structures. A Kevlar-epoxy woven face sheet with a Rohacell foam core was found to be the most effective PADS configuration among the configurations evaluated. The weight of the PADS configuration was estimated to be approximately 17 pct of the structural weight. The PADS configuration was bonded to graphite-epoxy base laminates, and up to a 70 pct improvement in compression-after-impact failure strains was observed.Document ID19900018472Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsShuart, Mark J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Prasad, Chunchu B.*(Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., Hampton VA., United States)*Biggers, Sherrill B.*(Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Burbank, CA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1990Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:3011NASA-TP-3011L-16775Accession Number90N27788Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 510-02-21-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900018472.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle19920023269WorkEighth DOD/NASA/FAA Conference on Fibrous Composites in Structural Design, part 1visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
1210-AB32-2-1630.html[7/26/2015 9:11:09 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxz-fwwc

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-2127

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Joanne Robinson

General Comment

Stay out of my retirement choices, I certainly don't need the government ( which there only interest is for

 themselves) telling me what to do. 

When the people fear the Government there is Tyranny, when the Government fears the people, there is Liberty.

Joanne Robinson
<PAGE>  80


                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors and Shareholders
Coachmen Industries, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-52378) pertaining to the Retirement Plan and Trust of Coachmen
Industries, Inc., 2000 Omnibus Stock Incentive Program and Supplemental Deferred
Compensation Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59251) pertaining to
the 1994 Omnibus Stock Incentive Program, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
2-64572) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Coachmen Industries,
Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 30, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                                /S/ Ernst & Young LLP


Grand Rapids, MI
March 24, 2003
#### § 570.52 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish criteria for the inspection of motor vehicles through State inspection programs, in order to reduce deaths and injuries attributable to failure or inadequate performance of the motor vehicle systems covered by this part.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Bob Fogerty [mailto:rfogerty2@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:07 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Cc: Fogerty-Debbie 

Subject: Rollover 401(K) to annuity 

Adding annuities to the options available when rolling over a 401(K) is 

an excellent, long overdue action. I hope it is taken with no wasted 

time. 

For your information: I am 66, retired and have a 401(K) in high six 

figures that I have yet to draw on. When I do so, I hope I have the 

opportunity to consider annuitizing the balance. It seems to me that 

the option will be even more valuable to retirees with less investment 

sophistication and fewer financial resources than I have. 

Furthermore, I hope the government is actively considering offering the 

option to retirees of purchasing PBGC insurance for annuities purchased 

from private sector insurance companies. A small fee (at a fixed rate) 

collected through those providers would pay for the PBGC insurance, 

thus protecting the U.S. Treasury (i.e. the taxpayer) in the case of an 

insurance company failure. 

Robert Fogerty
From: Robert Spurlock [mailto:spurlockrj@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:13 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 - Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Retirement Plans

To Whom It May Concern, 

Do NOT under any circumstances change the rules for employer-sponsored 

retirement plans or individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) to require that 

existing money in these plans or new money added to these funds be directed, by 

mandate, into some form of annuity. 

The U.S. government has screwed up its own finances to the point where it is the 

largest debtor nation on the planet and in the history of the world. Trillion dollar 

deficits are forecast for years. Unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security 

dwarf the acknowledged national debt. The largest insurance company in the U.S. 

completely blew up and is now a ward of the U.S. government. I don't want the U.S. 

government or companies like AIG, who might be selected to run the annuity plans, 

taking my money and giving me an IOU. 

Additionally, we've seen the U.S. government transfer immense wealth to the very 

bankers responsible for the current financial crisis. You can bet that the real 

beneficiaries of forced annuities will be the bankers who administer the plans. 

This is just one more example of "extend and pretend". In this case the government 

would take massive funds from individuals, to make the government's (and favored 

corporate entities responsible for managing the plans) near term financial situation 

seem better. But this will be at the expense of the individual and will probably, in the 

long term, only add to the liabilities of the government - which they are already 

completely incapable of meeting. (Anyone remember the Social Security Trust Fund? 

Years of excess contributions to the fund, which might have been saved and invested 

to support required future payments to retirees, was directed to the general fund 

and all that remains are IOU's! Nice move! Very prudent! Of course it did seem, 

while it lasted, to make the deficit seem better - more extend and pretend in action.) 

Additionally, the long term financial implications of this action are extremely hard to 

assess. But I think one thing is guaranteed - It will further distort the investment 

landscape as trillions of dollars, now managed by individuals, will be funneled into a 

few firms responsible for managing the plans. 

Please keep your hands off our hard earned money - which I might add, has taken 

many of us a life time of hard work and thrift to accumulate. 

You did not work for this money. You did not sacrifice to save it and it is not yours. If 

you want to give all your own money to the government in return for an IOU feel 

free to do it. Please don't envision doing it with my money. 

The purpose of Social Security is to provide a minimal guaranteed stream of income 

to people when they retire. You should NOT consider converting these other 

retirement investment programs into such a plan. 
Sincerely, 

Jack Spurlock