alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**ERG Proposal ref#:**  11-411-HC Proposal valid for 30 days Attn: DAN-TAM NGUYEN Date: 6/27/2011 Ph: 703-633-1617 3 pages

**Qty. 100 GPM**  **Unit Price Total Price**  1Model: WCR-A216M Frame material: Carbon Steel Surface Area: 29 ft2 21) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets Single pass flow 2" MPT 316ss connections ASME code rated at 150 PSI Safety shroud included 18L Frame length, Max plates: 58 **$2,442.89 $2,442.89**  1 100 GPM with Titanium plates **$4,198.00 500 GPM**  1Model: WCR-A425M Frame material: Carbon Steel Surface Area: 137 ft2 60) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets Single pass flow 4" Studded 316ss connections ASME code rated at 150 PSI Safety shroud included 36L Frame length, Max plates: 86 **$5,314.55 $5,314.55**  1 500 GPM with Titanium plates **$10,691.00 1500 GPM**  1Model: WCR-A891M Frame material: Carbon Steel Surface Area: 576 ft2 65) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets Single pass flow 8" Studded 316ss connections ASME code rated at 150 PSI Safety shroud included 1000L Frame length, Max plates: 85 **$22,716.80 $22,716.80**  1 1500 GPM with Titanium plates **$38,764.00** HComer@Plate-Heatexchanger.com 

# WCR Heat Exchangers Mail: 221 Crane Street / Ship: 1300 East First Street

Dayton, OH 45403 Ph: 937-223-0703 Fx: 937-223-2818WCR heat exchanger performance accuracy is dependent on accuracy of customer data and conformance to specified operating conditions. Please review specification sheet carefully before placing Purchase Order.
Shipment Terms: Collect or Third Party Bill Shipment Point: Dayton, Ohio Shipment: 4-6 weeks after receipt of order or drawing approval, if required Terms of Payment: Net 30 days based on approved credit Terms of Sale: Can be found on our homepage @ www.wcr-heatexchangers.com

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. If at anytime you have concerns or you are dissatisfied with our level of service, please communicate this to us at once. Our mission is to set the standard for premiere service in the heat exchanger industry. With your help we are confident we will accomplish our mission

Best Regards,

Heather Comer Application Engineer

Cc: Ed Aring
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6650

SHERMAN X. BRANDON; WILL 3X ANDERSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, INCORPORATED; EMILE R.

CLOUD, Staff Chaplain,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-223-3)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman X. Brandon, Will 3X Anderson, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order declining to reconsider the prior order transferring their civil rights action to

the District Court for the District of Columbia. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
§ 663.23 Description of pre-award audit. A pre-award audit under this part includes— ( a ) A Buy America certification as described in § 663.25 of this part;
( b ) A purchaser's requirements certification as described in § 663.27 of this part; and
( c ) Where appropriate, a manufacturer's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety certification information as described in § 663.41 or § 663.43 of this part.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Noonan, Patrick O SSG NG NG NGB 

[mailto:patrick.noonan@us.army.mil] 

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:53 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

 The reason people have 401K's is because the Government (You) can't 

be trusted to handle money responsibly. Social Security is a dismal 

failure - because of government incompetence, and now you're looking 

for new victims to steal money from. Don't waste my time or yours 

claiming your plan will be voluntary - we all know it will be voluntary 

until you find out no one wants to trust you with their savings - then 

suddenly the law will change and you will be looting peoples savings 

with no restraint. Leave our retirement savings alone!! 

Pat Noonan
#### UNITED STATES v. WILSON et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

October 27, 1911.)

Costs (§ 304*) — Federal Prosecutions.

The word “costs,” witbin Rev. St. § 974 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 703), providing for taxation of costs against a defendant on judgment against him for a fine or forfeiture, means taxable costs of tbe trial, within section 983 (page 706), which provides how bills of costs shall be taxed, excluding fees of trial jurors, fees and mileage of persons not examined as witnesses, and fees for service of subpoenas upon persons who did not testify, unless in the latter cases the adverse party is in default.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Costs, Dee. Dig. § 304.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1633-1040;-vol. 8, p. 7620.]

Proceeding by the United States of America against Christopher C. Wilson and others. On defendants’ exceptions to costs taxed.

Exceptions sustained.

Henry A. Wise, U. S. Atty. and Robert Stephenson, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Stanchfield & Revy and Arthur M. King, for defendants.

*

For other cases see same topic & § waiuiis in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r ladexa»

WARD, Circuit Judge.

I think that the word “costs,” in section 974, Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 703), means taxable costs of the trial before the court and petit jury in which defendants have been convicted. This is the bill which section 983 (page 706) provides is to he taxed and included in the judgment. It has not been the practice in this district to tax the fees of trial jurors, nor the fees and mileage of persons not examined as witnesses at the trial, nor fees for service of subpoenas upon persons who did not testify at the trial, unless in the latter cases the adverse party default.

The exceptions are sustained; plaintiff’s bill of costs to be retaxed in accordance with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 12.1    CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
                FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Years ended December 31,                                          2000      1999       1998      1997      1996
                                                                -------   -------    -------   -------   -------
(In millions, except ratios)
<S>                                                             <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>
Income (loss) before income tax, net of minority interest       $ 1,782   $   (41)   $   329   $ 1,358   $ 1,345
Adjustments:
    Interest expense                                                206       202        219       198       200
    Interest element of operating lease rental                       32        35         47        34        32
                                                                -------   -------    -------   -------   -------

Earnings before fixed charges                                   $ 2,020   $   196    $   595   $ 1,590   $ 1,577
                                                                =======   =======    =======   =======   =======

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                            $   206   $   202    $   219   $   198   $   200
    Interest element of operating lease rental                       32        35         47        34        32
                                                                -------   -------    -------   -------   -------

Total fixed charges                                             $   238   $   237    $   266   $   232   $   232
                                                                =======   =======    =======   =======   =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)                              8.5       0.8        2.2       6.8       6.8
                                                                =======   =======    =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>

(1)  For purposes of computing this ratio, earnings consist of income before
     income taxes plus fixed charges of consolidated companies. Fixed charges
     consist of interest and that portion of operating lease rental expense
     which is deemed to be an interest factor for such rentals.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

h1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143427 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143427 

 COA: 296730 

ROMANDO LEWIS, Wayne CC: 09-020831-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 801

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 801 appear at 86 FR 54641, Oct. 4, 2021.

#### § 801.61 Appeals of fee determinations.

Requesters seeking an appeal of the FOIA Office's fee or fee waiver determination must send a written appeal to the Managing Director within 90 calendar days. The Managing Director will determine whether to grant or deny any appeal made pursuant to § 801.21 within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receipt of such appeal, except that this time limit may be extended for as many as 10 additional days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays), in accordance with § 801.23.
Gen. Mattis orders investigation into death of Linda Norgrove
 By None  , U.S. Central Command
  MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (Oct. 11, 2010) — At the request of Gen. David H. Petraeus, Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. James N. Mattis has appointed U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, U.S. Special Operations Command, to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of British national Linda Norgrove. The investigation team will work in close cooperation with U.K. authorities. Ms. Norgrove, an aid worker, was kidnapped by insurgents Sept. 26 and held in captivity in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. She died during rescue operations by U.S. forces on Oct. 8.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 443

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for programs and

activities to prevent perpetrators of fraud from victimizing senior citizens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 2002

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. MCHUGH, and Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for

programs and activities to prevent perpetrators of fraud

from victimizing senior citizens.

Whereas perpetrators of mail, telemarketing, and Internet

fraud frequently target their schemes at senior citizens

because seniors are often vulnerable and trusting people;

Whereas, as victims of such schemes, many senior citizens

have been robbed of their hard-earned life savings and

frequently pay an emotional cost, losing not only their

money, but also their self-respect and dignity;

Whereas perpetrators of fraudulent schemes against American seniors often operate outside the United States,

reaching their victims through the mail, telephone lines,

and the Internet;
2

•HRES 443 IH

Whereas the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act

increased the power of the United States Postal Service

to protect consumers against those who use deceptive

mailings featuring games of chance, sweepstakes, skill

contests, and facsimile checks;

Whereas the Postal Inspection Service responded to 66,000

mail fraud complaints, arrested 1,691 mail fraud offenders, convicted 1,477 such offenders, and initiated 642

civil or administrative actions in fiscal year 2001;

Whereas mail fraud investigations by the Postal Inspection

Service in fiscal year 2001 resulted in over

$1,200,000,000 in court-ordered and voluntary restitution payments;

Whereas the Postal Inspection Service, in an effort to curb

cross-border fraud, is involved in 3 major fraud task

forces with law enforcement officials in Canada, namely,

Project Colt in Montreal, The Strategic Partnership in

Toronto, and Project Emptor in Vancouver;

Whereas consumer awareness is the best protection from

fraudulent schemes; and

Whereas it is vital to increase public awareness of the enormous impact that fraud has on senior citizens in the

United States, and to educate the public, senior citizens,

their families, and their caregivers about the signs of

fraudulent activities and how to report suspected fraudulent activities to the appropriate authorities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby

2 expresses its support for programs and activities—
3

•HRES 443 IH

1 (1) to prevent perpetrators of fraud from vic2 timizing senior citizens in the United States; and

3 (2) to educate and inform the public, senior

4 citizens, their families, and their caregivers about

5 fraud perpetrated through mail, telemarketing, and

6 the Internet.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 590 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 16, 2002.
    Resolved, That any organizational caucus or conference in the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Eighth Congress may begin on or after 
November 1, 2002.
    Sec. 2. (a) With the approval of the majority leader (in the case of a 
Member or Member-elect of the majority party) or the minority leader (in the 
case of a Member or Member-elect of the minority party), the provisions of law 
described in subsection (b) shall apply with respect to the attendance of a 
Member or Member-elect at a program conducted by the Committee on House 
Administration for the orientation of new members of the One Hundred Eighth 
Congress in the same manner as such provisions apply to the attendance of the 
Member or Member-elect at the organizational caucus or conference.
    (b) The provisions of law described in this subsection are as follows:
            (1) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 202 of House Resolution 988, 
        Ninety-third Congress, agreed to on October 8, 1974, and enacted into 
        permanent law by chapter III of title I of the Supplemental 
        Appropriations Act, 1975 (2 U.S.C. 29a).
            (2) Section 1 of House Resolution 10, Ninety-fourth Congress, agreed 
        to on January 14, 1975, and enacted into permanent law by section 201 of 
        the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1976 (2 U.S.C. 43b-2).
    Sec. 3. As used in this resolution, the term ``organizational caucus or 
conference'' means a party caucus or conference authorized to be called under 
section 202(a) of House Resolution 988, Ninety-third Congress, agreed to on 
October 8, 1974, and enacted into permanent law by chapter III of title I of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1975 (2 U.S.C. 29a(a)).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0970.html[7/21/2015 6:59:04 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-sv01

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-0970

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Earle Stone

Address:

5646 Sir Gareth Dr

San Antonio, TX, 78218

Email: lordisking1986@gmail.com

Phone: 2109902452

General Comment

Leave my retirement ALONE. I can take care of and plan for my retirement WITHOUT the government. The

 money I have put away thus far and the money I will be putting in, is from my hard earned money. I fully expect

 to receive ALL of my money when I retire.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131044 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131044 

 COA: 258491 

Saginaw CC: 03-023660-FC 

LUCIANO ALEX HERNANDEZ,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
# Lithuania Joins the International Maritime Security Construct

/ Published March 26, 2020
MANAMA, Bahrain, 
The International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) welcomes Lithuania’s participation in the multinational efforts aimed at enhancing maritime security throughout key waterways in the Middle East.

Lithuania is the eighth member nation to join the IMSC since it formed in November 2019.   Other members include Albania, Australia, Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

The IMSC is enabling nations to work cooperatively to promote the free flow of commerce, deter threats to shipping, and enhance maritime domain awareness and surveillance in the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hurmuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Oman.

British Royal Navy Commodore James Parkin, the Commander of IMSC, expressed his appreciation to the Lithuanians for taking a leading role in regional security matters.

“As the eighth member of the IMSC, Lithuania joins us to ensure the safety of all our shipping in the Gulf region and we look forward to other nations joining our operation,” said Parkin.  “Threats to the free flow of commerce are an international problem, and we are honoured that Lithuania is now part of the team assisting in upholding the principles of freedom of navigation.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           943,817
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 27,525,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (1,162,044)
<INVENTORY>                                    5,696,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              40,090,592
<PP&E>                                        49,673,702
<DEPRECIATION>                               (11,694,622)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               155,046,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         31,703,537
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,651,867
<COMMON>                                      88,888,863
<OTHER-SE>                                      (729,130)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 155,046,103
<SALES>                                       69,412,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              69,412,543
<CGS>                                         49,429,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 16,479,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,485,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,121,739
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,060,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,060,869
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .12



</TABLE>
§ 71.9 Boundary line between mountain and Pacific zones. ( a ) *Montana-Idaho-Oregon.* From the junction of the Idaho-Montana boundary with the boundary between the United States and Canada southerly along the Idaho-Montana boundary to the boundary line between Idaho County, Idaho, and Lemhi County, Idaho; thence southwesterly along the boundary line between those two counties to the main channel of the Salmon River; thence westerly along the main channel of the Salmon River to the Idaho-Oregon boundary; thence southerly along that boundary to the boundary line between Baker County, Oreg., and Malheur County, Oreg.; thence westerly along the north line of Malheur County to the northwest corner of Malheur County; thence southerly along the west line of Malheur County to the southwest corner of T. 35 S., R. 37 E.; thence east to the Idaho-Oregon boundary; thence south along that boundary to the southwest corner of the State of Idaho; thence easterly along the Idaho-Nevada boundary to the northeast corner of the State of Nevada.
( b ) *Utah-Nevada-Arizona-California.* From the northeast corner of the State of Nevada southerly along the Utah-Nevada boundary to the junction with the northern border of the City of West Wendover, Nevada. Then westward along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the City of West Wendover back to the Utah-Nevada boundary. Then southerly along the Utah-Nevada boundary, the Nevada-Arizona boundary, and the Arizona-California boundary to the boundary between the United States and Mexico.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Municipalities on boundary line.* All municipalities located upon the zone boundary line described in this section are in the mountain standard time zone.
[Amdt. 71-11, 35 FR 12318, Aug. 1, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 71-14, 38 FR 13725, May 25, 1973; 64 FR 56707, Oct. 21, 1999; 78 FR 15885, Mar. 13, 2013]