alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS’

DEADLINE

PAGE 1

H:\Criminal Cases\trial cont orders\morrishow trial order.wpd

Karen L. Unger, P.S.

 Attorney at Law

332 E. 5th, Suite 100

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 452-7688

HONORABLE JUDGE BURGESS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT 

OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. CR06-5455FDB

)

vs. ) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

EARL MORRISHOW, Jr., ) AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

 Upon stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the above-captioned case, the

records and files herein, the Court having considered the same and being of the opinion that the

ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is

necessary to insure effective trial preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of

the public and the defendant in a more speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial in this matter be continued from the current trial

date of February 5, 2007, to the new trial date of March 26, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. with a pretrial

motions’ deadline of February 20, 2007.

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cr-05455-BHS Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS’

DEADLINE

PAGE 2

H:\Criminal Cases\trial cont orders\morrishow trial order.wpd

Karen L. Unger, P.S.

 Attorney at Law

332 E. 5th, Suite 100

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 452-7688

The period of delay resulting from this continuance of the trail date from February 5,

2007, up to and including the new trial date of March 26, 2007, is hereby excluded for speedy

trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. section 316(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Done this 31st day of January, 2007. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

 /s/ Karen L. Unger 

KAREN L. UNGER

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ Kent Liu

KENT Y LIU

Assistant United States Attorney

 /s/ Kent Liu 

 KENT Y. LIU

Assistant United State Attorney 

 

Case 3:06-cr-05455-BHS Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RODNEY STEVEN MITUNIEWICZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARK et. al., 

Defendants,

Case No. C06-5383RBL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 

This Civil Rights/Americans With Disabilities Action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4. This action was filed in July of 2006. (Dkt. # 1). The matter is now before the court on

defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 52). 

Mr. Mituniewicz alleges he has lost partial function of his left arm as a result of a police dog attack. He

alleges the dog attacked his head and arm. He alleges he suffers from heart problems, obesity, diabetes, 

hypertension, and “diminished capacity” (Dkt. # 19 and 20). Mr. Mituniewicz alleges he was discriminated

against and denied work release as a result of his disabilities (Dkt. # 19 and 20).

As the court examined the motion and considered the facts of this action it became apparent that Mr.

Mituniewicz may be a member of the class, just certified in Peralez v.Washington Department of Corrections,

06-CV-5625JKA.

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL Document 53 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

Class certification occurred August 10, 2007, and the class has been defined as:

All disabled inmates of the Washington Department of Corrections who, since October 30,

2003, have been partially or wholly denied participation in the Department of Corrections’

work release program because of a disability and whose claim is limited to no more than 180

days of lost wages. 

(Peralez v Washington Department of Corrections, 06-CV-5625JKA, Dkt. # 33 (order granting certification

and defining class)).

As a member of the class, plaintiff should receive notice of the class certification in Peralez pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c)(2)(B). At that time plaintiff may elect to remain a class member in the class action or opt

out and pursue his own claims.

The parties, both plaintiff and defendants, are directed to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in light of a class being certified in Peralez v Washington

Department of Corrections, 06-CV-5625JKA. The responses to this order are due on or before September 21,

2007. 

The clerk’s office is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties in this case, and to counsel

representing the parties in Peralez. The clerk should calendar the due date of September 21, 2007. The

defendants motion to dismiss, (Dkt. # 52), is re-noted for October 5, 2007. 

DATED this 22 day of August, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL Document 53 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[111th Congress Public Law 29]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 1774]]

Public Law 111-29
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New York, as the ``Brian K. Schramm Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: June 19, 2009 -  [H.R. 1595]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BRIAN K. SCHRAMM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Brian K. 
Schramm Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 19, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1595:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Apr. 28, considered and passed House.
            May 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>

```
Exhibit 99.2

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laser-Pacific  Media Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Robert McClain, 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 to my knowledge:

     (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.


/s/Robert McClain
-----------------
Robert McClain
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
/ 

/f\ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DIALLOBE A. McDOUGALD, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

,FILED 

SEP 2 3 ~OfO 

Clerk. U.S. District & 8ankru t 

Courts for the District of COIU~~ra 

10 1614 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint 

will be dismissed. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

1 
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

Plaintiff states that he has "evidents [sic] to show that [he] was the subject to the 

Department of Justice in reguards [sic] to criminal matters." Compl. at 1. He demands 

"demages [sic] by way of federal civil awards and claims for social security claims [sic] of fraud, 

and civil rights and amendments, for incide [sic] of federal rules and regulations laws," as well as 

"demages [sic] of cost to [him] in all matters by way of Judges who reads [sic] [the] complaint." 

Id. at 2. Missing from the complaint are a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which 

the Court's jurisdiction depends and a claim that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks. For 

these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejUdice for its failure to comply with 

Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

2
```

[House Document 114-59]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - House Document 114-59
___________________________________________________________________

 
   TERMINATION OF SEYCHELLES, URUGUAY, AND VENEZUELA AS BENEFICIARY
               DEVELOPING COUNTRIES UNDER THE GSP PROGRAM

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
 
                              transmitting

    NOTIFICATION OF THE INTENTION TO TERMINATE THE DESIGNATIONS OF 
SEYCHELLES, URUGUAY, AND VENEZUELA AS BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
 UNDER THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO SEC. 
   502(f) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED [19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   October 1, 2015.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    In accordance with section 502(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (the ``1974 Act'') (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)), I 
am providing notification of my intent to terminate the 
designations of Seychelles, Uruguay, and Venezuela as 
beneficiary developing countries under the Generalized System 
of Preferences (GSP) program. Section 502(e) of the 1974 Act 
(19 U.S.C. 2462(e)) provides that if the President determines 
that a beneficiary developing country has become a ``high 
income'' country, as defined by the official statistics of the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of the 
World Bank (the ``World Bank''), the President shall terminate 
the designation of such country as a beneficiary developing 
country for purposes of the GSP program, effective on January 1 
of the second year following the year in which such 
determination is made.
    Pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have 
determined that it is appropriate to terminate the designations 
of Seychelles, Uruguay, and Venezuela as beneficiary developing 
countries under the GSP program, because they have become high 
income countries as defined by the World Bank. Accordingly, 
their eligibility for trade benefits under the GSP program will 
end on January 1, 2017.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, September 30, 2015.

                                  [all]
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT P. CASTO and MOLLY L. CASTO,

Individually, and the marital community

comprised thereof,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5152 JKA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION

OF ITS REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’

FEES FOR BRINGING ITS MOTION TO

COMPEL RESPONSE TO ITS FIRST

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF

This matter having come on regularly before this Court, and the Court having reviewed this

Motion and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Its First Interrogatories and Requests for

Production to Plaintiff, and being advised,

The court notes that defendant includes a request for fees for the preparation of both the

Motion to Compel and Declaration, as well as the Reply Brief and Supplemental Declaration. The

plaintiff did not file a response to the motion, hence no reply was authorized. Accordingly defendant

should not be awarded fees for preparing the Reply Brief and Supplemental Declaration. Accordingly

defendant’s request for fees (otherwise reasonable) in the amount of $1,196.00, will be reduced by

$230.00 for a total award of $966.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a

Determination of Its Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees for Bringing Its Motion to Compel Response to Its

First Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff is GRANTED, as follows:

Defendant is awarded $996.00 in attorneys’ fees as the amount is reasonable under the

circumstances.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold _ Honorable J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05152-JKA Document 30 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05152-JKA Document 30 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 124/2005

of 27 January 2005         

on the issue of import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of January 2005 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1),

Having regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2458/2001, and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of January 2005 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98 and notified to the Commission shall be issued for the quantities applied for, reduced by the percentages set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

2.   The available quantities carried over to the subsequent tranche are set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 122, 22.5.1996, p. 15.

(3)OJ L 37, 11.2.1998, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2296/2003 (OJ L 340, 24.12.2003, p. 35).

----

ANNEX

Reduction percentages to be applied to quantities applied for under the tranche for January 2005 and quantities carried over to the following tranche:

(a)   semi-milled and wholly milled rice falling within CN code 1006 30 

(b)   husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 

(c)   broken rice falling within CN code 1006 40 00 

----

(1)  Issue for the quantity applied for.

----
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MATTHEW FRANZINO BOLAR,

Petitioner,

v.

F. LUNA, Warden, and 

ROB McKENNA, Attorney General of

the State of Washington,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-2029-TSZ-JPD

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

On June 8, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to supplement the state court record. Dkt.

No. 30. The proposed materials appear to relate to briefing petitioner submitted to the

Washington Supreme Court. Having carefully reviewed these documents and the balance of

the record the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Respondent is directed to SHOW CAUSE as to why these documents (Dkt.

No. 30) should not be added to the record. Any objections to the inclusion of these

documents must be filed with the Court by July 14, 2006. If respondent does not object to the

addition of these materials, no submission is required. Petitioner may provide a five-page

response to the respondent’s objections, if any, no later than July 21, 2006.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the

Honorable Thomas S. Zilly

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006. AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02029-TSZ Document 39 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 1 of 13

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 6 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 13 of 13
08/23/2012 15:55

U.S. Deportment ofTransportation Fedefal Aviation Administration 8153294105



### Mr. Kirk Hawkins CEO & Founder ICON Aircraft 12511 Beatrice Street Los Angeles, CA 90066 

### Dear Mr. Hawkins: SAD

$mall Airplane Directorate 9011..ocust Kansas City, MO S4106 PAGE

. OZI!:IZ

This letter is in response to yourpetition for exemption ( 1ocket No. F

### AA~2012-0S 14) that seeks relieffrom the weight in the cutTent light-sport aircraft

### (L~A) defmition. that would 

### aJlow the ICON AS design to inco1porate a Spin-ResistantAirframe (SRA) an.d be operated and maintained under the regulations and standards applicable to sportpilots and LSA repairmen. In your petition dated May 7. 2012 you indicate that in ace rdance With 14 Code ofFederal

.Regulations (CFR) § 11.63 there is an allowance of 120 d ys for tl1e exemption process to be completed. This would suggest that ourresponse to you should occur by

### S~terober 4, 2012. However, yourpetition requested an. exemption from certain sections of 14 CFR parts 21, 61 and 43, which will require coordination. with several offices witlun the Aircraft Certification Service and the Flight Standards Service.

. [ Also, a decision on your petition for exemption has the pot ntial to

### e~tablish precedence for future policy and rulemaking regarding safety innovation fJr all.light-sport aircraft. Therefore, we aretaking additional time to cover all the issues identifi dinyourpetition before making the final decision. We are developing aresponse to your requ st and expect to make a final decision by the end ofcalendar year 20 12. We 

### will advise you ofthe agen.cy's :final decision. on yourp tition as soon as possible. If

### you have .furtber'questions, please feel free to contact 

### Mr. TerryL. Chasteen. Light-Sport Airc.raft Program Manager, ACE;.l14, Programs & Procedures Bran h, Small Airplane Directorate at**816-329~4147** or ten:y.chasteen@faa

..gov. Sincerely,

# ~~ Earl Lawrence Manager, Small Aitplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US To: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Ch andana_L._Achanta@ omb.eop.gov> Cc: Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@ EPA, Maureen Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/26/2010 01:21 PM Subject

: OMB request on preamble and RIA table formats and word changes regarding fuel savings

Chandana -

I just want to clarify our phone discussion.

Regarding the reformatting of tables with respect to the programs costs and benefits, OMB is requesting that only one table in the entire EPA package be altered - Tabl e 7 of the Executive Summary of the RIA. No changes in the preambl e and no changes in the rest of the RIA need to be made.

For Table 7 - which I show below, you would like the two rows I highlighted in red to be moved to be directly beneath the row labled "Fuel Savingss"

With respect to word edits, for both the EPA se ctions of the preamble and in the EPA RIA, OMB would like EPA not to refer to fuel savings as a "negative cost", but simply as a "fuel savings".

For example, in the following sentences from the RIA, OMB's request could be met by deleting the middle sentence:



### "Note that the quantified annual costs shown in Table 1 are negative because fuel savings are included. Fuel savings are considered as negat ive costs (i.e., positiv e benefits) of the vehicle program. The fuel savings outweigh the costs associated with th e addition of new technology and, therefore, the vehi cle program costs are negative."

Can you please respond to this email ASAP and let me know if I have captured the request correctly.

Thanks Bill2020 2030 2040 2050 NPV, 3% a Vehicle Costs b $15,600 $15,800 $17,400 $19,000 $345,900 Fuel Savings -$35,700 -$79,800 -$119,300 -$171,200 -$1,545,600 Benefits from Reduced CO 2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value c,d,e Avg SCC at 5% $900 $2,700 $4,600 $7,200 $34,500 Avg SCC at 3% $3,700 $8,900 $14,000 $21,000 $176,700 Avg SCC at 2.5% $5,800 $14,000 $21,000 $30,000 $299,600 95 th percentile SCC at 3% $11,000 $27,000 $43,000 $62,000 $538,500 Other Impacts

Criteria Pollutant Benefits f,g,h,i B $1,200- $1,300 $1,200- $1,300 $1,200- $1,300 $21,000

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) $2,200 $4,500 $6,000 $7,600 $81,900

Reduced Refueling $2,400 $4,800 $6,300 $8,000 $87,900 Value of Increased Driving j $4,200 $8,800 $13,000 $18,400 $171,500 Accidents, Noise, Congestion -$2,300 -$4,600 -$6,100 -$7,800 -$84,800

Quantified Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value c,d,e Avg SCC at 5% $27,500 $81,500 $127,000 $186,900 $1,511,700 Avg SCC at 3% $30,300 $87,700 $136,400 $200,700 $1,653,900 Avg SCC at 2.5% $32,400 $92,800 $143,400 $209,700 $1,776,800 95 th percentile SCC at 3% $37,600 $105,800 $165,400 $241,700 $2,015,700

a