alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| date    | Assets | Liabilities |
|---------|--------|-------------|
| 2000:Q1 | 51.42  | 6.93        |
| 2000:Q2 | 51.37  | 7.08        |
| 2000:Q3 | 52.35  | 7.26        |
| 2000:Q4 | 52.04  | 7.41        |
| 2001:Q1 | 52.01  | 7.45        |
| 2001:Q2 | 53.39  | 7.65        |
| 2001:Q3 | 52.61  | 7.9         |
| 2001:Q4 | 54.28  | 8.03        |
| 2002:Q1 | 55.06  | 8.16        |
| 2002:Q2 | 54.68  | 8.35        |
| 2002:Q3 | 53.83  | 8.56        |
| 2002:Q4 | 55.29  | 8.81        |
| 2003:Q1 | 55.75  | 9           |
| 2003:Q2 | 58.07  | 9.39        |
| 2003:Q3 | 59.25  | 9.65        |
| 2003:Q4 | 61.49  | 9.9         |
| 2004:Q1 | 64.28  | 10.1        |
| 2004:Q2 | 65.4   | 10.42       |
| 2004:Q3 | 67.06  | 10.7        |
| 2004:Q4 | 69.81  | 11.07       |
| 2005:Q1 | 70.93  | 11.28       |
| 2005:Q2 | 72.87  | 11.61       |
| 2005:Q3 | 74.88  | 11.96       |
| 2005:Q4 | 76.81  | 12.26       |
| 2006:Q1 | 79.02  | 12.62       |
| 2006:Q2 | 79.42  | 12.96       |
| 2006:Q3 | 80.92  | 13.29       |
| 2006:Q4 | 82.68  | 13.56       |
| 2007:Q1 | 83.9   | 13.73       |
| 2007:Q2 | 84.64  | 14.04       |
| 2007:Q3 | 85.65  | 14.29       |
| 2007:Q4 | 85.16  | 14.5        |
| 2008:Q1 | 83.25  | 14.62       |
| 2008:Q2 | 81.65  | 14.56       |
| 2008:Q3 | 79.52  | 14.7        |
| 2008:Q4 | 76.04  | 14.4        |
| 2009:Q1 | 74.65  | 14.3        |
| 2009:Q2 | 75.2   | 14.28       |
| 2009:Q3 | 76.76  | 14.28       |
| 2009:Q4 | 77.04  | 14.28       |
| 2010:Q1 | 78.11  | 14.17       |
| 2010:Q2 | 77.58  | 14.11       |
| 2010:Q3 | 79.57  | 14.05       |
| 2010:Q4 | 80.49  | 14.06       |
| 2011:Q1 | 81.64  | 14.04       |
| 2011:Q2 | 82.06  | 14          |
| 2011:Q3 | 80.3   | 13.95       |
| 2011:Q4 | 81.64  | 13.95       |
| 2012:Q1 | 83.66  | 13.91       |
| 2012:Q2 | 83.67  | 13.86       |
| 2012:Q3 | 85.73  | 13.9        |
| 2012:Q4 | 86.75  | 13.9        |
| 2013:Q1 | 89.64  | 13.85       |
| 2013:Q2 | 90.83  | 13.86       |
| 2013:Q3 | 93.46  | 13.93       |
| 2013:Q4 | 95.74  | 14.12       |
| 2014:Q1 | 97.42  | 14.1        |
| 2014:Q2 | 99.4   | 14.2        |
| 2014:Q3 | 100    | 14.2        |
| 2014:Q4 | 101.97 | 14.27       |
| 2015:Q1 | 103.83 | 14.22       |
| 2015:Q2 | 104.52 | 14.35       |
| 2015:Q3 | 103.62 | 14.42       |
| 2015:Q4 | 105.24 | 14.44       |
| 2016:Q1 | 106.43 | 14.43       |
| 2016:Q2 | 108.03 | 14.57       |
| 2016:Q3 | 110.08 | 14.76       |
| 2016:Q4 | 110.97 | 14.86       |
| 2017:Q1 | 113.53 | 14.9        |
| 2017:Q2 | 115.42 | 15.06       |
| 2017:Q3 | 117.54 | 15.19       |
| 2017:Q4 | 120.49 | 15.39       |
| 2018:Q1 | 121.27 | 15.43       |
| 2018:Q2 | 123.05 | 15.57       |
| 2018:Q3 | 125.2  | 15.75       |
| 2018:Q4 | 121.64 | 15.88       |
| 2019:Q1 | 127.69 | 15.87       |
| 2019:Q2 | 130    | 16.04       |
| 2019:Q3 | 131.26 | 16.21       |
| 2019:Q4 | 134.95 | 16.38       |
| 2020:Q1 | 127.8  | 16.45       |
| 2020:Q2 | 135.44 | 16.48       |
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 11

Providing for the adjournment of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the adjournment of the House of

Representatives.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Tuesday, January 19, 1999, it stand adjourned

4 until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, 1999.

Æ
No. 59848.

#### Swift & Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 168091-K/2357, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef or veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

Jane Turner,

Plaintiff,

v.

Drenda Glanz,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-894RSL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On June 29, 2006, plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis was granted and plaintiff submitted her “Complaint for Assault and

Battery, Libel and Slander, and Malicious Prossecution [sic]” (Dkt. # 3). In this complaint,

plaintiff alleges that defendant Drenda Glanz perpetrated each of the wrongs listed in the caption

and sets forth these factual allegations: Glanz attempted to enter Turner’s apartment without

permission, Glanz filed an insurance claim with the Washington State Department of Labor and

Industries with defamatory statements about Turner, and that Glanz falsely told the Bainbridge

Island Police Department that she did not attempt to enter Turner’s apartment without

permission. Complaint at ¶ 3, 7, 11.

Case 2:06-cv-00894-RSL Document 4 Filed 07/17/06 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -2-

The Court has reviewed the factual and legal allegations in the complaint under the

standard articulated in Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as well as

complaints.”). The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action cognizable

under federal law, or otherwise trigger this Court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original

jurisdiction over federal claims); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction over diverse parties). 

Where a party has clearly stated one cause of action, this Court may not infer another. Bogovich

v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1999). Where a party fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, this Court is obligated to dismiss the action immediately. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this

complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days of this order, file an

amended complaint which establishes this Court’s jurisdiction. Such a complaint would either

(1) allege a cause of action based on a violation of federal law, or (2) show that the parties are

diverse (e.g., citizens of different states) and that plaintiff is entitled to recover at least $75,000. 

See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)–(4) (examples of “diverse” citizenship). If an acceptable amended

complaint is not filed within the time proscribed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff, and to place this

Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar for August 16, 2006.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00894-RSL Document 4 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Eonormble,

Jerre State Trewurer~anozu~o Jesse &tnes, p8g8 2

'8tV8l'hl8 PhO88, inoludiag the 8ktO t'PW8 (where the ii8081 agenoy fee baa been depodtsa 7 : ll the bond holdeP8 eleot to oolleot thmmgh ollb or more agenoIe8 other th8a the 8kte Treasury, and th8 &i8tl'i.Ot

irrrozW% MqUO8tS l F&U&% &tf' the Wt deposited 

### w it h

l g u nnie s

t o w ht oh bold8 

### w e ra

n e t P-J-41lienomblo Joaw J4mea **- p8ge**  **3**Hamrablo Jea80 Jamor.- plrge

### 4

### ZamwableJesse **James -**  **page 5** APPRovBDt OPIHIOH -

BY (f. w. s&haawn
No. 57815.

protests 134774-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of internal-combustion engines and parts thereof the same in all material respects as the articles involved in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            4112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6013
<ALLOWANCES>                                       916
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          677467
<DEPRECIATION>                                   59254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  670470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         329529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                      325052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    670470
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 23305
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    16676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6629
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 2055!

ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD

March 12, 2009

Ms. Sarah Smith

Chief Accounting Officer

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
85 Broad Street

New York, New York 10004

Dear Ms. Smith:

This is in response to the request from The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“GSGI’) and
Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“Bank”), both of New York, New York, for modifications related to
the Board’s regulatory reporting requirements for first quarter 2009 and future reporting periods.

GSGI and Bank have requested that they be allowed to use a “last Friday” reporting
convention on a permanent basis as the closing date for regulatory reporting purposes.’ You
indicated that GSGI and Bank historically have used the “last Friday” of a reporting period as
their closing date in order to use the subsequent weekend to perform the overall consolidation
and to close their books. You also have indicated that changing this practice to conform their
systems to the Board’s reporting dates will require significant modifications to a number of
systems and substantial personnel time and costs.

Based on all the facts of record, including the information provided in your request and
other supervisory information, the Board grants temporary limited relief to GSGI and Bank.
GSGI and Bank may use the “last Friday” reporting convention through the December 31, 2009,
reporting date as the closing date for the Board’s regulatory reports. The Board continues to
believe that it is important to conduct performance measurements, meaningful analyses, and peer
comparisons of large, complex institutions using comparable reporting periods. Although GSGI
and Bank will expend personnel time and incur costs in implementing these changes, such
considerations do not outweigh the benefit of comparability that results from consistency among
all reporting institutions. Moreover, the extended compliance period provided by this relief will
allow GSGI and Bank to manage their implementation costs in a reasonable fashion. As a
condition of this relief and to promote transparency, GSGI must, through year-end 2009,

(1) disclose in the footnotes to the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP reports that it is using the

' The Board previously declined to allow GSGI and Bank to use the “last Friday” reporting
convention on a permanent basis as the closing date for regulatory reporting purposes. Board
letter to Sarah Smith (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.), February 5, 2009. The Board, however,
allowed GSGI and Bank to use the “last Friday” reporting convention for purposes of their year-
end 2008 regulatory reports.


-2-

“Jast Friday” reporting convention, and (2) describe any events in those reports that would likely
cause material differences between balances reported using the “last Friday” reporting
convention and balances reported using the last calendar day of the quarter reporting date.

Please contact Homer C. Hill, III of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at
(212) 720-2164 if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

NhketdeY tre—

Robert deV. Frierson
Deputy Secretary of the Board

cc: Homer C. Hill, I
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
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

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUAN DUNG TRAN,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-128M

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION

OF TIME FOR INDICTMENT

On April 7, 2006, the defendant filed a Waiver of Right to a Speedy Indictment (Dkt.

#14) for the period up to and including May 30, 2006. On May 1, 2006, defendant again

filed a Waiver of Right to a Speedy Indictment (Dkt. #17) for the period up to and including

June 30, 2006, and submitted a Motion to Extend Time for Indictment in support of this

Waiver. No explanation was given as for the requested extension.

Congress “did not intend the ‘ends of justice’ exclusion to be granted as a matter of

course but rather [intended it] to be used sparingly and only when necessary.” United States

v. Lewis, 980 F.2d 555, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Hence, an “ends of

justice” exclusion may be granted only for a specific duration when “justified by the record

with reference to the facts.” United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.

1999) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). Generalized assertions that the “ends of

justice” will be satisfied by the granting of a continuance are insufficient. Id. at 1154-55. 

Case 2:06-cr-00217-RSL Document 21 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -2

Here, the defendant has provided no evidence, nor adduced any facts from the record

sufficient to justify granting a continuance. An ongoing plea agreement negotiation is not a

factor sufficient for this Court to find that granting a continuance will satisfy the “ends of

justice.” Id. at 1155-56 (citing United States v. Perez-Reveles, 715 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir.

1983)). Defendant’s motion is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00217-RSL Document 21 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 52395.

protests 107109-K, etc. (Philadelphia, etc.).

#### Alex Murphy & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02465**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 02465\02465_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02465\02465_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02465\02465_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02465\02465_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02465\02465_Part B.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02465\02465_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02465\02465_Part D.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02465\02465_Part H.XLS Plant submitted survey file



### 02465\Certification Statement_Plant ID 02465.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 02465\Plant Contact\02465_EmailCommunication.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02465\Plant Contact\02465_EmailCommunication_01.17.11.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response



### 02465\Supplemental Documents\02465_Taconite Harbor Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02465\Supplemental Documents\02465_Taconite Harbor WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of TAL International Group, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Chand Khan, Vice President and 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: March 9, 2007

|  | /s/ Chand Khan                                               Chand KhanVice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

In re AIDAVEL LOZANO LAIGO. CASE NO. MC05-0201JLR

ORDER

Plaintiff Aidavel Lozano Laigo frequently files civil complaints and other papers 

with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On 

December 8, 2005, the court entered an order imposing standing litigation restrictions on 

Ms. Laigo. (12/8/05 Order (Dkt. # 1-1).) The court’s standing litigation restrictions on 

Ms. Laigo provide, inter alia: 

If the court determines that the complaint meets the requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a), it will direct the clerk to assign a civil case number and issue 

summons. If the complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a), the court will enter an order declining to treat the case as a civil 

action.

(Standing Litig. Restrictions (Dkt. # 1) at 1.)

Case 2:05-mc-00201-JLR Document 135 Filed 01/25/24 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

ORDER - 2

In her latest proposed complaint, filed on January 24, 2024, Ms. Laigo alleges 

unspecified acts of discrimination by the Social Security Administration, the Department 

of Health and Human Services, Seattle Public Utilities, and Seattle City Light. (1/24/24

Prop. Compl. (Dkt. # 134) at 1-2.) Ms. Laigo alleges that she has given Defendants 

“enough time to fix their mistakes” but Defendants ignored her. (Id. at 1.) She also 

asserts that Defendants “violated rights of the plaintiff and violated [the] accountability 

rule and [that] violations of these matters fall under discrimination.” (Id.) She does not

allege any facts to support a claim for discrimination. (See generally id.) Ms. Laigo

included with her proposed complaint copies of bank statements and bills from Seattle 

City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. (See generally Exhibit (Dkt. # 134-2).) She does 

not, however, explain the significance of these documents to her purported claim. (See 

generally 1/24/24 Prop. Compl.)

Having reviewed Ms. Laigo’s proposed complaint, and pursuant to the court’s 

standing litigation restrictions, the court declines to treat Ms. Laigo’s proposed complaint

as commencing a civil action because she has failed to comply with the notice pleading 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court DIRECTS the Clerk not 

to calendar, take any other action, or file any further pleading in this matter other than a 

notice of appeal. 

Dated this 25th day of January, 2024.

A

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-mc-00201-JLR Document 135 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 2