alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          90,883
<SECURITIES>                                    17,534
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,993
<PP&E>                                          76,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 318,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,899
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     287,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   318,194
<SALES>                                         90,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,503
<CGS>                                           61,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,233)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,801)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,009)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,792)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: A rt e m Tara se n ko F inamore , Robert ( OS T) j Kruger , Bre tt ( O STl j Gray, Bern i ce (OS T) ; Ames, AngeJ i a COST) ; Chr i stofa n o Dav i d 

# rosn Co l o n M i l le r RE: Cabotage Appl i cat ion Request / Comment Tracking Number 1jx-88fz-9p7e (1 x AFW-PAE / Nov 2-9, 2013) Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:22:01 PM Ca b otage 1 x A FW-PA E (Nov 2-9) , pd f Lette r from Boeing , pdf S e rv i ce Li s t . pdf From: To:

All , Ref
. the attached C abotage A ppl i cat i on (Track i n g Number 1jx - 8 8 fz-9p7el , Vo l ga- D nepr hereby w i thdraws its application for an emergency exe mption for t he f light betwe en Fort Worth , TX (A FW ) a nd Eve rett, WA ( P AE) on aro u nd Novem b er 2 - 9,2 0 1 3 , T h i s fligh t is now pla nn ed to b e op erated b y another foreig n air carr i er ,
T h an k yo u an d bes t regard s , Art em 

### Artem T ara s enko Op erati on s Manag er VolgaDnepr-Unique Air Carg o Inc. The Woo dl and s , TX Tel : + 1 (8 3 2) 585-8611 Fax: + 1 (8 32 ) 585-8618 C ell: + 1 (713 ) 349- 3388 E - m a il: a rt em @ vo l ga-d n e p r . u s From: Artem Tarasenko 

### Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:36 PM To: 'robert, finamore@dot.gov'; 'brett, kruger@dot.gov'; 'Bernice.Gray@dot.gov'; 'Angelia.Ames@dot.gov'; 'david ,christofano@dot.gov' Cc: Colon Miller 

### Subject: Cabotage Application Request / Comment Tracking Number 1jx-88fz-9p7e (1 x AFW-PAE / Nov 2-9, 2013) Dear All , Please find attached Cabotage Application for your review and processing
. Documents were filed via web-site u nder She ll Doc ket ID for 05T DOT-05T - 2007-0001. "Comment Trac k ing Number" lj x -88fz9p7e was assigned after submission. Volga Dnepr-Unique Air Cargo is requesting authority to operate one (1) one-way all cargo charter f l ight between F ort Worth, TX (A FW) and E verett , WA (P A E). V olga-Dnepr plans to operate AN-1 2 4-100 aircraft to perform one (1) flight to transport cargo from AFW to PAE on around November 2 - 9, 2013, on behalf of Boeing Commercial Aircraft. The outsized cargo to be transported by Volga-Dnepr consists of two (2) crated B747 horizontal stabilizers withf o ll owi n g d ime nsi ons: L - 600" x W-1 97 " x 

### H- 7 2 ", w eighing a p prox. 11 , 300 pound s ea c h
.

P o lling of 

## u.s. C a rri e rs i s ong o ing , and I'l l ad v ise o n c e polling is comple t e .
B es t rega rds, Artem 

### Artem Tarasenko Operations Manag er VolgaDnepr
- Unique Air Cargo Inc . The Woo dl and s , TX Tel: + 1 (832) 585
- 861 1 Fax : +1 ( 8 32) 585-861 8 C ell: + 1 (713) 349-3 3 88 E - mail : a rtem@ vo lg a- d nep r . u s



## This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–315 2009

[ERRATA] 

HEARING ON THE 2008 AUDIT REVIEW AND 

AGENCY SPENDING BY THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 1, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

ERRATA 

The title page of the hearing transcript of the April 1, 2007, 

hearing of the Committee on House Administration was printed 

with an incorrect hearing date and incorrect Congress number. The 

correct hearing date was April 1, 2009 and the correct Congress 

number was 111th Congress. 

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF TAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2007

Name


JurisdictionTAL International Container Corporation


DelawareTrans Ocean Ltd.


DelawareTrans Ocean Container Corporation


DelawareSpacewise Inc.


DelawareTAL Advantage I LLC


DelawareTAL International Container Pty. Limited


AustraliaTAL do Brasil Investimento de Capital Propio Ltda.


BrazilTAL International Container (HK) Limited


Hong KongBox Rent, Inc.


DelawareIntermodal Equipment Inc.


DelawareTAL International Container NV


BelgiumTAL International Container SRL


ItalyGreybox Services Ltd.


United KingdomTAL International Container Limited


United KingdomICS Terminals (UK) Limited


United KingdomTAL International Structured Inc.


Delaware


---
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:






(1)
Registration Statement No. 333-183687 on Form S-8(2)
Registration Statement No. 333-175351 on Form S-8(3)
Registration Statement No. 333-167613 on Form S-8(4)
Registration Statement No. 333-176669 on Form F-3(5)
Registration Statement No. 333-166765 on Form F-3





of our reports dated April 29, 2013, relating to (1) the 2012 consolidated financial statements of DHT Holdings, Inc., including the retrospective adjustments and revisions to the 2011 and 2010 consolidated financial statements discussed in Note 5 and Note 16 and (2) the effectiveness of DHT Holdings, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of DHT Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012.









/s/ Deloitte AS





Oslo, Norway


April 29, 2013
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL P BURWELL,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5471 

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PRETRIAL SERVICES

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial Services Office

alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of the Appearance Bond supervision as set forth

in the Petition filed by U.S. Pretrial Services

The plaintiff appears through Special Assistant United States Attorney, DAVID JENNINGS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, RUSSELL LEONARD;

The defendant has been advised of the allegation(s)and that he/she could be detained pending

resolution of the underlying charges in the Complaint/Indictment/ or Information if found to be in

violation; maximum potential sanction if substantiated; and 

The court finding probable cause with regard to the allegation(s); the matter is scheduled for hearing

on the following time and date before the Honorable J KELLEY ARNOLD 

Date: MAY 30, 2007

Time: 2:00 P.M.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. THE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER IS TO TAKE ALL

NECESSARY STEPS TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL

NEEDS.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

May 24, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold _________________

Case 3:06-cr-05471-MAT Document 20 Filed 05/24/07 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

ORDER

Page - 2

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05471-MAT Document 20 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 51210.

#### Protest 111827-K of L. E. Kriener-Hopkins (Cleveland).

Opinion by,

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
No. 63433.

protests 58/12537 and 58/13718 (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of cameras, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57456.

#### Westlite Electric Co. *v.*United States,

protest 198633-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court found nothing therein which tended in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
DIVISION OF CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 

CA 21-5

March 5, 2021

TO THE OFFICERS AND MANAGERS IN CHARGE OF CONSUMER 

AFFAIRS SECTIONS

SUBJECT: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Consideration for Activities in 

Response to the Coronavirus

Applicability: This letter is relevant to all institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have issued five new Frequently 

Asked Questions (FAQs) on CRA consideration for activities in response to the Coronavirus 

Disease (referred to as COVID-19). This letter supplements the FAQs in the Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) Consideration for Activities in Response to the Coronavirus Frequently 

Asked Questions (FAQs) and supersedes CA 20-10 through which those FAQs were originally 

issued on May 27, 2020. There are no changes to the previous FAQs other than the addition of 

five new FAQs, which are number 14-18. 

The revised FAQs clarify agency treatment of Small Business Administration (SBA) Paycheck 

Protection Program (PPP) loans over $1 million dollars in certain geographies and PPP loans that 

have been rescinded or returned under the SBA’s safe harbor. The FAQs also explain CRA 

consideration for processing pandemic-focused loan applications and provide guidance on retail 

banking services and retail lending activities that will be considered responsive to the needs of 

low- and moderate-income individuals during COVID-19. In addition, the revised FAQs explain 

CRA treatment for community development services conducted virtually by banks. 

Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this letter to the Federal Reserve-supervised institutions in 

their districts, as well as to their supervisory and examination staff. If supervised financial 

institutions have questions about the guidance set forth in this letter, they are encouraged to 

contact the responsible Reserve Bank. In addition, questions may be sent via the Board’s public 

website.

Sincerely,
Eric Belsky

Director 

 Division of Consumer and Community Affairs

Attachment:

• Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Consideration for Activities in Response to the 

Coronavirus – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Cross References:

• Joint Statement on CRA Consideration for Activities in Response to COVID-19 (March 

19, 2020)

• SR letter 20-4/CA letter 20-3, “Supervisory Practices Regarding Financial Institutions 

Affected by Coronavirus” (March 13, 2020)

Supersedes: 

• CA letter 20-10, “Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Consideration for Activities in 

Response to the Coronavirus” (May 27, 2020)
RE: MATS Reconsideration Package 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Higgins, Cortney 

 11/07/2012 11:31 AM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell 

Cortney - 

See the files below. I've added some additional materials that Bill/I 

thought might be useful for you in your review. Let us know when you'd 

like to set-up time to discuss the issues/concerns. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/07/2012 10:56 AM 

Subject: RE: MATS Reconsideration Package 

Thanks Bob! 

 

We got the package in ROCIS today – can you send over the supporting 

documentation (memos, spreadsheets) including these: 

 

· Reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units, Proposed Rule 

DRAFT_Reconsider_EGU_MACT_Floor_Memo_110612.pdf 

  

· MATS Reconsideration: Beyond-the-Floor Memorandum 
DRAFT BTF Memo_110612.pdf 

  

· Data and Procedure for Handling Below Detection Level Data in 

Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR 

Emissions Limits already in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20062) 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20062[1].pdf 

· Determination of Representative Detection Level (RDL) and 3 X 

RDL Values for Mercury Measured Using Sorbent Trap Technologies 

Draft_hg3xrdl_110612.pdf 

Ancillary Files/Materials: 

Draft MATS EIA 110612.pdf 

Draft_Controls_TSD_110612.pdf 

Draft_SS TSD_110612.pdf 

Spreadsheets: 

I will send these under two separate emails to keep size management under 

control! :-) 

 

 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

 

From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 

2012 10:46 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Subject: MATS Reconsideration Package 

 

Cortney - 

Let me know once OMB has accepted the MATS proposal package (I understand 

from OP that it was sent over this morning), and I'll send you all the 

TSDs and spreadsheets we discussed on Monday. 
thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

*********************************************************
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 300

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3, 2000

Received and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending our Nation’s Federal workforce

for successfully preparing our Nation to withstand any

catastrophic Year 2000 computer problem disruptions.

Whereas the Year 2000 computer problem (Y2K) created the

potential of a catastrophic international problem, causing

some computer systems and other electronic devices to

erroneously misinterpret the ‘‘00’’ in the year as 1900,

rather than 2000;

Whereas the American people expected and deserved reliable

service from their Federal Government to ensure that
2

HCON 300 RFS

critical Federal functions dependent on electronic systems

would be performed accurately and in a timely manner;

Whereas, after the initial series of congressional Y2K hearings in the spring of 1996, it became clear that unless

appropriate action was taken, the Y2K problem could

cause severe consequences on the successful operation of

Federal systems;

Whereas Federal agencies and their employees subsequently

made significant progress in meeting the challenges posed

by the Y2K computer problem;

Whereas minimizing the Y2K problem required a major technological and managerial effort and it was critical that

the Federal workforce rise to address this challenge;

Whereas the continued uninterrupted operation of our Nation’s Federal systems was due to the comprehensive efforts made by those dedicated, talented, and committed

Federal workers who served ably in the front lines of this

epic battle in vanquishing the millennium bug;

Whereas the Federal workforce identified and worked to resolve the Y2K problem, giving countless hours and their

holidays to assure the American people that major Y2K

breakdowns in key infrastructures were unlikely;

Whereas the level of Y2K effort was justified and the threat

was very real, and the risks and consequences of inaction

were too dire to justify a lesser Federal effort;

Whereas preparation for Y2K led to an unprecedented level

of effort that not only improved system inventories and

network reliability, but has also accelerated electronic

business and international cooperation;

Whereas the efforts of the Federal workforce to solve the

Y2K problem provided an important example of the Gov-
3

HCON 300 RFS

ernment’s ability to respond to future difficult technological and management challenges; and

Whereas the level of Y2K success in the United States, which

has over one-fourth of the world’s computer assets and

is the most technologically dependent nation in the world,

was quite remarkable, and was led by our Federal efforts:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes and commends the

3 meritorious service of our Nation’s Federal workforce, and

4 all those who assisted in the efforts to successfully address

5 the Year 2000 computer challenge.

Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60717

Summary Calendar

Normandina Yolanda Menocal-Bardales; Ely Lizbeth 

Bardales-Menocal,

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A208 150 592

Agency No. A208 150 593

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Normandina Yolanda Menocal-Bardales, a native and citizen of 

Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge

(IJ) denying her application for asylum and denying protection under the 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60717 Document: 00516803474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 21-60717

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT).

1 “We have authority to review only the 

decision of the BIA, not the IJ, unless the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA’s 

decision.” Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review 

the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, reversing only if “the evidence 

is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary 

conclusion.” Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Menocal-Bardales argues that neither the IJ nor the BIA gave an 

adequate explanation for their respective decisions denying asylum. We 

disagree. Both decisions sufficiently “reflect meaningful consideration of the 

relevant substantial evidence.” Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585 

(5th Cir. 1996). On the merits, Menocal-Bardales does not challenge the 

BIA’s determinations that she failed to establish past persecution and failed 

to establish a nexus between the harm alleged and her asserted particular 

social groups. She has therefore abandoned any such claims, and we need not 

address them. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013).

Regarding her CAT claim, Menocal-Bardales fails to show that the 

evidence compels the conclusion that she more likely than not would be 

tortured if repatriated. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1140-41 (5th Cir. 

2006); Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015). And while 

Menocal-Bardales again argues that the IJ and the BIA did not sufficiently

analyze the evidence relating to the possibility of future torture, we again 

disagree. Both decisions “reflect meaningful consideration” of the evidence

related to Menocal-Bardales’s CAT claim. Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. The 

petition for review is DENIED.

1 Menocal-Bardales’s minor daughter is a derivative applicant on the application.

Case: 21-60717 Document: 00516803474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2015*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.109 Monetary Authority 1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN RUSSELL ROBINSON, JR., )

DOC# 250548, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3950

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 12, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. 

John Russell Robinson, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.