alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  L.120.c State and Local Government Employee Retirement Funds Defined Contribution Plans  
 Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted Description
Series code
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2015   Q2
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
LineState and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; total financial assets
	FL224090055
	474.1
	435.8
	457.3
	496.7
	481.6
	471.6
	486.2
	457.3
	471.6
	472.7
	478.1
	1State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; money market mutual fund shares, including variable annuity money market mutual fund shares; asset
	FL223034055
	8.5
	7.1
	6.5
	7.1
	6.3
	6.3
	6.3
	5.3
	6.3
	5.3
	5.2
	2State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; mutual fund shares, including variable annuity mutual fund shares; asset
	LM223064255
	265.6
	236.9
	256.6
	289.7
	277.9
	263.9
	278.7
	255.1
	263.9
	268.6
	271.2
	3State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; miscellaneous assets
	FL223090055
	199.9
	191.8
	194.2
	199.9
	197.3
	201.5
	201.2
	196.9
	201.5
	198.7
	201.7
	4State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; unallocated insurance contracts; asset
	FL223095505
	159.9
	149.9
	149.8
	150.7
	144.9
	146.4
	147.3
	143.0
	146.4
	146.2
	148.2
	5State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; unidentified miscellaneous assets
	FL223093053
	40.1
	41.9
	44.4
	49.2
	52.5
	55.0
	53.9
	53.9
	55.0
	52.5
	53.5
	6State and local government employee defined contribution retirement funds; total financial assets
	FL224090055
	474.1
	435.8
	457.3
	496.7
	481.6
	471.6
	486.2
	457.3
	471.6
	472.7
	478.1
	7 Back to top
  **NOTES** Includes 403(b) and 457 type plans.
Assets held at life insurance companies.
  Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21



                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name                                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                          -----------------------------
Duck Ventures, Inc.                                       Arizona
Ugly Duckling Car Sales, Inc.                             Arizona
Champion Acceptance Corp.                                 Arizona
Champion Financial Services, Inc.                         Arizona
Champion Receivables Corp.                                Delaware
Cygnet Finance, Inc.                                      Arizona
Drake Insurance Services, Inc.                            Arizona
Drake Insurance Agency, Inc.                              Arizona
Udrac Rentals, Inc.                                       Arizona
Ugly Duckling Car Sales Florida, Inc.                     Florida
Ugly Duckling Car Sales New Mexico, Inc.                  New Mexico
Udrac, Inc.                                               Arizona
Ugly Duckling Car Sales Texas, LLP                        Arizona
Ugly Duckling Car Sales Georgia, Inc.                     Georgia
Ugly Duckling Car Sales California, Inc.                  California
Cygnet Finance Alabama, Inc.                              Arizona
Drake Property and Casualty Life Insurance Co.            Turks & Caicos
Drake Life Insurance Co.                                  Turks & Caicos
Champion Receivables Corp. II                             Delaware
North American Snow Cover Extent Downloaded from Rutger University Global Snow Lab http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.namgnld.txt
Case No. 6,593.

#### HOLBROOK v. SEAGRAVES.

[1 Story, 546; 1 4 Law Rep. 143.]

Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

June Term, 1841.

Removal or Causes to Federal Court — Special Bail — Surrender or Principal.

Where a cause is removed from a state court to the circuit court of the United States under the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20, § 12 [1 Stat. 79], and special bail is given, if the bail after-wards seek to surrender the principal, it should be in open court, and not by a commitment to gaol according to the local law of the state. But, if the party is so committed, the circuit court will, upon the petition of the bail, grant a writ of habeas corpus to bring the party into court, to be surrendered in discharge of his bail.

This was the case of a scire facias against the defendant [Jacob P. Seagraves,] as special bail for Willard Holbrook. The suit was commenced against the original defendant in the state court of common pleas. Upon the removal of the cause into this court, the bail on the original writ became discharged, and Seagraves became special bail for the defendant, in conformity with the provisions of the act of congress in relation to such cases. Since the taking out of this scire facias, the present defendant has committed his principal to the Providence county jail, and now moved the court, that he be discharged upon payment of costs on the scire facias. The motion being objected to, the court decided, that the commitment of the principal did not in this case discharge the bail. Cases of special bail entered for 'the defendant upon a removal of his cause from a state court into this court, are not governed by the Rhode Island statute, but by the common law and the acts of congress. This bail, therefore, could only be discharged by surrendering his principal into court to be taken in execution, as at common law. The defendant then took leave to answer the cause, and prayed a writ of habeas corpus, in order to bring the principal into court. Upon a subsequent day in the term, the defendant was brought into court upon the writ of habeas corpus, and surrendered in discharge of his bail, and thereupon was committed to the custody of the marshal for twenty days, in order that he might be charged in execution upon an alias execution.

Pratt & Atwell, for plaintiff.

Mr. Robinson and R. W. Greene, for defendant.

STORY, Circuit Justice.

The case does not fall within the provisions of the statute of Rhode Island respecting the commitment of the principal to gaol by his bail; but it must be governed by the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20, § 12, and the doctrine of the common law applicable to bail. We shall, therefore, order the party into the custody of the marshal, to remain in gaol under his custody for thirty days, that the plaintiff may sue out an alias writ of execution, and charge him thereon, if he shall be so advised.
Before the Second Division,

June 30, 1947

No. 51826.

#### Wimelbacher *&*Rice *v.*United States,

protests 24373-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

January 8, 1948

No. 52101.

protest 131094-K (New York).

#### Southern Cross Mercantile Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

When the protest was called for trial there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was pre-sumptiyely correct, the protest was overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICA SERVICE GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,227,000
<SECURITIES>                                   211,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,247,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   398,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,527,000
<PP&E>                                       6,685,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (4,070,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,453,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,668,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,529,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,453,000
<SALES>                                    103,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,547,000
<CGS>                                       94,895,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,926,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,618,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   101,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,517,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,517,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 96-50855

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR ISLAS-ALVAREZ, XOCHITL ROCHA-FLORES, and

NICHOLAS EMEY PARGAZ,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(96-CR-189)

November 10, 1997

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Xochitl Rocha-Flores and Nicholas Emey

Pargaz (collectively “defendants”) appeal their convictions for

conspiracy to distribute marijuana (in violation of 21 U .S.C. §

846), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana,

and possess ion with intent to distribute marijuana (both in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), alleging that errors committed

by the district court prevented them from receiving a fair trial.We find defendants’ claims regarding the allegedly prejudicial

conduct of the trial judge during the cross-exami nation of

Government witness Richard Austin unsupported by any case law and

directly contradicted by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

See F ED

. R. E VID

. 611(a) (providing that the court should “exercise

reasonable control” over the questioning of witnesses in order to

aid in the “ascertainment of truth,” avoid “needless consumption of

time,” and “protect witnesses from ha r assment or undue

embarrassment”). Likewise, we find each of the district court’s

allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings to be well within the

bounds of discretion provided by U nited States v. Anderson

, 933

F.2d 1261, 1267-1268 (5th Cir. 1991) (applying a “highly

deferential” abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court’s

evidentiary rulings, but noting that review of such rulings in

criminal trials is “necessarily heightened”). Islas-Alvarez’s

remaining claim of er ror ) ) that the district court improperly

sentenced him for larger amounts of marijuana than it was proved he

was involved with at trial ) ) merits little discussion in light of

Nichols v. United States

, 511 U.S. 738, 748, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 1928,

128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) (state need only prove con duct for

sentencing purposes by a “preponderance of the evidence”) (citing

McMillan v. Pennsylvania

, 477 U.S. 79, 91, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2418-

2419, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986)).

AFFIRMED.
No. 63438.

protests 58/19883(B), etc. (New York).

#### Frederick H. Cone Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. ( the ‘Company’) hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) | the accompanying report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the ‘Report’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

| |      |                                                                                                                                                     
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (ii) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2008


/s/ Angeliki FrangouAngeliki Frangou
Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 31, 2008


/s/ George AchniotisGeorge Achniotis
Chief Financial Officer


---
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAVIER SANCHEZ-VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 06-409M

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: August 3, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds the

following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The Pretrial Services Report of August 3, 2006 reveals that there is an immigration

detainer lodged against the defendant.

Case 2:06-mj-00409-JPD Document 7 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant was born in and is a citizen of Mexico.

(3) There is no information available to show that defendant has any ties to this

community or to the Western District of Washington.

(4) Defendant has a criminal background history revealing prior charges and

convictions.

(5) Defendant is viewed as a risk of nonappearance because of the nature of the instant

charge and as a risk of danger based on his criminal history.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention

that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the safety of the

community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

/ / /

Case 2:06-mj-00409-JPD Document 7 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 3

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

s/ James P. Donohue 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00409-JPD Document 7 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 10852)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 730224-1/3.

(Decided November 17, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> ■1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 T.D. 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the *478merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/diseaseandconditions/influenza/swine-flu.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/diseaseandconditions/influenza/swine-flu.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# L_2022237EN.01001701.xml

| 14.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 237/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 237/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1526

of 9 September 2022

authorising the opening of negotiations with Canada for an Agreement on the general principles for the participation of Canada in Union programmes and on the association of Canada to Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 186 and 212, in conjunction with Article 218(3) and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,

Whereas negotiations should be opened with a view to concluding an agreement with Canada on the general principles for the participation of Canada in Union programmes and on the association of Canada to Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission is hereby authorised to open negotiations with Canada, on behalf of the Union, for an agreement on the general principles for the participation of Canada in Union programmes and on the association of Canada to Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027).

Article 2

The negotiations shall be conducted on the basis of the negotiating directives of the Council set out in the addendum to this Decision.

Article 3

The negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with the Working Party on Transatlantic Relations, for matters related to the general conditions for the participation of Canada in any Union programmes, and with the Working Party on Research, for matters related to the specific conditions for the participation of Canada in the Horizon Europe Programme.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the European Commission.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2022.

For the Council

The President

J. SÍKELA

---
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Chugach Electric  Association,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September  30,  2007,  I,
Michael R. Cunningham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(a) This quarterly  report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) The information  contained in this quarterly report fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 19, 2007

                                                     /s/ Michael R. Cunningham
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Michael R. Cunningham
                                                     Chief Financial Officer