alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Do Not Pay:

Eligibility Tool

The Office of Payment Integrity (OPI), Do Not Pay Business Center (DNP) offers the Eligibility Tool 

in conjunction with other DNP analytics services to reduce agency burden when researching a highvolume of matches. The Eligibility Tool uses a suite of death and eligibility data sources to return 

matches that are prioritized and ranked, which enables DNP customers to review more conclusive 

matches.

Introduction

How Does It Work?

donotpay@fiscal.treasury.gov 855-837-4391 fiscal.treasury.gov/dnp

Payment or payee data files

To minimize agency burden, the Elligibility 

Tool can ingest any payee or payment file, 

including an existing Payment Automation 

Manager (PAM) file or bulk file submitted 

to the DNP Portal for Batch Matching or 

Continuous Monitoring.

What Are the Benefits?

Enhanced matching

Advanced matching capabilities 

and logic for more conclusive, 

high-quality results

Streamlined verification

Reduce time-consuming 

improper payment research 

efforts and quickly identify at-risk 

improper payments

Improved data integrity and quality

Increase confidence in payment 

integrity and internal controls

Matched against DNP data

The Eligibility Tool matches your 

data against the full range of death, 

debarment, debt, and other data 

sources available to DNP.

Results rank ordered

The matched results from the Eligibility 

Tool are scored and ranked by each data 

source category (i.e., death, debarment, 

debt) to provide a single, summed 

eligibility rating for each payment or 

payee. Matches are prioritized and 

returned in a user-friendly interface via a 

secure data connection.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02404]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS14-01]

Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION: In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:
    Location: Federal Reserve Board--International Square location, 
1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Date: February 12, 2014.
    Time: 10:30 a.m.
    Status: Open.

Chair Opening Remarks
Executive Director's Report
Delegated State Compliance Reviews
2013 Financial Report

    Summary Agenda: December 11, 2013 minutes--Open Session.
    (No substantive discussion of the above items is anticipated. These 
matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the ASC 
requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.)
    Discussion Agenda:

Compliance Review(s)
Revised ASC Rules of Operation
ASC Advisory Committee Balanced Membership Plan

How To Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting

    If you plan to attend the meeting in person, we ask that you notify 
the Federal Reserve Board via email at appraisal-questions@frb.gov, 
requesting a return meeting registration email. The Federal Reserve Law 
Enforcement Unit will then send an email message with a web link where 
you may provide your date of birth and social security number through 
their encrypted system. You may register until close of business 
February 5, 2014. You will also be asked to provide identifying 
information, including a valid government-issued photo ID, before being 
admitted to the meeting. Alternatively, you can contact Kevin Wilson at 
202-452-2362 for other registration options. The meeting space is 
intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will 
not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that 
reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, 
photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device 
designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-02404 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
pnc-12312020xex410






Exhibit 4.10      DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  DESCRIPTION OF COMMON STOCK   General 





 






  Dividends and Other Payments 





 






  Other Provisions 





 






  DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED STOCK   General    





 






    Summary of Key Terms of Outstanding Preferred Stock Preferred Series Annual Dividend Rate Cumulative Dividend Conversion Rate Voting Right (Based on Conversion Rate) Liquidation Value per Share Redeemable   Description of Depositary Shares Dividends and Other Payments 





 






  Series B Preferred Stock Dividends Series O, Series P, Series R and Series S Preferred Stock Dividends 





 






  Redemption by PNC 





 






  Voting   Right to Elect Two Directors upon Nonpayment of Dividends.  





 






    Voting Rights under Pennsylvania Law.     Series B Preferred Stock Voting   Series O, Series P, Series R and Series S Preferred Stock Voting. 





 






    Liquidation of PNC   Redemption by PNC Series B Preferred Stock Redemption Series O, Series P, Series R and Series S Preferred Stock Redemption 





 






    Conversion Series B Preferred Stock Series O, Series P, Series R and Series S Preferred Stock Conversion   DESCRIPTION OF DEPOSITARY SHARES  





 






            Dividends and Other Distributions    Redemption of Depositary Shares    Voting the Preferred Stock  





 






    Conversion of Preferred Stock    Amendment and Termination of the Deposit Agreement    Charges of Depositary    Resignation and Removal of Depositary    Miscellaneous
No. 53428.

protest 147603-K (New York).

#### Henri Bendel, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the shoes are the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Henri Bendel, Inc.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 224, C. D. 404), the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1530 (e) was sustained as to certain items of the merchandise.
### RTR materials Ken Hustvedt to: Higgins, Cortney, nbeck 08/13/2010 05:59 PM

Cc: Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Fred Talcott, George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Phil Mulrine, Randy Mcdonald, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, Steve Shedd, Ted Palma, Tim Benner, Elaine Manning, Ken Hustvedt, Rick Vetter



### I have the following materials to add what you have received on the risk reports. For several of the previously proposed source categories we are still relying on the information prepared for the 10/08 proposals

Have a nice weekend all.

kch

MTVLO

Memo to docket MVL 8_11_10.doc Emissions memo_2010Aug12.doc



### Polymers and Resins I

P&R EIA.docx P&R I Allowable Emissions Document.pd f P&R I Allowable Emissions Document.pd f PR I Impacts Memo - Final.pd f

PR I Impacts Memo - Final.pd f



### Chromium Electroplating
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cr-00130-PD Document 118 Filed 08/09/11 Page 6 of 6
No. 60708.

#### Albert F. Maurer & Co. v. United States,

protest 265876-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that certain items are in chief value of wood, the claim at 16% percent under the provision in paragraph 412 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 412), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), *485supplemented by Presidéntial proclamation (T. D. 52476), for manufactures of wood, not specially provided for, was sustained as to the following items:

> (Entry 8083)

> Item 13, 100 shafts Viceroy-de-Luxe, L. 1890

> “ 14, 50 Wood Rollers, 14 inches, L. 915

> “ 15, 50 Wood Rollers, 16 inch, L. 913

> “ 22, 50 Cross Handles, L. 1518

> (Entry 8407)

> Item 12, 60 Wood Rollers, 14 inch, L. 915

> “ 13, 18 Wood Rollers, 16 inch, L. 913

> “ 16, 24 Cross Handles, L. 1508

> “ 21, 36 Handle shafts Viceroy de Luxe

> “ 26, 50 Wood Rollers, 14 inch, L. 915

> “ 27, 30 Wood Rollers, 16 inch, L. 913

> “ 40, 40 Cross Handles, L. 1508

Item No. 14, “5 Sectional Rubber Rollers, 16 inch, L. 2581,” and item No. 15, “2 Sectional Rubber Rollers, 18 inch, L. 2582,” covered by entry 8407, stipulated to consist of manufactures of rubber, were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 (b) (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 1537 (b)), as claimed.
No. 66722.

#### Pacific Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/12695 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Electronic Tariff Filings Docket No. RM01-5-000 

NOTICE OF POSTING OF INFORMATION AND 

ESTABLISHMENT OF RSS FEED 

(February 23, 2009) 

 In Order No. 714,1

 the Commission adopted regulations requiring that, as of April 

1, 2010, tariff and tariff related filings must be made electronically according to a set of 

protocols and standards. A website (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff.asp) and an 

email address (etariff@ferc.gov) have been established to provide information, and 

respond to questions, about the protocols and standards. 

 The information on the website needs to be updated and revised from time to time. 

Answers to the questions received through email also may be of value to software 

providers and companies other than the requester. In order to ensure that all vendors and 

providers have access to this information, the questions and answers will be posted on the 

website under the “Staff’s Response to Discussion Questions” link. Similar questions 

may be grouped together with a single response. 

The following revised documents are being posted: Preliminary FERC eTariff 

Rules Table, Type of Filing, Attachment Reference Code, and Staff’s Response to 

Discussion Questions. The Staff’s Response to Discussion Questions has been revised to 

organize better the previous information posted with respect to the December 3, 2008 

technical conference and to add additional information. In addition, the dates on which 

each item is revised will be listed so that viewers can more easily determine the new 

items that have been added as the document is revised. 

 Because these documents will be updated and revised on a regular basis, a 

Secretary’s Notice will not be published for every change made on the eTariff website. 

Instead, an RSS feed has been established for the web site so that software companies and 

vendors can be alerted when information on the site is revised. Anyone may subscribe to 

the RSS feed which is located at http://www.ferc.gov/xml/etariff.xml. 

 1

 Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57,515 (Oct. 3, 2008), 124 

FERC ¶ 61,270 (Sept. 19, 2008). 
Docket No. RM01-5-000 2 

 

For further information, please contact Keith Pierce at 202-502-8525 or by 

sending an email to ETariff@ferc.gov. 

 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.
Before the Second Division,

April 26, 1962

No. 66710.

#### S. Jack Senter Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/23354 (New York).

*429Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-bos assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries


Subsidiaries of World Gaming plc:

         WG International Ltd


Subsidiaries of WG International Ltd:

         World Gaming Europe Limited

         Starnet Communications International, Inc.


Subsidiaries of Starnet Communications International, Inc.

         Starnet Systems International Inc.

         EFS International Inc.

         EFS USA Inc.

         EFS Australia Pty Ltd

         EFS NV

         EFS St. Kitts Inc.

         Inphinity Interactive Inc.

         602662 British Columbia Ltd

         World Gaming Services Inc.

         Starnet Communications Canada Inc.
No. 64719.

#### Atkins, Kroll & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/25570, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of galvanized wire of a type substantially used for fencing purposes, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Hubert Kindle, Appellant

No. 06-21-00132-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 50598-

A). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice van Cleef, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Hubert Kindle, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 1, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

l0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138112

IN RE ATTORNEY FEES OF UJLAKY

___________________ _________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138112 COA: 288247 Washtenaw CC: 06-000903-FH TAMARA ANN McCRACKEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 23, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALFRED E. WILLIAMS : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 03-4692 

 :

RAYMOND J. SOBINA :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2009, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1), the Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge

Carol Sandra Wells Moore, no objections to the Report and Recommendation having been

filed, the stay having been vacated as a result of the petitioner’s failure to file an application

for state post conviction relief as directed by the Order of April 14, 2005 (Document No.

36), and after a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Wells

Moore is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and,

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

 /Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:03-cv-04692-TJS Document 48 Filed 06/25/09 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

March 6, 1947

No. 51587.

#### Protests 72463-K, etc., of D. Lisner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). .In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-04071-BMS Document 12 Filed 04/24/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04071-BMS Document 12 Filed 04/24/2003 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015262EN.01003502.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/35

---

Action brought on 17 June 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (TRIPLE BONUS)

(Case T-318/15)

(2015/C 262/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE BONUS’ — Application for registration No 12 013 629

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 1648/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
BREYER, J., concurring 

 

Cite as: 581 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 

Statement of BREYER, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

JOE CLARENCE SMITH v. CHARLES L. RYAN, 

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

No. 16–8071. Decided April 24, 2017
 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

 Statement of JUSTICE BREYER respecting the denial of 

certiorari. 

The petitioner, Joe Clarence Smith, was sentenced to

death nearly 40 years ago. Primarily because of constitutional defects in his sentencing, his execution has been

long delayed. He has spent the last 40 years in prison 

under threat of execution. And for most of that time 

Smith has been held in solitary confinement. Pet. for 

Cert. 9. 

Members of this Court have recognized that “[y]ears on

end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price.” Davis v. 

Ayala, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (KENNEDY, J., concurring) 

(slip op., at 4). Long ago we observed that solitary confinement was “considered as an additional punishment of 

such a severe kind that it is spoken of . . . as ‘a further 

terror and peculiar mark of infamy.’” In re Medley, 134 

U. S. 160, 170 (1890). And, as I have previously pointed 

out, we have written that the uncertainty a person experiences during just four weeks of confinement under threat 

of execution is “one of the most horrible feelings to which 

[a person] can be subjected.” Id., at 172. 

What legitimate purpose does it serve to hold any human being in solitary confinement for 40 years awaiting 

execution? What does this case tell us about a capital 

punishment system that, in my view, works in random, 
 

 

 

2 SMITH v. RYAN 

Statement of BREYER, J. 

virtually arbitrary ways? I have previously explored these 

matters more systematically, coming to the conclusion

that this Court should hear argument as to whether capital punishment as currently practiced is consistent with

the Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Amdt. 8. See Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, 

___ (2015) (BREYER, J., dissenting). The facts and circumstances of Smith’s case reinforce that conclusion. 

I recognize the procedural obstacles that make it difficult for this Court now to grant certiorari in this particular case. See 28 U. S. C. §2254. Those problems would not 

have prevented the Court from granting certiorari 10

years ago when Smith asked us to do so (after spending 30

years on death row). See Smith v. Arizona, 552 U. S. 985 

(2007) (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Regardless, Smith’s confinement reinforces the need for 

this Court, or other courts, to consider in an appropriate 

case the underlying constitutional question.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY WESLEY RITCHEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (4:07-cr-00009-RGD-JEB-1; 4:08-cv-00090-RGD; 

4:10-cv-00019-RGD)

Submitted: April 26, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Wesley Ritchey, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wesley Ritchey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The denial of his § 2255 motion is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ritchey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED