alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 64041.

protest 59/5116 (New York)

#### Charles Sadek Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of switch plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62832, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 94371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31046]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9030-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 12/12/
2016 Through 12/16/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20160309, Final, BOEM, AK, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas 
Lease Sale 244, Review Period Ends: 01/23/2017, Contact: Sharon Randall 
907-334-5200
EIS No. 20160310, Final, FRA, NAT, NEC FUTURE: A Rail Investment Plan 
for the Northeast Corridor Tier 1, Review Period Ends: 01/31/2017, 
Contact: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea 212-668-2282
EIS No. 20160311, Draft, USACE, NE, Missouri River Recovery Management 
Plan, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2017, Contact: Aaron Quinn 402-995-
2669

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-31046 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
II 

Calendar No. 272 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1223 

[Report No. 115–190] 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2017 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

DECEMBER 5, 2017 

Reported by Mr. HOEVEN, with an amendment 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Klamath Tribe Judg5 ment Fund Repeal Act’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1223 RS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

2 Public Law 89–224 (commonly know as the ‘‘Klam3 ath Tribe Judgment Fund Act’’) (79 Stat. 897) is re4 pealed. 

5 SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS. 

6 Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89–224 

7 (79 Stat. 897) (as in effect on the day before the date of 

8 enactment of this Act) relating to the distribution or use 

9 of funds, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment 

10 of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall disburse to 

11 the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on or be12 fore the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated 

13 or deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees 

14 and administration and per capita trust accounts, as iden15 tified by the Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as 

16 in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 272 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1223 

[Report No. 115–190] 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

DECEMBER 5, 2017 

Reported with an amendment 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 23 Filed 09/26/2003 Page 10 of 10
103 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Note 11. Accounts Payable 

Accounts Payable as of September 30, 2022, and 2021 

(In billions of dollars) 2022 2021 

Department of Defense .......................................................................................... 37.4 39.4 

Security Assistance Accounts ................................................................................. 17.5 17.5 

Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................... 5.0 13.7 

Department of the Treasury .................................................................................... 8.4 7.3 

General Services Administration ............................................................................. 6.3 5.5 

Department of Education ........................................................................................ 4.5 5.0 

Department of Energy ............................................................................................ 5.1 4.8 

Department of State ............................................................................................... 2.9 3.3 

Department of Justice ............................................................................................ 2.7 2.6 

Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................... 3.2 2.6 

U.S. Agency for International Development .............................................................. 3.1 2.6 

Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 2.5 2.4 

U.S. Postal Service ................................................................................................ 2.3 2.3 

All other................................................................................................................. 13.7 14.1 

 Total accounts payable ........................................................................................ 114.6 123.1 

Accounts payable includes amounts due for goods and property ordered and received, services rendered by other than 

federal employees, cancelled appropriations for which the U.S. government has contractual commitments for payment, and 

non-debt related interest payable.
(Reap. Dec. 10669)

Entry No. 838465, etc.

#### Heyman Co. et al. *v.*United States

*424(Decided January 23, 1964)

*Sharretts, Palay & Garter*for the plaintiffs.

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

Kao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, were submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues in *United States*v. *The Heyman Company, Inc.,*50 Oust. Ct. 564, ARD 157.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that said merchandise was exported prior to March 1, 1956 and that the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $0.075 per pound net packed.

> ' IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in ARD 157 be incorporated with the record in these cases and that these appeals for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the merchandise described herein.

Upon the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find export value,, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper, basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such value is $0.075 per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CSK Auto Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 3, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don W.
Watson, hereby certify, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Don W. Watson

Don W. Watson
Chief Financial Officer
December 18, 2002
No. 66270.

#### Beer Stern Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 68/4768 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon ribbons similar in use to fabrics with fast edges, wholly or in chief of silk, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Mellon Bank One Mellon Bank Center

Room 410
Pittsburgh, PA 15258-0001

(AL2) 234-8006 Office

September 23, 1999 Paul Hi. Dimmick
Executive Vice President
Mellon Bank, N.A.

Ms. Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Department of the Treasury

Cash Management Policy and Planning Division
Financial Management Service

401 14" Street, SW — Room 420

Washington, DC 20227

Re: Proposed Changes to the Interest Rate Charges on TT&L Note Balances
Dear Ms. Johnson:

Mellon Bank, N.A. welcomes this opportunity to submit comments on the
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service’s proposed revisions to
its regulations governing the Treasury Tax and Loan ("TT&L") program and
specifically a change to the interest rate the Treasury charges on TT&L note balances,
including funds loaned through the direct investment and special direct investment
programs.

Mellon Bank believes the current rate of interest, Fed Funds Effective less .25 basis
points, payable on TT&L note balances appropriately reflects the economic value of
overnight ccllateralized borrowings that are borrowed and lent on demand. We
believe that likening the banking industry's participation in the TT&L program to
participation in the repo market, which appears to be the implication of the proposal,
is a bit of a misconception. In the repo market, transaction initiation and selection of
tenor is under the control of the bank. With the TT&L program, the Treasury has
control as to the timing, tenor, and amount of the deposit (subject to a ceiling, of
course). Therefore, we believe the current concession rate is appropriate
compensation for this call feature.

Without a concession rate or the right of refusal to accept the deposit on demand,
Mellon Bank would foresee reducing its TT&L participation dramatically, since the
increase in funding costs would make these balances a less attractive funding source
against the necessity of maintaining an eligible collateral pool. It would be more


Ms. Cynthia L. Johnson
September 23, 1999
Page 2

efficient for Mellon Bank to directly manage its liquidity position via repo
agreements with dealers or other market participants to fund the collateral or,
alternatively, decrease its holdings of eligible collateral.

As to entertaining fixed rate term deposits, Mellon Bank would find the proposal
acceptable assuming such funding were priced at market rates comparable to other
collateralized term deposits and that the bank's right of refusal was clearly
maintained.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal and if you have any
questions regarding anything contained herein, please feel free to contact me at
(412)234-8006 or Roy Hartman, head of our Bank Treasury unit at (412)234-0373.
Yours sincerely,

ie

Paul H. Dimmick
Executive Vice President
Capital Markets

MEB/PHD/EK

Iikalogera\ldot
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cap Rock Energy Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lee D.Atkins, Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: March 25, 2005 |                                                          |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                          |
|                       |                                                          |
|                       | By: /s/ Lee D. Atkins                                         |   |
|                       | Lee D. Atkins                                                 |
|                       | Senior Vice-President, Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Cap Rock Energy Corporation and will be retained by Cap Rock EnergyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
# C_2016343EN.01002202.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-290/16)

(2016/C 343/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that air carriers must specify the actual amount of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees listed in points (b), (c) and (d) when publishing their air fares and therefore may not partially include them in their air fares in accordance with point (a) of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that air carriers must specify the actual amount of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees listed in points (b), (c) and (d) when publishing their air fares and therefore may not partially include them in their air fares in accordance with point (a) of that provision?

1

| 2. | Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national law on standard business conditions, which has its basis in Union law, according to which a separate handling fee cannot be imposed on customers who have not taken a flight or cancelled a flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national law on standard business conditions, which has its basis in Union law, according to which a separate handling fee cannot be imposed on customers who have not taken a flight or cancelled a flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.

1

---
No. 50363.

#### Protests 45183-K, etc., of H. A. Caesar & Co. (New York).

*240Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It appeared from the testimony that certain of the merchandise is of the same dutiable character as the umbrella cloth covered by *Caesar & Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 455, C. D. 515), and other merchandise is of the same dutiable character as that passed upon in *id.*v. *id.*(4 Cust. Ct. 34, C. D. 278). The protests were therefore sustained as claimed.
No. 56971.

#### B. Shackman & Co. and S. Stern Henry & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 185559-K (New York).

*417Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with'stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chinaware miniature tea sets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *B. Shackman & Co.*and *S. Stern Henry & Co.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 298, C. D. 1426), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 46555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Funding Availability for the Small Business 
Transportation Resource Center Program; Closing and Award Dates 
Extended

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation (OST), Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization (OSDBU).

ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability; Extension of closing and award 
dates

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the closing and award dates for a Notice 
of Funding Availability for the Small Business Transportation Resource 
Center that was published on July19, 2012, 77 FR 36034. USDOT OSDBU is 
extending the closing date to allow eligible entities time to 
adequately submit a proposal.

DATES: The submission period for the Notice of Funding Availability 
published on July 19, 2012 closing on July 31, 2012 is extended until 
August 13, 2012, 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. Also, the notice of 
award for the competed region on or before August 16, 2012 is extended 
until August 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Proposals must be electronically submitted to OSDBU via 
email at SBTRC@dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
this notice, contact Ms. Patricia Martin, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. W56-462, Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone: 
1-800 532 1169. Email: patricia.martin@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the June 19, 2012 document (Notice No. 
USDOT-OST-OSDBU-SBTRC2012-10; Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0092), the 
Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary (OST), 
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) 
announces the opportunity for; (1) Business centered community-based 
organizations; (2) transportation-related trade associations; (3) 
colleges and universities; (4) community colleges or; (5) chambers of 
commerce, registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501 C(6) or 
501 C(3) tax-exempt organizations, to compete for participation in 
OSDBU's Small Business Transportation Resource Center (SBTRC) program 
in the Central Region.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 30, 2012.
Brandon Neal,
Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012-19022 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
# C_2019093EN.01004701.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council

(Case T-750/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Liability))

(2019/C 93/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: initially, L. Levi and A. Tymen, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 December 2015 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, if necessary, the decision of 19 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 8 December 2015 by which FV has been placed on leave in the interests of the service; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 8 December 2015 by which FV has been placed on leave in the interests of the service;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by FV; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by FV;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---