alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
User Roles and Functions

*By default, all Integrated View users will have query capability based on allowed ALC(s), Symbol(s), 

and/or any Program entitlement. 

Role Name (Name in Identity IQ) Description External User

TCISIV-Integrated View General access to Integrated View Required

TCISIV-Agency User

Users limited by Agency Location Code (ALC) 

or Non-Treasury Disbursing Offices (NTDO)

Required

Agency Location Code (ALC)

(e.g., TCISIV-ALC-28045600)

OR

Symbol for Non-Treasury Disbursing 

Office (NTDO)

(e.g., TCISIV-ALC-00005570 OR

TCISIV-NTDO HDOD)

OR a Program such as :

TCISIV-SSA Program

TCISIV-SSA Admin

Allow Agency users see all payment activity 

from the Agency’s ALC or Symbol.

For NTDO, user can EITHER request for this 

TCISIV-ALC-0000xxxx OR one of the 

entitlements below:

• TCISIV-NTDO HAF

• TCISIV-NTDO HAR

• TCISIV-NTDO HC

• TCISIV-NTDO HNA

• TCISIV-NTDO HDOD

• TCISIV-NTDO HDOS

• TCISIV-NTDO HMAS

This program contains eight common SSA 

ALCs : 28045900, 28045600, 28045500, 

28045400, 28045300, 28045200, 28043000, 

28040004

Contains one SSA Admin ALC - 28040001

Required

SSA ONLY – this 

can be added 

instead of 

selecting/adding 

each ALC at a 

time.

TCISIV-Reclamation Dashboard Provides the form 133 (Notice of 

Reclamation) form 135 (Debit Authorization) 

and Notice of Direct Debit

ONLY Benefit 

Agencies

TCISIV-Cancellation Dashboard Allows Agency users see all the activities of 

cancelled payments) Summary and Detail 

reports

As assigned
TCISIV

- UCC Stop Payment Provide the ability to submit a stop code 

against a particular check symbol/serial 

number

As assigned
Before the Third Division,

May 6, 1959

No. 63019.

#### John E. Staren *v.*United States,

protests 214469-K, etc. (Nogales).

*368Opinion by

Donlon, *J.*

*In accordance*with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. S. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10366)

Entry No. 2757, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 8, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after January 1,1961.

> *441IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 24, 2000,  incorporated  by reference in The  ServiceMaster
Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, into
The ServiceMaster  Company's  previously filed Registration  Statement File Nos.
333-33580, 333-89037, 333-78239, 333-74781, 033-55761, 033-39148 on Form S-8 and
No.  333-91381  on Form S-3.  It should be noted  that we have not  audited  any
financial  statements  of the  Company  subsequent  to  December  31,  1999,  or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 15, 2000


                                       1
<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE

Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  the
Registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  May 15, 2000


              THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY
              (Registrant)

              By: ______________________________________

              Steven C. Preston
              Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



                                       2
<PAGE>


                                    SIGNATURE

Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  the
Registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  May 15, 2000


              THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY
              (Registrant)

              By:                 /S/STEVEN C. PRESTON
                 --------------------------------------------------
                                Steven C. Preston
              Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


                                       3
<PAGE>
No. 55852.

protests 166600-K and 166604-K (New York).

#### Henry Pollak, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-10274

Summary Calendar

CATHLEEN P. RANCIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BAPTIST ST. ANTHONY’S HOSPITAL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division

(2:01-CV-210-J)

August 19, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cathleen Rancier appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of her former employer, Baptist St. Anthony

Hospital Corporation (“St. Anthony”). Rancier argues that she has

established a prima facie case for her claims that St. Anthony laid
2

her off because of her race and age in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Age

Discrimination Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et. seq.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo. Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. Facility Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d

164, 167 (5th Cir. 1999); Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health &

Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1996). “Summary

judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Grimes, 102 F.3d at 139 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). In

employment discrimination cases, the question is whether a genuine

issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant intentionally

discriminated against the plaintiff. Id. Unsubstantiated

assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence. Chaney,

179 F.3d at 167; Grimes, 102 F.3d at 139.

A Title VII plaintiff bears the initial burden to prove a

prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801-03 (1973). “Once that showing has been

made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate

a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.”

Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 299 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing McDonnell

Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-03). The plaintiff must then demonstrate

that the employer’s reason was pretext. Id. “Thus, a plaintiff’s

prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that

the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the
3

trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully

discriminated.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530

U.S. 133, 135 (2000). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rancier,

we find that St. Anthony presented evidence of nondiscriminatory

reasons for its decision to lay Rancier off, and that Rancier

failed to show pretext or falsity of the explanation. We therefore

affirm the district court’s order dated February 4, 2002.

AFFIRMED.
No. 67812.

#### Falcon Sales Company and Page & Jones, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/9009 and 59/25173 (Mobile).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy*& *Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Whitman Corporation:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos. 33-
58209 and 333-16355 on Forms S-3,  Registration  Statement No.  33-62113 on Form
S-4, and Registration  Statement Nos.  33-65006,  33-28238 and 33-53427 on Forms
S-8 of Whitman Corporation of our report dated January 16, 1998, relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheets of  Whitman  Corporation  and  subsidiaries  as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related  consolidated  statements  of income,
shareholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended  December 31, 1997,  which report  appears in this annual report on
Form 10-K.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 16, 1998
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants

Suite 400

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131-2310

Tel: (305) 372-3100

Fax: (305) 372-3160	Deloitte
www.us.deloitte.com

& **Touche**
 

 

 

 

 
**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT**
 

To the Board of Directors of

Lennar Partners, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about Lennar Partners, Inc.'s (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*(USAP) as applicable to the special servicing of commercial and multifamily mortgage loans as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum-servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 15, 2002
# C_2018005EN.01003901.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)

(Case T-723/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark RE-CONzerø - Earlier EU word mark ZERO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 005/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: initially, F. Caricato and, subsequently, M. Fazzini, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2374/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Steenfabrieken Vandersanden and Mapei.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mapei SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mapei SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 18.1

                    LETTER RE: CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE


August 13, 2002

The ServiceMaster Company
2300 Warrenville Road
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Board of Directors:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2002, of the facts relating to your change in accounting for your
American Home Shield business. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set
forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the
Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is an
alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of The ServiceMaster
Company and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period.
Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the
facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q on the related information
furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows of The ServiceMaster Company and its
consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period.

Yours truly,


Deloitte & Touche LLP








                                       24
<PAGE>






















..........
**Exhibit
      32**





**Section
      1350 Certifications**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, the undersigned officer of Genesis Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:






To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period
      ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      April 10, 2007




/s/ Jason
              PratteJASONPRATTE
              CHIEF
                  EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                  OFFICER
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, James Leitzinger, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Badger State Ethanol, LLC;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                                      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)                                     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                                      Presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)                                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)                                     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 25, 2004

 

 
|   |   |   | /s/ James Leitzinger    |   |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | James Leitzinger        |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# 2017_06 Pivot Table 5A

# 5

&"Calibri,Bold"&11 2017_06 MTS Table 5 Line Analysis	

&P/&N
No. 50908.

Suit 4515.

#### United *States*v. *Fibre Making Processes, Inc.*

C. D. 920 reversed January 7, 1946. C. A. D. 323.
No. 51355.

#### Protests 120691-K, etc., of Schenley Distilleries, Inc. (Indianapolis).

*199Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of glass containers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 50935. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---

PROMISSORY NOTE



|Name of Borrower: | Infitech Ventures Inc.               
|----------------- | -------------------------------------
|                  | 20 Lyall Avenue                      
|                  | Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E
      1V9



|Name of Lender: | Paul G. Daly                         
|--------------- | -------------------------------------
|                | **20 Lyall
      Avenue**            
|                | Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E
      1V9



| | 1. | For value received, Borrower agrees to pay the Lender
      the amount of $US 6000.00 on a date to be determined. Payment will be sent
      to the Lender at 20 Lyall Avenue, Toronto Ontario Canada M4E 1V9. The loan
      is unsecured, non interest bearing and payable on demand. Payment can be
      made in cash or common stock with any stock repayment subject to
      requirements imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated at the City of Toronto this 4thday of June 2007.

|Signature of Borrower or authorized signatory
      of Corporation | */s/ Paul G. Daly*    
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------
|                                                                   |                       
|                                                                   |                       
|Name of authorized signatory of Corporation                        | PAUL G. DALY          
|                                                                   |                       
|                                                                   |                       
|Name of Corporation                                                | INFITECH VENTURES INC.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. DONAHUE, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., :

Defendants, : NO. 05-CV-4998 

__________________________________________________________

JOHN J. DONAHUE, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., :

Defendants. : NO. 04-CV-0344

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of March 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that Donahue v.

Potter, Civil Action No. 04-0344, and Donahue v. United States Postal Service, Civil Action No.

05-4998, are hereby CONSOLIDATED. It is further ORDERED as follows:

1. All pleadings, documents and docket entries filed or recorded in Civil Action No.

04-0344 shall be transferred to Civil Action No. 05-4998.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Civil Action No. 04-0344 for statistical

purposes.

3. From this point forward, all pleadings in this matter shall be filed under Civil 

Action No. 05-4998.

4. If modification to the February 16, 2006 scheduling order is necessary, the parties 

may submit a motion to amend the scheduling order.

BY THE COURT:

/S/LEGROME D. DAVIS

Legrome D. Davis, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04998-LDD Document 18 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 28 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 6 of 6