alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8134)

#### F. W. Woolworth Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 4123.

(Decided June 24, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisemeut has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” hereto attached and made part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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 in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe earthenware articles bere involved, and tbat sucb value in each instance was tbe appraised value, less tbe amount added to meet advances made by tbe appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 49595.

#### Protest 79437-K of Industrial Commercial Consultants, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial plaintiff produced two witnesses and their testimony, together with a report of the customs laboratory, showed the merchandise to be 100 percent synthetic phenolic resin. In view of the record and following Abstract 45795, which was incorporated herein, the merchandise was found to be a manufacture of synthetic phenolic resin. The claim under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
Dispute Resolution Form 1

Intragovernmental Dispute Resolution Request Form 

Submit completed form to 

IBR.Dispute.Resolution@fiscal.treasury.gov

Part I: Dispute Resolution Details 

Entity Initiated Fiscal Service Initiated 

Section A: Entity Information 

Entity One: _________________________________________ 

Contact Name:_________________________________________ 

Title:_________________________________________________ 

Email Address: _______________________________________

Phone Number: _______________________________________

Entity Two:__________________________________________________ 

Contact Name: _______________________________________________ 

Title:________________________________________________________

Email Address:________________________________________________ 

Phone Number:______________________________________________

Section B : Total Difference Amount

The total difference amount affecting both agencies.(attach any additional information) 

Section C : Affected Reciprocal Categories and USSGL Accounts

(attach any additional information) 

Section D: Difference Duration 

Time period from when the difference was first developed. (attach any additional information). 

Section E: Difference Explanation

Why the difference occurs and what has been done in attempt to reconcile?(attach any additional information)
Dispute Resolution Form 2

Section F: Any Additional Supporting Documentation Attached

 Section A Additional Information Attachment 

 Section B Additional Information Attachment 

 Section C Additional Information Attachment 

 Section D Additional Information Attachment 

 Section E Additional Information Attachment 

 Material Difference Report 

 Targeted Difference Report 

 Auditor’s Documentation 

 Correspondence between agencies (emails, meeting minutes, etc.) 

 Authoritative Reference 

 Other 

Section G: Certification 

Signature confirms that no IPAC chargebacks, rejections or new transactions were created to solve this dispute outside of the business rules. 

I certify that this written submission and supporting documentation are, to the best of my knowledge, complete and accurate. 

____________________________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________

 Signature, Chief Financial Officer or Designee Title Date

Part II Dispute Decision

FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, FISCAL SERVICE USE ONLY 

ACCEPTED TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS: 

REJECTED FROM DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS: 

I certify that the submitted difference is accepted into the Dispute Resolution Process. 

Fiscal Service Representative 

_____________________________________ ________________________ ______________ Signature Print Name Date

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NUMBER:_______________________
Fixed Assets in a Cancelling TAS

 USSGL Advisory Division

IRC Meeting 12-8-16

3 Options

1. Leave them in the TAS if it is a no year or current year

2. Move them to a C TAS

3. Move them to a no year or current year TAS

Option 2 or 3

Must be completed prior to reporting your ATB to GTAS

TC E510 (out) or E606 (in)

Fixed Assets

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Which option is your Agency using?

What are the benefits of your method?

What would be the burden to switch methods?

Fixed Assets: Data Request

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

# image1.png

# image3.png

# image8.gif
Before the First Division,

August 22, 1950

No. 54612.

#### Max Stern & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 133063-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
IRC Handout Draft April 21, 2021

Part 2 Fiscal Year 2022 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT SECTION IV

USSGL ACCOUNT ATTRIBUTE DEFINITION REPORT

Attribute

Name 

Attribute

Short 

Name 

Attribute 

Definition Domain

System 

Characters Reference

Supplied

By 

Credit Cohort 

Year

Cohort Yr Fiscal year when direct loans are 

obligated or guarantees 

committed by a program, even if 

disbursements occur in 

subsequent fiscal years.

1001 OPIC Working 

Capital,1992-20222023

4/N OMB Circ. No. 

A-11

Bulk File

Disaster 

Emergency 

Fund Code

DEFC Distinguishes whether the 

budgetary resources, obligations 

incurred, unobligated and 

obligated balances, and outlays 

are classified as disaster, 

emergency, wildfire suppression 

or none of the three. Note - Once 

one of the three has been 

identified, the title 

"Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression", for example, will be 

replaced with the actual title 

identified by OMB such as 

"Emergency PL 115-56."

A - Emergency PL 115-56

B - Emergency PL 115-72

C - Emergency PL 115-123

D - Emergency PL 115-254

E - Emergency PL 116-20

F - Emergency PL 116-26

G - Emergency PL 116-93

H - Disaster PL 116-93

I - Emergency PL 116-94

J - Wildfire Suppression PL 

116-94

K - Emergency PL 116-113

L - Emergency PL 116-123

M - Emergency PL 116-127

N - Emergency PL 116-136

O - Nonemergency PLs 116-

136, 116-139, and 116-260 

(Division N)

P - Emergency PL 116-139

Q - Non 

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

R - Emergency PL 116-260 

(Divisions A-L)

S - Disaster PL 116-260

T - Wildfire Suppression PL 

116-260

U - Emergency PL 116-260 

(Division M)

V -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression Nonemergency 

PL 117-2

W -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

X -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

Y -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

Z -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

1/A OMB 

Guidance/TFM

Bulk File
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0241

_________________

IN RE THE PARENTING OF:

S.D., and B.D.,

 Minor Children,

JENNIFER A. DUCHARME n/k/a, BRICK,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 and

RICHARD B. DUCHARME,

 Respondent and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Jennifer Brick, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 16 2022

11/16/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0241
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)


    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 Northland Cable Television, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, John Whetzell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;

         (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
         (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
         78(d)); and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Dated:  August 14, 2002


                                       BY:  /s/ JOHN S. WHETZELL
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John S. Whetzell
                                            (Chief Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LINDA HUDSON and, : CIVIL ACTION

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

WILBERTO GONZALEZ and, :

DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR SYS, INC, and : 

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP, :

Defendants : NO. 02-4365

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of January, 2003 upon

consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike/Compel

Discovery Responses Directed to Defendants(Docket #11) and the

defendant’s response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the

motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED:

(1) Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1g, the defendant, Dollar

Rent-a-Car shall respond to the plaintiff’s interrogatories on or

before January 14, 2003; and

(2) Because the defendants have indicated in their

response that both Dollar Rent-a-Car and Wilberto Gonzalez have

provided a response to the plaintiffs’ requests for production of

documents, the part of plaintiffs’ motion that seeks to compel

Dollar Rent-a-Car and Mr. Gonzalez to respond the respective

requests for production of documents is denied as moot; and

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 13 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 1 of 2
-2-

(3) The defendant, Wilberto Gonzalez, shall verify his

answers to interrogatories on or before January 17, 2003; and

(4) As it appears that the statement made by Mr.

Gonzalez that is in custody of defense counsel was prepared in

anticipation of litigation, and thus is work product, the portion

of the plaintiffs’ motion seeking to compel the production of

this statement is denied.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 13 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1
  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 Concept Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph
Douek, Principal Executive Officer and 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 to my knowledge:
   1.
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the
      Company.
   
  /s/ Joseph
      DouekJoseph
      DouekPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
  Date:
November 13, 2008
   A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REAL ESTATE ALLIANCE, LTD.

Plaintiff,

V. CIVIL ACTION

DIANE SARKISIAN AND 

VARIOUS JOHN AND JANE DOES

Defendants.

NO. 05-3573

STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated June 5, 2012, counsel for the parties to the above-captioned 

action submit their joint status report.

The present action is stayed, awaiting the outcome of a related action, Move, Inc. et al. v. Real 

Estate Alliance, Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 07-02185-GHK-AJW, and related cases. Those cases, 

pending in the Central District of California since 2007, seek to adjudicate the validity and infringement 

of the same patents-in-suit as the stayed action before this Court. At present, the California action is 

being appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by the patentee, Real Estate Alliance, Ltd., 

which seeks an order reversing a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.

The parties will keep this Court apprised of the disposition of the California actions, and will seek 

to have the stay lifted and the case resolved after a final result has been reached in the related matters.

Respectfully submitted,

CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP LIPTON, WEINBERGER & HUSICK

By: s/ Jeffrey L. Eichen

Jeffrey L. Eichen (PA 65,464) 

1007 North Orange Street

P.O. Box 2207 

Wilmington, Delaware 19899 

Telephone: 302.888.6306

Email: jeichen@cblh.com

Counsel for Defendants, 

Diane Sarkisian, et al.

By: s/ Lawrence A. Husick

Lawrence A. Husick (PA 38,815)

P.O. Box 587

Southeastern, PA 19399-0587

Telephone: 610-296-8259

Email: lhusick@lwh-law.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, 

Real Estate Alliance, Ltd.

Dated: July 3, 2012

Case 2:05-cv-03573-CDJ Document 143 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    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 results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 9 , 2006
______________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 94-3442

___________

Barry Lamont Johnson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

S. Moore, Little Rock Police * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department, Arkansas; Sheriff * [UNPUBLISHED]

Gravett, Pulaski County Jail, *

Arkansas, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 5, 1996

 Filed: January 18, 1996 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Barry Lamont Johnson appeals from the district court's1 orders

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous as to some

defendants and granting summary judgment to the remaining

defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
G‐Invoicing Implementation Timeline for

Enterprise Resource Planning and Software Provider

Unison

For More Information

For information on Unison’s G‐Invoicing product direction, please reference their G‐

Invoicing solution website. For additional information or assistance please contact

Robert.Crossett@Unisonglobal.com.

Join our Working Group

Unison encourages you to join the Federal PRISM User Group (FPUG) meetings host by

Ms. DeShonjla A. Peterson (DOE). To join the FPUG calls, please contact

Deshonjla.Peterson@hq.doe.gov.
---" .. ... 0 

ROPES & GRAY LLP 

1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

NEW YORK, NY 10036-8704 

WWW.ROPESGRAY.COM 

~ ~ f1f~ 

&G~AY 

February 1,2011 	 Jerome C. Katz 

T+l 2125969054 

F +1 646728 1846 

jerome.katz@ropesgray.com 

Office ofthe Clerk of the Court 

U.S. District Court 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse 

601 Market Street, Room 2609 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-7704 

Re: 	 United National Insurance Company et al. v. Aon Limited et aL 


(Civil Action No. 04-CV -539 (LHP)) 


Dear Sirs: 

This firm represents the plaintiffs. On or about May 26, 2009, we submitted a Bill ofCosts 

with supporting documentation. The Bill of Costs is still pending. Please be advised that this action 

(including the appeal currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit) has now been 

settled in its entirety and Stipulations of Voluntary Dismissal are being filed both with your office 

and the Third Circuit clerk's office. It is therefore unnecessary for the Bill of Costs to be ruled 

upon and we ask that you take no action upon it. Tha,nk you. 

\ 

Sh~~erely, 

,,\ 

. \ '\ 

~Ka~ JCK:ep 

fEB 232011 

Case 2:04-cv-00539-LP Document 293 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 1
No. 54598.

#### Empire Wool Company *v.*United States,

protest 157617-K (Bridgeport).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wool flocks the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Walker Services*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 190, C. D. 1230), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Adams. Kevin (OST)

Cc: Adams, Kevin (OST) Monday, February 24, 2014 11:46 AM Fort Dodge, Airport Manager, Rhonda Chambers; Fort Dodge, City Manager, David Fierke; Fort Dodge, Mayor, Matt Bemrich ; Mason City, Airport Mgr., Pamela Osgood; Mason City, Mayor, Eric Bookmeyer Carrier, Air Choice One, Cindy Stork; Carrier, Air Choice One, Shane Storz; Carrier, Great Lakes,Chuck Howell; Carrier, Great Lakes, Mike Matthews; Carrier, Great Lakes, Doug Voss Request for Comments at Fort Dodge and Mason City, Iowa MSP-ORD EASbid FOD-MCW asof 02-21-14.pdf; Proposal to Provide EssentialAir Service at Fort Dodge Mason City Iowa Docket DOT-OST-200l-10682 DOTOST-2001-10684 respectively (Final).pdf; Order_2014-1- 20 _RequestinqPro posals_On_An_Expedited_Basis[1].pdf From: 

### Sent: To:



### Subject: Attachments:

HiAll, 

### Attached above are the timely-filed proposals forEssential Air Service (EAS) atFort Dodge and Mason City, Iowa, submitted by Great Lakes andby Air Choice One, inresponse to Order 2014-1-20. We are currently reviewing those proposals. The attached proposals are directly from the carriers and will soon be reflected inthe Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov as follows: DOCKET DOT-OST-2001-10682; Fort Dodge DOCKET DOT-OST-IOOI-I0684; Mason City The Dockets will have other pertinent information aswell. The next step in the carrier-selection process isfor you to provide uswith your community's comments, acritically important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Accordingly, Iaskthat everyone get back to us, preferably by email, no later than March 14, 2014. We will docket this email, aswell asany replies. In brief, look at the proposals and get back to us bythe deadline, January 6, 2014. Obviously" if you have any questions, please call me. Best,
Kevin Adams 202-366-1047

1