alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting

Section V

T/L S2 14-01 DRAFT V-1

IRC Handout April 22, 2014

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Begin/End Fed/NonFed

Reporting 

Type 

Code

Addl. 

Info.

2 134200 Interest Receivable - Investments E F/Z E/U

8 134200 Interest Receivable - Investments E N/Z E/U 2

9 132100 Unfunded FECA Benefit Contributions Receivable E N U

33 540500 Unfunded FECA Benefit Revenue E F/N U

33 540600 Contra Revenue for Unfunded FECA Benefit Revenue E F/N U

USSGL Crosswalk - Balance Sheet
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting

Section V

T/L S2 14-01 DRAFT V-2 IRC Handout April 22, 2014

Footnotes and Additional Information

1. Use USSGL proprietary account attribute domain values as provided in USSGL Section 

IV, page 4.

2. Related to Government Account Series securities purchased using deposit funds. The 

Fed/Nonfed attribute domain value of Z was added to TFM 2-4700 in order to be able to 

correctly classify any Government Account Series securities reported to this USSGL account. 

The amounts are reported to a Federal line on the Reclassified Balance Sheet in accordance 

with Section 4705.20e. On the Balance Sheet this domain value would be reported on a NonFederal line.

3. FASAB recognizes amounts returned to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as nonfederal custodial liablilities as referenced in FASAB SFFAS No. 7, paragraph 289.

4. The Fed/Nonfed attribute domain value of Z was added to TFM 2-4700 in order to be able 

to correctly classify any Government Account Series securities reported to this USSGL 

account. The amounts are reported to a Federal line on the Reclassified Balance Sheet in 

accordance with Section 4705.20e. On the Balance Sheet this domain value would be 

reported on a Non-Federal line.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                                                                                                     |                                |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| May                20, 2008 |                                                                                                                | /s/ Edna                Carter |
|                             | Edna                Carter, Consultant and Acting Chief Accounting Officer (Principal                Accounting Officer) |

*This      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed by the Company*
*and      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under      the      Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made      before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general      incorporation language contained in such filing*
*.*
P.1 

OAR Box 1846 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

45) ll-E-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/18/2008 7:30:16 AM Sheet 45 of 93 
> 

• „ *4 . • 

•use; 

MAR 2 4 

UNIT 

1992 

MEMORANDUM 

P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Meeting Between EPA and Ethyl Petroleum Additives, Inc., 

Regarding Draft FFA Registration Regulations 

Carolyn Krueger, Chemical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Bfanch 

Docket No. A-90-07 

Judy Gray, Project Manager > 

Standards Development and Srtppb 

On Wednesday, January 22, 1992, representatives from EPA, 

Ethyl Petroleum Additives, Inc., and several contractors for Ethyl 

(Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., Mensura, Inc., and Power-Tek, Inc.) 

met at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan. (See Attachment for list of attendees.) EPA discussed 

its plans for developing the proposal and answered questions from 

the attendees. Topics discussed were the proposed grouping 

provisions for fuels and additives, emission generation and 

speciation provisions, and the emission generation for use with 

biological testing. 

Attachment 
P.3 

EPA/ETHYL MEETING 

JANUARY 22, 1992 

List of Attendees 

EPA 

Carolyn Krueger 

Lee Jones 

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC. 

Thomas Boschert 

Scott Wade 

CONTRACTORS 

David G. Reeve, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. 

Jim Juranitch, Power-Tek, Inc. 

Steve Cwian, Mensura, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, :

et al. : 02-CV-2755

O R D E R

AND NOW, this ___ day of ____________, 2002, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Four

Documents, it is hereby

ORDERED AND DECREED

that the Motion is Denied as moot.

BY THE COURT:

 

 J.

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 11 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, :

et al. : 02-CV-2755

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF FOUR DOCUMENTS

On September 19, 2002, Defendants did advise Plaintiffs that

they were objecting to the production of four possibly relevant

documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) because they were prepared

in anticipation of litigation and Plaintiff had not shown that she

had substantial need for them. Upon further consideration

Defendants realized that, as noted by Plaintiff in her Motion, two

of those documents had, in fact, already been produced.

(Approximately 4,000 pages of documents have been produced by

Plaintiff in this litigation; Defendants have produced

approximately 8,000 pages of documents, so it is understandable

that two of them may have been temporarily misplaced by Defendants

in the discovery process.) Following receipt of Plaintiff’s

Motion Defendants reconsidered their objection and on October 3,

2002, provided Plaintiff with the two other documents. Defendants

still contend that the four documents in question were indeed not

subject to production pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), but the

four 

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 11 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 2 of 4
documents having been produced, Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied

as moot.

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

 

By: PETER D. BLUDMAN, ESQUIRE

Attorney for Defendants

I.D. #43508

The Curtis Center

Fourth Floor

Independence Square West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3304

(215) 931-5879

M:\MDir\41282\0005\Motion.02Reply

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 11 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, :

et al. : 02-CV-2755

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy

of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of

Four Documents, was served on all counsel listed below via United

States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on the date shown below.

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esquire

HIRSCH & HIRSCH

110 Bala Avenue, Third Floor

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

 

By: PETER D. BLUDMAN, ESQUIRE

Attorney for Defendants

I.D. #43508

The Curtis Center

Fourth Floor

Independence Square West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3304

(215) 931-5879

Dated: ________________

M:\MDir\41282\0005\Motion.02Reply

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 11 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 99.2

                     Certification pursuant to Section 1350
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  DA Consulting Group, Inc. (the
"COMPANY")  on  Form  10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Dennis
C.  Fairchild,  Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  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,  as  amended; 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/ Dennis C. Fairchild
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                               Dennis C. Fairchild
                                Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
                                  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                             Date:  August 14, 2003




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DA Consulting Group, Inc. and will be retained by DA Consulting
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon its request.


                                       21
<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMSON & SESSIONS, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 04-CV-03646

 )

vs. )

 )

PAPER, ALLIED-INDUSTRIAL, )

CHEMICAL AND ENERGY WORKERS )

INTERNATIONAL UNION DISTRICT )

COUNCIL NO. 1, LOCAL 2-0578, )

 )

Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 30th day of March, 2006, upon consideration

of Plaintiff Lamson & Sessions’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

which motion was filed March 4, 2005; upon consideration of

Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

which answer was filed April 4, 2005; upon consideration of

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56,

which motion was filed March 4, 2005; upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, which brief was filed April 4, 2005,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Award and Decision of

Arbitrator Skonier, entered June 26, 2004, is confirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall re-test all

applicants for the Blend Department positions in a uniform and

consistent manner and award these positions to the most senior

Case 2:04-cv-03646-JKG Document 31 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
-iiapplicants who pass the entire test with at least a 70% score.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-03646-JKG Document 31 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. AAR ON DAVID PEREZ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10216

D.C . No. 4:16-c r-00223-JSW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2018 Subm i ssion Va c at e d July 11, 2018 R e subm itte d July

3, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** PAEZ, a n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
JUL 11 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Aaron Pe re z a ppe a ls the distric t’ s c ourt de nia l of his m otion to dism iss his fe de ra l indic tm e nt a

nd his se nte nc e of 61 m onths’ im prisonm e nt, followe d by

thre e y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. 1 B e c a use the Supre m e C ourt ha s re a ffirm e d the dua l sove re i gnty doc trine , se e Gamble v Unite d State

s , No. 17-646 (June

17, 2019), we re

je c t Pe re z ’ s a

rgum e nt that the Double Je opa

rdy C la use ba rre d the Unite d Stat e s from prose c uting him
. W e have de c l ine d to e xte nd Padilla v . K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356 (2010), be y ond the Sixth Am e ndm e nt c onte xt, se e Unite d State s v . De l gado-Ramos , 635 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th C ir. 2011), thus fa t a lly unde rc utting Pe re z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t Padilla e sta

blishe s a ge ne ra l rule tha

t the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt ha s a duty to wa rn a de fe nda nt in thesuc c e ssive prose c ution c onte xt. Nor doe s Pe re z point to a ny othe r opinion supporting his a

rgum e nt tha

t the gove rnm e nt viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights by fa iling to wa

rn him during sta

t e c o urt proc e e dings tha

t it pla nne d to unde rtake a

fe de ra l prose c ution, a

nd we have not found one . Ac c ordingly , we
re je c t this c la i m . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not proc e dura l ly e rr in its tre atm e nt of Pe re z ’ s
e vide nc e of purporte d ra c ia l dispa ritie s in suc c e ssive prose c utions. The c ourt did

1 W e a ddre ss the re m a ining issue s in a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, Unite d State s v . Pe re z , ___ F. 3d. ___ (9th C ir. 2018). 2not a

buse its disc re tion in holding tha t a ny c onc lusion of wide spre a d ra c ia l dispa rity ba se d on Pe re z ’ s “ ane c dota l inform ation,” a bout four suc c e s sive prose c utions involving Afric a n Am e ric a

n de fe n da nts ove r a five y e ar pe riod, would be “ spe c ulation,” a s the re “ m ay be a m yria d of re a sons” why an individual de fe nda nt is subje c t to suc c e ssive prose c ution. AFFIRM E D.

3
# sec5

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2017

Delete Program Indicator Column
# C_2015236EN.01004901.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/49

---

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Banimmo v Commission

(Case T-293/15)

(2015/C 236/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Banimmo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the applicant to sound administration and effective legal protection, in so far as, despite repeated requests from the applicant, the Commission has not provided it with the reasons for refusing its offer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the applicant to sound administration and effective legal protection, in so far as, despite repeated requests from the applicant, the Commission has not provided it with the reasons for refusing its offer.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a modification during the procedure of some essential factors of the property prospecting notice concerned, in infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a modification during the procedure of some essential factors of the property prospecting notice concerned, in infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency, since the Commission led negotiations with the various tenderers in an unforeseen manner with a lack of transparency, by, in particular, not formally announcing the stages of the procedure and the periods to submit tenders. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency, since the Commission led negotiations with the various tenderers in an unforeseen manner with a lack of transparency, by, in particular, not formally announcing the stages of the procedure and the periods to submit tenders.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR ALFONSO MARTINEZ

- SALAS, AKA Victor Alfonso Martinez,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73746 Agency No. A205

- 714

- 127

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted Ju ly 1 2 , 2022 * *
Before: SCHROEDER , R. NELSON , and VANDYKE , Circuit Judges.
Victor Alfonso Martinez

- Salas , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Aga inst Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73746

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez

Salas failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that doe s not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Duran

Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028

- 29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
the conclusion that threats rose to t he level of persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Martinez

- Salas failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1094

- 95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of fut ure persecution was not objectively reasonable).
We do not reach Martinez

- Salas’s contentions as to the cognizability of his proposed particular social group

. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to t he actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). Thus, Martinez

- Salas’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because3 15

- 73746

Martinez

- Salas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by o r with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID

Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards 

Proposed Rulemaking: Public Meeting and 

Webinar

201509913

Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) 

Dec 11, 2013 09:08 AM EST 330

Total Attended

26

Session Details

First Name Last Name Email Country Address City State Organization Zip Code

Emmanuel Agamloh eagamloh@advancedenergy.org US 909 Capability Drive, Suite 2100 Raleigh NC Advanced Energy 27606

James Alt jim.alt@nord.com US 800 Nord Drive Waunakee WI NORD Drivesystems 53597

Jun Asai jasai@suminet.com US 4200 Holland Blvd. Chesapeake VA Sumitomo Machinery Corp. of America 23323

Jean-Pierre Boivin jean-pierre.boivin@csagroup.org CA 865 Ellingham Ave Pointe-Claire QC CSA Group H9R 5E8

austin bonnett austin.bonnett@nedic-motor.com US 25341 july ave Gallatin MO austin bonnett engineering 64640

Terry Brennan tbrennan@nrcan.gc.ca CA 930 Carling Avenue Ottawa ON Natural Resources Canada k1a0e4

Burnet D. Brown bestrate@mindspring.com US 2348 Arapaho Thosuand Oaks CA GreenTech Motors Corp. 91362

Michael Bruin michael.bruin@ge.com US 3400 E. Coliseum Blvd Fort Wayne IN General Electric 46805

Kitt Butler kbutler@advancedenergy.org US 909 Capability Drive, Suite 2100 Raleigh NC Advanced Energy 27606

Roger Daugherty roger.daugherty@baldor.abb.com US 6040 Ponders Court Greenville SC Baldor Electric/ABB 29615

Kristen Driskell kristen.driskell@energy.ca.gov US 1516 9th Street MS 14 Sacramento CA California Energy Commission 95814

Chad Gallinat chad.gallinat@hq.doe.gov US 1000 Independence Ave, SW Washington DC DOE 20585

Erin Hope ethope@bpa.gov US 707 W Main AVE, Suite 500 Spokane WA Bonneville Power Administration 99201

Howard Jordan hjordan99@att.net US 329 Explorer Lakeway TX Howard E. Jordan Consultant 78734

Ronald Martis ron.martis@metglas.com US 440 Allied Drive Conway SC Metglas 29526

David Millure dave.millure@metglas.com US 440 Allied Dr Conway SC Metglas Inc. 29526

Rick Morrison rick.morrison@csagroup.org CA 178 Rexdale Blvd. Richmond Hill ON CSA Group M9W 1R3

Tuan Ngo tuan.ngo@energy.ca.gov US 1516 Ninth St Sacramento CA California Energy Commission 95814

Al Padilla al.padilla@ul.com US 333 Pfingsten Rd Northbrook IL UL LLC 60062

Robert Pauley robert.pauley@hal.hitachi.com US 50 Prospect Ave. Tarrytown NY Hitachi America 10591

Bram Ponivas bram.ponivas@ul.com US 333 N. Pfingsten Rd Northbrook IL Underwriters Labs 60062

werner rauer werner.rauer@kaeser.com US 511 Sigma Drive Fredericksburg VA CAGI 22408

Tomas Rincon tomas.rincon@xyleminc.com US 8200 Austin Avenue Morton Grove IL Xylem 60053

Paul Ryan paul.ryan@hitmet.com US 800 Grand Ave. Carlsbad CA HMA 92008

Linda Wilson linda.wilson@ag.ny.gov US 120 Broadway New York NY NYS Office of the Attorney General 10271

Michael Woodford mwoodford@ahrinet.org US 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite # 500 Arlington VA AHRI 22201

General Information
# Footnotes and Additional Inform