alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**A. Funding**

100 - 399	Budgetary Resources Other Than Collections

400 - 699	Authority Transfers

700 - 799	Reimbursables and Other Income

**B. Disbursements and Payables**

100 - 299	Payments/Purchases

300 - 399	Commitments/Undelivered Orders/Expended Authority - Unpaid

400 - 599	Payables/Accrued Liabilities

600 - 699	Advances and Prepayments

**C. Collections and Receivables**

100 - 399	Receipts

400 - 599	Receivables/Accrued Revenue

600 - 799	Asset Sale and Disposition (Gains and Losses)

**D. Adjustments/Writeoffs/Reclassification**

100 - 299	Upward and Downward Adjustments

300 - 399	Prior-Period Adjustments

400 - 499	Writeoffs

500 - 799	Reclassification/Revaluation

**E. Accruals/Nonbudgetary Transfers Other Than Disbursements and Collections**

100 - 399	Accrual, Depreciation, Amortization, and Depletion

400 - 499	Accumulated and Allocated Costs Not in Categories Above

500 - 799	Transfers Without Budgetary Impact

**F. Yearend**

100 - 299	Preclosing Entries

300 - 499	Closing Entries

**G. Memorandum Entries**

100 - 299	All Memorandum Entries (Excluding Closing Memorandum Entries)

**H. Other Specialized Transaction Entries**

100 - 799	Other
No. 61319.

protests 300535-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Dynamo Tulle Importing Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson Air Freight Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk malines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 6240

MICHAEL RAY JOHNSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ERIC D. WILSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01273

- LMB

- IDD )

Submitted : June 28, 2017 Decided: July 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly G. Ang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Johnson , a fed eral prisoner, appeals the district court’s order d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stat ed by the district court. Johnson v. Wilson , No. 1:15

- cv - 01273

- LMB

- IDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
No. 49622.

#### Protest 955321-G of Kraft Associated Distributors (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise consists of cheese similar to that passed upon in Abstracts 36724 and 38185, an allowance was made for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, in which Gorgonzola cheese was wrapped. An allowance of *2%*percent was also made by the court on certain Gouda cheese stipulated to be similar to that passed upon in Abstracts 42146 and 42309.
No. 46085.

#### Protests 22229-K, etc., of Canada Packers, Ltd. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
13.01 Creater and Modify a Deposit
L o t # 1 772 -1 820 D at e 20 1 3- 0 7 - 30 

### For R&D Use On l y -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT A. STATEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0520 GEB PAN P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEDIA, Jr., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment.

The court granted plaintiff relief from judgment March 23, 2005, but judgment

was not vacated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2006, motion is denied as moot;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate judgment pursuant to the March

23, 2005 order.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

\004

\stat0520.deny motion as moot

Case 2:04-cv-00520-GEB-PAN Document 26 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH TENUTO : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-5339

:

GEORGE PATRICK :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2006, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1), the Respondent/Commonwealth’s Answer to Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Report and Recommendation filed by United States

Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, and the petitioner’s objections and amended

objections to the Report and Recommendation, and after a thorough and independent

review of the record, it is ORDERED that:

1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caracappa is

APPROVED and ADOPTED;

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

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

_____s/Timothy J. Savage

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:05-cv-05339-TJS Document 34 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 52552.

protests 718795-G, etc. (Portland, Oreg., San Francisco, and Seattle).

#### James A. Markham, Alien Property Custodian *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 6,716a.

#### HOTCHKISS v. ADRIANCE.

[Betts, Ser. Bk. 269.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 20, 1853.

Liability fob Loss or Anchoe and Cable-Costs.

[1. The master of a steamer drifting in an iee field with a disabled engine, and in danger of colliding with a schooner at anchor, hailed the latter to slip her anchor cable, which she did, and both anchor and cable were lost. *Held,*that the steamer .and schooner were each liable for a moiety of the loss.

[2. The steamer should be charged with costs for refusing to compensate the schooner.]

[This was a libel by Russell Hotchkiss and others, owners of the schooner Morelle, against John S. Adriance and others, owners of the steamboat William Young, for loss of the schooner’s anchor and cable.]

Before BETTS, District Judge.

The steamboat William Young, in attempting to get through a field of ice, was fastened in it, and. her engine catching upon the center, she could not be worked clear of the ice. The schooner Morelle was anchored in the river above, and the ice was carried by the flood tide up the river with the steamer, and in such manner as to endanger the destination of the latter, by drifting her sidewise on the bows of the schooner. The captain of the steadier hailed the schooner to raise anchor and drift out of the way. The anchor was fast and could not be raised. He then ordered those on the schooner to slip the cable or he should be sunk. The cable was accordingly slipped, and that and the anchor were both lost.

Held, there was no fault of the steamer which compelled the loss; she was in a place of danger by accident, and not blam-ably; the loss sustained by the schooner was not occasioned by any tort of the steamer, but being incurred on the demand of the captain of the steamer, and for her safety, her owners are equitably bound to bear a portion of the loss. Held, that the schooner was also interested in taking the measure of her own protection against probable injury to herself in having the steamer press*550ed upon her in that manner. Ordered, that the respondents be charged with a moiety of the value of the anchor and cable, and actual expenses of dragging and searching for it; costs also to be imposed on respondents, because they refused making any compensation. References to ascertain value and expenses.
Before the First Division,

April 25, 1947

No. 51673.

#### Protests 822561-G, etc., of Osaki Shoten, Ltd., et al. (Honolulu, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/5/2023 1

Voter Intimidation by Stealth 

New Jersey Democratic State Committee v. New Jersey 

Oath Keepers (Jose L. Linares, D.N.J. 2:16-cv-8230) 

Four days before a general election, a party committee filed a federal 

complaint to enjoin voter intimidation allegedly encouraged by a 

website that urged “incognito intelligence gathering” on election day. 

The district court “fail[ed] to see how Defendant’s members could 

intimidate voters who are not even aware of their presence.” 

Subject: Polling-place activities. Topic: Campaign materials. 

On the Friday before the 2016 general election, a party committee filed a federal complaint in the District of New Jersey to enjoin planned voter intimidation, citing as evidence of the plan a website posting: 

Calling all Oath Keepers members! We need you to help prevent criminal 

vote fraud and attempted criminal voter intimidation on election day, 2016. 

Therefore, we call on you to form up incognito intelligence gathering and 

crime spotting teams and go out into the public on election day, dressed to 

blend in with the public, without any Oath Keepers hat or T shirt on, and 

with video, still camera, and notepad in hand, to look for and document suspected criminal vote fraud or intimidation activities, by any individuals, 

groups, or parties, and then report those incidents to your local police.1

With its complaint, the committee filed a motion for temporary restraints and 

injunctive relief.2

On Monday, Judge Jose L. Linares denied the committee relief.3

 “Plaintiff 

has not explained how compliance with the above directive is likely to result 

in voter intimidation.”4

 “[T]he Court fails to see how Defendant’s members 

could intimidate voters who are not even aware of their presence.”5

1. Complaint, N.J. Democratic State Comm. v. N.J. Oath Keepers, No. 2:16-cv-8230 

(D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 4; see Matthew McGrath, GOP Denies Dems’ Voter Intimidation 

Claim, Bergen Cty. Record, Nov. 5, 2016, at A3. 

2. Motion, N.J. Democratic State Comm., No. 2:16-cv-8230 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 2. 

3. Opinion, id. (Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 4; see Kim Lueddeke, Judge Won’t Bar Oath Keepers 

from Watching Polls, Bergen Cty. Record, Nov. 8, 2016, at A6. 

Judge Linares retired on May 16, 2019. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Opinion, supra note 3, at 3. 

5. Id. at 4.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1
------------


                            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 Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Christopher R. Pook, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section G 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Christopher R. Pook

Christopher R. Pook
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002


                                       32
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           404,217
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            2,088
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              2,056
<EQUITIES>                                       1,943
<MORTGAGE>                                       6,844
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   21,145
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 678,814
<CASH>                                           3,358
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              18,769
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          35,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,321,199
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                130,092
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              1,977
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 533,869
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            9,893
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,392
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,321,199
<PREMIUMS>                                      11,132
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             49,913
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 112
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,601
<BENEFITS>                                      32,001
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,372
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            17,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,739
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
Form 4255

(Rev. December 2023) 

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service 

Recapture of Investment Credit 

Attach to your tax return. 

Go to www.irs.gov/Form4255 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0166 

Attachment 

Sequence No. 172 

Name(s) as shown on return Identifying number 

Properties Type of property—State whether rehabilitation, energy, qualifying advanced coal project, qualifying gasification project, qualifying 

advanced energy project, or advanced manufacturing investment property. (See the Instructions for Form 3468 for the year the 

investment credit property was placed in service for definitions.) If rehabilitation property, also show type of building. If energy property, 

show type. 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Part I Original Investment Credit 

These columns relate to the properties A Properties 

through D described above . . . . . . . A B C D 

1 Original rate of credit . . . . . . . . . 1 

2 Credit base as of the end of the previous tax year 

(see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Net change in nonqualified nonrecourse financing 

during the tax year. If a net decrease, enter as a 

negative number . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

4 Credit base as of the end of the current tax year. 

Subtract line 3 from line 2 . . . . . . . . 4 

5 Refigured credit (see instructions) . . . . . 5 

6 Credit taken for this property on Form 3800 in 

prior years. See instructions . . . . . . . 6 

Part II Recapture From Increase in Nonqualified Nonrecourse Financing (see instructions) 

7 Credit subject to recapture due to a net increase in 

nonqualified nonrecourse financing. Subtract line 5 

from line 6. If zero or less, enter -0- . . . . . 7 

8 Unused general business credits that would have 

been allowed if original credit had been figured with 

current-year credit base (see instructions) . . . 8 

9 Subtract line 8 from line 7. This is the recapture tax 

as a result of a net increase in nonqualified 

nonrecourse financing . . . . . . . . . 9

Part III Recapture From Disposition of Property or Cessation of Use as Investment Credit Property 

10 Date property was placed in service . . . . . 10

11 Date property ceased to be qualified investment 

credit property . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

12 Number of full years between the date on line 10 

and the date on line 11 . . . . . . . . . 12

13 Unused general business credits that would have 

been allowed had there been no credit from this 

property (see instructions) . . . . . . . . 13

14 Subtract line 13 from line 6 . . . . . . . . 14

15 Recapture percentage (see instructions) . . . 15

16 Multiply line 14 by the percentage on line 15 . . 16

17 Add property columns A through D, line 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

18 Add property columns A through D, line 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

19 Reserved for future use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

20 Total increase in tax. Add lines 17 and 18. Enter here and on the appropriate line of your tax return . . 20

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 41488C Form 4255 (Rev. 12-2023)
No. 60016.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 170150-K, 172432-K, and 176732-K (Ogdensburg).

*472Opinion 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 *Swift & Company et al. v. United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P68/276.

protests 64/17742 and 66/16176 (New York).

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of folding doors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gitkin Co.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 383, C.D. 2997) or louvered folding doors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. A. MacKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 460, C.D. 3020), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERWIN HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0009 DFL KJM P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to

defendants’ May 25, 2006 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 2, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendants’ May 25, 2006 motion to dismiss. Defendants’ reply, if any,

shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: June 19, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp harr0009.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM Document 27 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6387

KENNETH SIDBERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versusSTEVE BAILEY, Superintendent of Foothills Correctional Center; MACK JARVIS, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-243-5-F3) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Sidberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Sidberry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sidberry v. Bailey , No. CA-97-243-5-F3(E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 1998). We also deny Sidberry’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOSEPH THOMAS, No. 2:04-cv-0733-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

On September 11, 2006, petitioner filed a document styled, “Objections To Magistrate

Judges [sic] Finding An [sic] Recommedations [sic],” which the court construes as a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed September 1, 2006, denying petitioner’s July

6, 2006 motion for the appointment of counsel. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a

magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon

review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling

was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 63 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed September 1, 2006, is affirmed. 

DATED: September 21, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/thom0733.850

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 63 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2