alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(B)

                         AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis
State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as an officer of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a
face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940, hereby constitutes and appoints William F. (Ted) Truscott, Scott R.
Plummer, and Christopher O. Petersen or any one of them, as his attorney-in-fact
and agent, to sign for him in his name, place and stead any and all registration
statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents
required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to
time in connection with said Company's existing or future face-amount
certificate products--whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act
of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise--and periodic and other
reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and
Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable federal securities
laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other
jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in
connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 24th day of February, 2009


/s/ Ross P. Palacios
-----------------------------------
Name: Ross P. Palacios


/s/ David K. Stewart
-----------------------------------
Name: David K. Stewart
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Ray Williams,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0998 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

C. Furguson, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action without counsel. Pursuant to the schedule made April 13,

2005, plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due December 9, 2005,

defendants’ pretrial statement is due December 23, 2005, pretrial

conference is set for December 30, 2005, and trial is set for 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 12/15/05 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

March 21, 2005. Since defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

pending, the above dates are vacated.

So ordered.

Dated: December 15, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
USSGL Board Meeting

May 14, 2015

USSGL Account 579100Adjustment to Financing Sources – Downward Reestimate or Negative Subsidy

Kathy Wages

kathy.wages@fiscal.treasury.gov

USSGL account 579100 (account title and definition update) 

Effective  Fiscal Year 2015

USSGL account 579100

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

General Fund Impact to the USSGL Chart of Accounts

Michele Crosco

michele.crosco@fiscal.treasury.gov

320700 Appropriations Outstanding - Used

General Fund’s offset to 310700 Unexpended Appropriations – Used

Reciprocal Category 42 “Appropriations Used”

Effective for Fiscal Year 2015

Appropriations – Used 

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Non-Budgetary Funds Held Outside of Treasury (FHOT) Impact to USSGL Chart of Accounts

Jeff Taberner

jeff.taberner@fiscal.treasury.gov

113500 Funds Held by the Public – Non-Budgetary

113000 Funds Held by the Public – Budgetary (Account title change only)

Effective for Fiscal Year 2016

Non-Budgetary FHOT USSGL Account

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Accrued Interest Payable & Interest Receivable

Michele Crosco

michele.crosco@fiscal.treasury.gov

Resolve Intragovernmental Reporting Issues

Effective for Fiscal Year 2016

Accrued Interest Payable & Interest Receivable
| Accrued Interest Payable                                 | Interest Receivable                                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| 214000 Accrued Interest Payable Not Otherwise Classified | 134000 Interest Receivable – Not Otherwise Classified   |
| 214100 Accrued Interest Payable - Loans                  | 134100 Interest Receivable - Loans                      |
| 214200 Accrued Interest Payable - Debt                   | 134200 Interest Receivable - Investments                |

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Miscellaneous USSGL Account Updates  

Kent Linscott

kent.linscott@fiscal.treasury.gov

135100 Capitalized Loan Interest Receivable- Non-Credit Reform (Definition update only)

251100 Capitalized Loan Interest Payable- Non-Credit Reform (Definition update only)

619000 Contra Bad Debt Expense-Incurred for Others (Definition update only)

Miscellaneous USSGL Account Updates

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

750000 Distribution of Income – Dividend (Definition Update only)

Effective for Fiscal Year 2016

Miscellaneous USSGL Account Updates

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

USSGL Fiscal Year 2016 Projects

Valeria Spinner

USSGLAD & BAAS Director

valeria.spinner@fiscal.treasury.gov

Credit Reform Case Studies

General Fund

Contingent & Unfunded Liabilities 

Deposit Funds

Data Act

USSGL to BETC Crosswalk

USSGL Projects for Fiscal Year 2016

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image8.jpg

# image3.png
II 

Calendar No. 615 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4218 

To designate the visitor center for the First State National Historical Park 

to be located at the Sheriff’s House in New Castle, Delaware, as the 

‘‘Thomas R. Carper Visitor Center’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. COONS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the visitor center for the First State National 

Historical Park to be located at the Sheriff’s House 

in New Castle, Delaware, as the ‘‘Thomas R. Carper 

Visitor Center’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4218 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE VISITOR CENTER FOR 

2 THE FIRST STATE NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

3 PARK IN NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE, AS THE 

4 ‘‘THOMAS R. CARPER VISITOR CENTER’’. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The visitor center for the First 

6 State National Historical Park to be located at the Sher7 iff’s House in New Castle, Delaware, or any successor to 

8 that visitor center that is constructed after the date of 

9 enactment of this Act and serves as the primary visitor 

10 center for the First State National Historical Park, shall 

11 be known and designated as the ‘‘Thomas R. Carper Vis12 itor Center’’. 

13 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg14 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

15 States to the visitor center referred to in subsection (a) 

16 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas R. Car17 per Visitor Center’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 615 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4218 

A BILL 

To designate the visitor center for the First State 

‘‘Thomas R. Carper Visitor Center’’. Sheriff’s House in New Castle, Delaware, as the National Historical Park to be located at the 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Fifth Amendment to Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2(e) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 
 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT NO. 5 to the Consulting Agreement between the parties is entered into by and between Michael Baker Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation (the
“Corporation”) and Richard L. Shaw, an individual (the “Executive”), effective April 26, 2008. 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the
Executive entered into the Consulting Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, effective April 25, 2001, and continuing for a two (2) year term until April 26, 2003; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Agreement, effective April 26, 2003, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B, extending the term of the Consulting Agreement for an additional two (2) year period until April 26, 2005; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Consulting Agreement, effective April 26, 2005, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, extending the term of the Consulting
Agreement for an additional one (1) year period until April 26, 2006; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment
No. 3 to the Consulting Agreement, effective April 26, 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D, extending the term of the Consulting Agreement for an additional one (1) year period until April 26,
2007; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 4 to the Consulting Agreement, effective April 26, 2007, a true
and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, extending the term of the Consulting Agreement for an additional one (1) year period until April 26, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive now desire to extend the term of the Consulting Agreement upon the same terms and conditions for an additional one (1) year period until April 26, 2009; 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound hereby, THE
PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 
 The term of the Consulting Agreement effective April 25, 2001 between the parties as amended by Amendment
No. 1 effective April 26, 2003, Amendment No. 2 effective April 26, 2005, Amendment No. 3 effective April 26, 2006, and Amendment No. 4 effective April 26, 2007 shall be, and the same hereby is, extended for
an additional one (1) year period from April 26, 2008 until April 26, 2009 upon the same terms and conditions. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, effective April 26, 2008, the parties have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 5 to the
Consulting Agreement. 
  

									
	 	 	 	 	MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION
	Attest:	 		 	(The “Corporation”)
					
	 /s/ Marcia S. Wolk
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ H. James McKnight
	 	
	Marcia S. Wolk	 		 		 	H. James McKnight	 	
	Assistant Secretary	 		 		 	Executive Vice President	 	
	Witness:	 		 		 		 	
					
		 		 		 	Richard L. Shaw	 	
		 		 		 	(The “Executive”)	 	
					
	 /s/ Patricia A. Smith
	 		 		 	 /s/ Richard L. Shaw
<PAGE>




                         NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS


The  following  documents of Navistar  Financial  Corporation  are  incorporated
herein by reference:

3.1    Restated  Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar Financial  Corporation
       (as amended and in effect on December 15, 1987).  Filed on Form 8-K dated
       December 17, 1987. Commission File No. 1-4146-l.

3.2    The  By-Laws of Navistar  Financial Corporation (as amended  February 29,
       1988).   Filed on Form 10-K dated  January  19,  1989.   Commission  File
       No. 1-4146-1.
Before the Third Division,

August 22, 1945

No. 50423.

#### Protest 91923-K of Washington State Liquor Control Board (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that an affidavit of shortage was timely filed and case 467 was admittedly reported short by the customs inspector. The Government conceded that case 467 was not landed. In view of *252the evidence submitted it was held that plaintiff was entitled to an allowance in duties upon the one case of Scotch whisky numbered 467 which was not landed in this country. The protest was therefore sustained to this extent.
December 18, 1942

No. 47831.

#### Protest 70730-K of Graemiger Bros., Inc.

C. D. 696. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
**Scenarios Status**

Fiscal Service presented five scenarios at the September 25th IRC Meeting.  The status of scenarios are below. Out of the five presented, four are finalized and will be posted on the USSGL Website. 

· **Appropriated Trust or Special Fund Receipts Derived from Unavailable and Available Trust or Special Fund Receipt Accounts**

· Finalized and will be posted to the USSGL Website.

· **Imprest Fund**

· Finalized and will be posted to the USSGL Website

· **U.S. Debit Card Program**

· Finalized and will be posted to the USSGL Website.

· **Permanent Reduction to General Fund Appropriations**

· Finalized and will be posted to the USSGL Website.

**IRC Handout 12/04/18**
No. 58950.

protest 243581-K (New York).

#### Marichal-Kenez *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing nothing to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
##### 



Year Ended December 31,
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    29,501
    
    
    
    28,518
    
    
    
    28,274Net income from continuing operations
    
    $
    37,401
    
    
    $
    36,247
    
    
    $
    48,724Basic earnings per share from continuing operations
    
    $
    1.27
    
    
    $
    1.27
    
    
    $
    1.72Net income from all operations
    
    $
    1,727
    
    
    $
    18,987
    
    
    $
    68,445Basic earnings per share from all operations
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    0.67
    
    
    $
    2.42Diluted shares outstandingAverage number of shares outstanding
    
    
    29,501
    
    
    
    28,518
    
    
    
    28,274Assumed conversion of preferred shares
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,607Assumed conversion of convertible trust
preferred shares
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Assumed exercise of stock options
    
    
    189
    
    
    
    323
    
    
    
    397Total shares
    
    
    29,690
    
    
    
    28,841
    
    
    
    31,278Net income from continuing operations
    
    $
    37,401
    
    
    $
    36,247
    
    
    $
    48,724Effect of stock options
    
    
    (303
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Add back interest on convertible shares
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,712Net income from continuing operations
    
    $
    37,098
    
    
    $
    36,247
    
    
    $
    51,436Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations
    
    $
    1.25
    
    
    $
    1.26
    
    
    $
    1.64Net income from all operations
    
    $
    1,727
    
    
    $
    18,987
    
    
    $
    68,445Effect of stock options
    
    
    (303
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Add back interest on convertible shares
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,712Net income from all operations
    
    $
    1,424
    
    
    $
    18,987
    
    
    $
    71,157Diluted earnings per share from all operations
    
    $
    0.05
    
    
    $
    0.66
    
    
    $
    2.28
 
 (1)
    
    The dilutive effect of convertible shares is based on the if converted method. These shares
and interest add back were not included in 2005 because they were antidilutive.(2)
    
    The dilutive effect of stock options is based on the Treasury Stock method.
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

FRANK VALENZUELA, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0900 FCD DAD P

vs.

C. SMITH, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 16, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On March

15, 2006, the court received plaintiff’s request for a lengthy extension of time to file objections to

the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff cites the anticipated volume of his objections and a

pending state habeas proceeding, although he does not state that he has an imminent deadline in

the latter litigation.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 03/22/06 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

The court does not find good cause to extend plaintiff’s time to file objections to

the findings and recommendations. In the interests of justice, however, the court will construe

plaintiff’s filing as stating objections to all of the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 16, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ July 18, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed. 

DATED:March 21, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 59 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

People of MI v Daryl Edward Smith 

Docket No. 338634 

LC No. 89-003904-01-FC 

Peter D. O'Connell 

Presiding Judge 

Mark J. Cavanagh 

Deborah A. Servitto 

Judges 

The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. 

The Court orders that the unpublished per curiam opinion released on September 20, 

2018 in this matter is hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error: the last paragraph of the opinion 

should read: 

We vacate the judgment of sentence. We remand to the trial court for 

reinstatement of Smith's original sentence imposed in 1989. We do not retain 

jurisdiction. 

In all other respects, the September 20, 2018 opinion remains unchanged. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

NOV O 2 2018 

Date
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ROSHA CHARLES WILLIAMS,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 55 WM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of June, 2016, the “Petition for Rev iew” is**  DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 23


                      Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
International Multifoods Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 
333-51399 on Form S-8 relating to the Employees' Voluntary Investment 
and Savings Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-34173 
on Form S-8 relating to the Stock Purchase Plan of Robin Hood 
Multifoods Inc., No. 2-84236 on Form S-8 relating to the 1983 Stock 
Option Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-
6223 on Form S-8 relating to the 1986 Stock Option Incentive Plan of 
International Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-30979 on Form S-8 relating 
to the Amended and Restated 1989 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of 
International Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-34171 on Form S-8 relating 
to the 1997 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods 
Corporation and No. 33-65221 on Form S-3 relating to certain debt 
securities of International Multifoods Corporation of our reports dated 
March 30, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 
International Multifoods Corporation and subsidiaries as of 
February 28, 1998 and 1997 and the related consolidated statements 
of earnings and cash flows and related financial statement schedule 
for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended 
February 28, 1998, which reports appear or are incorporated by 
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 
February 28, 1998, of International Multifoods Corporation.  



                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 13, 1998
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 September 2006

(2006/C 234/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### Tommy Dahl ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-16167.

D.C. No. CV-98-05467-OWW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2001.*

Decided June 5, 2001.

*519Before HUG and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

MEMORANDUM ***

As Appellee acknowledges, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the term “pending” in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) to include not merely the time a filing is before a court, but the time in between a court’s decision and the filing of an appeal.1 Thus, the reason for dismissing the petition given by the district court must be rejected.

Appellee asserts that the district court’s decision should be affirmed on another ground. However, the argument advanced by Appellee was recently rejected by the Supreme Court.

In *Artuz v.*Bennett,2 the Supreme Court defined the term “properly filed” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the statute in question here. The Supreme Court explained its interpretation as follows:

> An application is “filed,” as that term is commonly understood, when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate court officer for placement into the official record.... And an application is *“properly*filed” when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for example, the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee.3

Thus, the Supreme Court made it clear that the tolling provision of § 2244(d)(2) applies whether a petition is proeedurally flawed or not, so long as the petition was properly filed. Accordingly, the Appellee’s argument must be rejected. No ground for affirming exists, and the district court’s decision must be reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *See Nino v. Galaza,*183 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (9th Cir.1999).

2

. 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000).

3

. *Artuz,*531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. at 363-64 (footnote and citations omitted).
No. 52576.

protest 137555-K (New York). .

#### Joseph L. Sclafani, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Certain items of the merchandise stipulated to consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) were held subject to an allowance for tare of inedible coverings of 2V¿ percent from the net weight reported by the United States Weigher.
No. 65465.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/11117 and 60/11221 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Umpire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.