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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4077 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

180 Steuart Street in San Francisco, California, as the ‘‘Dianne Feinstein Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2024 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Ms. BUTLER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 180 Steuart Street in San Francisco, California, as the ‘‘Dianne Feinstein Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIANNE FEINSTEIN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 180 Steuart Street in San Fran6 cisco, California, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Dianne Feinstein Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4077 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dianne Feinstein Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust-Series C
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               1051824

<NAME>              World Monitor Trust-Series C
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          10,957,707

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   1,811

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                10,959,518

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  10,959,518

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           161,434

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      10,798,084

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    10,959,518

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (4,765,494)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                625,753

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (5,391,247)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (29.48)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1953

No. 57249.

petition 6853-R (Baltimore).

#### Denlinger’s *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It appeared from the record that petitioner, although nominally a partnership, is, in fact, a one-man business, owned and operated by Milo G. Denlinger, who testified herein. The petitioner had negotiated with a British publishing house for the exclusive rights to sell in the United States an edition of 500 copies of a work entitled “Tropical Aquariums,” agreeing to pay the seller 4s. 9d. per copy, f. o. b. London, inclusive of royalty. When petitioner received the commercial and consular invoices, he noted from the latter the shipper's statement of home market value as 6s. 3d., and as there was no mention between the parties of a list price for British sales, or a discount therefrom, he assumed “that the list was approximately higher than the 6/3 pence so that the discount brought it down to the 6/3 and therefore we cleared the shipment on that basis.” Cross-examination brought out the fact that the witness relied exclusively upon the invoice statements in making the entry but that he had no reason to doubt the correctness of the figures he there found, as he did not know the British list price. Asked whether the paper cover of the book showed a list price of 12s. 6d., he said that it did, but that he did not recall having that information before him when he made the entry. The court stated that the difference in duty occasioned by the difference between the appraised value of 12s. 6d., less *33Yz*percent discount (8s. 4d.), and the entered value of 6s. 3d., which wag a total of 5 percent on 2 shillings, 1 pence, was so slight that there would not have been *413any reason for him not to divulge the information if he had had it. The court held that it would seem that there was no existing fact or circumstance surrounding the importation or its entry which might have been calculated to put a reasonably prudent person upon inquiry concerning the reliability of the entered value, citing *Glendenning, McLeish & Co. (Inc.)*v. *United States,*13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 387, T. D. 41320. On the record presented the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT&"Arial,Regular" 	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection VII  &"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12/4/18
BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 83 Att. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0678 SAT Date: 7/16/2013 Print Date: 9/3/2014
Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material 2 3 Health: ; Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete incinera t p roducts to terrestrial organisms
Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 2 2 Deg Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation For : Drinking water and inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG OVERLOAD Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0678

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B2 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers. For the potential incomplete incineration product, based on test data for concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral N OAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for

. Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic- p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
r high concern for toxicity of incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern *( p pb) SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic-methacrylateEcotox Category N onionic Polymers
Ecotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM  THE QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT  TO SECTION
               13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE  ACT  OF 1934 FOR
               THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             54,676
<SECURITIES>                                       63,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                      37,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                        2,354
<INVENTORY>                                        12,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  175,458
<PP&E>                                              9,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    450,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              56,537
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               24
<OTHER-SE>                                        380,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      450,156
<SALES>                                            59,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   59,337
<CGS>                                              43,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      43,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   45,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (28,394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (28,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (28,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.04)



</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 25, 1947

No. 51674.

#### Protests 42114-K, etc., of Siegfried & Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that which was held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1413 in Abstracts 51224 and 51264. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                           EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY

                        STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO
                          OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Year Ended March 31,
                                                         -------------------------------------
                                                              1999        1998          1997
                                                         ----------    ---------    ----------

<S>                                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes                          $ 26,028     $ 25,708     $(26,055)

Fixed charges to be added back to earnings:
   Interest and debt expense                                 41,751       41,521       41,223
   Rentals (one-third of all rent and related costs
     charged to income)                                       5,381        5,804        6,286
                                                           --------     --------     --------

     Total fixed charges                                     47,132       47,325       47,509
                                                           --------     --------     --------

Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges             $ 73,160     $ 73,033     $ 21,454
                                                           --------     --------     --------
                                                           --------     --------     --------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                             1.55         1.54         --
                                                           --------     --------     --------
                                                           --------     --------     --------

Amount by which earnings are inadequate to cover fixed
   charges                                                 $   --       $   --       $(26,055)
                                                           --------     --------     --------
                                                           --------     --------     --------

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

June 19, 1940

No. 43979.

#### Protests 410517-G, etc., of John Wanamaker (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Filet laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Jabara (22*C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
No. 47331.

#### Protests 59131-K, etc., of Border Brokerage Co., Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States (5*Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, or tonguing and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

 THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-cv-4421

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Court’s inherent authority

and discretion to control the course of the trial and rule on evidentiary matters, and for the

reasons articulated in the accompanying Memorandum of Law (incorporated fully herein by

reference), Defendants, The Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce, Inc. John J. (Bud) Aiken,

and Mickey Glanz, by and through their counsel, Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C., respectfully

moves this Court for an Order granting Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude the following

evidence:

1. All Testimony of the following individuals: Judge Gloria Inlander, Michael

DiPalantino, and Janan Radosin;

2. Any testimony or evidence by Ruth Bernstein, Peggy Peak and Elaine Beck

regarding unrelated alleged prior sexual harassment or bad acts by Defendant Aiken;

3. Evidence relating to Plaintiff’s claim for back pay;

4. Defendants request an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Rule 104(c) of the

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 49 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Federal Rules of Evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully requests that any and all evidence 

regarding the above -mentioned evidence be excluded from trial.

Respectfully submitted,

SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

BY: /s/Sidney L. Gold, Esquire SG1387 

 SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

 I.D. NO: 21374

 1835 Market Street, Suite 515

 Philadelphia, PA 19103

 (215) 569-1999

 Attorneys for the Defendants

Dated: September 9, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 49 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 2
----

----

I Informace

Komise

----

SPOLEČNÝ KATALOG ODRŮD DRUHŮ ZELENINY

šestý dodatek k 24. úplnému vydání

(2006/C 241 A/01)

OBSAH

Legenda

Seznam druhů zeleniny

----

LEGENDA

----

(1)Úř. věst. C 275 A, 8.11.2005, s. 1. Katalog naposledy pozměněný pátým dodatkem (Úř. věst. C 158 A, 7.7.2006, s. 23).

(2)Úř. věst. L 193, 20.7.2002, s. 33. Směrnice naposledy pozměněná směrnicí 2004/117/ES (Úř. věst. L 14, 18.1.2005, s. 18).

----

1.ALLIUM ASCALONICUM L.

2.ALLIUM CEPA L.

5.ALLIUM SATIVUM L.

16.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. ALBA DC.

17.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. RUBRA DC.

20.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. RAPA

21.CAPSICUM ANNUUM L.

23.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

24.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

26.CUCUMIS MELO L.

27.CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.

32.DAUCUS CAROTA L.

34.LACTUCA SATIVA L.

35.LYCOPERSICON LYCOPERSICUM (L.) KARSTEN EX FARW.

38.PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.

39.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

40.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.

43.SOLANUM MELONGENA L.

----
December 26,2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Aerial Industrial L.L.C. is petitioning to amend its current Exemption No. 11439 

under Regulatory Docket No. F AA-20 15-0225 for the purpose of including additional 

sUAS flying platforms as specified in the attachment Exhibit I. All of the flying 

platforms being sought in this amendment are less than 55 pounds in weight. No other 

modifications to the current terms and conditions ofExemption No. 11439 are being 

sought. 

All questions or comments should be directed to the petitioner as listed below. 

Mickey Landry ·· 

~?~ Pres ;~ Founder 

Aerial Industrial L.L.C. 

The name and address of the petitioner is: 

Aerial Industrial L.L.C 

Mickey Landry 

Phone:409-504-8234 

Email: mickey@aerialindustrial.com 

1580 Liston Rd. 

Orange, Texas 77630 
Exhibit I 

Additional sUAS Platforms for Aerial Industrial L.L.C. 

1. DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

2. DJI Matrice 100 

3. DJI Inspire 1 

4. senseFly eBee 

5. senseFly swinglet Cam 

6. sense Fly eXam 

7. Precisionhawk Lancaster 

8. Ascending Technologies AscTech Falcon 8 

9. Aibotix X6 

10. Aeryon Labs Skyranger 

11. 3DRobotics Solo Copter 

12. 3D Robotics X8-M Copter 

13. 3DRobotics Iris 

14. 3Drobotics Aero-M Fixed Wing 

15. HoneyComb AgDrone 

16. Delair-Tech DT-18 

17. AgEagle Rapid 

18. DraganFlyer X4-ES 

19. DraganFlyer Guardian 

20. DranganFlyer X4-P 

21. DranganFlyer Commander 

22. Service-Drone Multirotor G4 7.8 Skycrane 

23. Quest UAV Q-200 

24. Quest UAV Aqua 

25. Microdrone MD4-200 

26. Microdrone MD4-1000 

27. Microdrone MD4-3000 

28. Trimble UX5 

29. Skycatch Evolution 3 

30. Skycatch Commander 

31. Phoenix Aerial TerraHawk 

32. Xact Sense Max-8 

33. Yuneec Typhoon 

34. Yuneec Tornado
##### 



a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and
 c)
    
    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls;
and
  Date February 16, 2005
 /s/William R. MiertschinWilliam R. Miertschin, Chief
Executive Officer
| 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.  001-04146. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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.  001-04146. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.3 | Amendment                to the By-Laws of Navistar Financial Corporation.  Filed as                Exhibit 3.1 on Form 10-K dated December 18, 2003.  Commission                File No.  001-04146. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6431

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SCOTTY BODIFORD; JOHN 

VANDERMOSTEN,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-03046-RBH)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without 

prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Workman has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED