alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**GAO-03-1122R**                      Published: Sep 18, 2003. Publicly Released: Sep 18, 2003.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit reports covering the financial statements of the American Council of Learned Societies for fiscal years 2002 and 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit reports included the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (4 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Audit reportsFinancial statement auditsAccounting standardsFederal corporationsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsFederally chartered corporationFinancial managementRegulatory noncomplianceAuditors
<PAGE 1>

                                                             EXHIBIT 4


                  NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP.
                         AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                  -------------------------------------------

                INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS
                             INCLUDING INDENTURES


     The following instruments of Navistar International Transportation
Corp. and its principal subsidiary Navistar Financial Corporation defining
the rights of security holders are incorporated herein by reference.

     4.1  Indenture, dated as of March 1, 1968, between Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. and Manufacturers Hanover
          Trust Company, as Trustee, and succeeded by FIDATA Trust Company
          of New York, as successor Trustee, for 6 1/4% Sinking Fund 
          Debentures due 1998 for $50,000,000. Filed on
          Registration No. 2-28150. 

     4.2  Indenture, dated as of  June 15, 1974, between Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. and Harris Trust and Savings
          Bank, as Trustee, and succeeded by Commerce Union Bank,
          now known as Sovran Bank/Central South, as successor Trustee,
          for 9% Sinking Fund Debentures due 2004  for $150,000,000.
          Filed on Registration No. 2-51111. 

     4.3  Indenture, dated as of September 22, 1989, between Navistar
          Financial Corporation, the First National Bank of Chicago,
          as Trustee, succeeded by Bank One, Columbus, N.A., as successor
          Trustee, for $400,000,000 of debt securities on terms to be
          determined at time of sale.  Filed on Registration No. 33-31003.

     4.4  Indenture, dated as of  November 15, 1993, between Navistar
          Financial Corporation and Bank of America, Illinois formerly
          known as Continental Bank, National Association, as Trustee,
          for 8 7/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 1998 for $100,000,000.
          Filed on Registration No. 33-50541.

======

     Instruments defining the rights of holders of other unregistered
long-term debt of Navistar and its subsidiaries have been omitted from
this exhibit index because the amount of debt authorized under any such
instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Registrant and
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Registrant agrees to furnish a copy of
any such instrument to the Commission upon request.




















                                     E-2
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2021 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section III

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Account Transaction Categories

TRANSACTION

CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION

Bulletin No. 2020-15 III AC - 1 June 2020

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
(Reap. Dec. 10044)

#### Isaac B. Cohen *&*Sons Corp. D. Hauser, Inc. v*.*United States

Entry No. 3883, etc.

(Decided June 29, 1961)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*William H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation, upon the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the rubber gloves, etc., involved and that such value, in each case, is the appraised *411unit values, less the item of 2 per centum inspection fees, as stated on the invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Order entered January 23, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-01468-CV No. 05-16-01470-CV

IN RE ALEX RAMIRO PRADO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-421005 and F14-421015



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s December 15, 2016

petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



 
 

Exhibit 4.14    
    


STIKEMAN ELLIOTT  




Stikeman
Elliott LLP      Barristers & Solicitors 


4300 Bankers
Hall West, 888-3rd Street S.W., Calgary, Canada T2P 5C5

Tel: (403) 266-9000      Fax: (403) 266-9034      www.stikeman.com 



	 





DELIVERED BY SEDAR                                        
        July 2, 2008 


Alberta
Securities Commission

British Columbia Securities Commission

Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission, Securities Division

The Manitoba Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

Autorité des marchés financiers

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

Securities Office, Prince Edward Island

New Brunswick Securities Commission

Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador

Northwest Territories Securities Registry

Yukon Territory Securities Registry

Nunavut Securities Registry 


Dear
Sirs: 


Re:  TransCanada Corporation (the "Corporation")  


        We refer to a final short form base shelf prospectus dated July 2, 2008 of the Corporation
(the "Prospectus"), referring to the qualification for distribution of securities of the Corporation. 



        We
hereby consent to the references to our firm name, and to the reference to our opinions, on the cover page of the Prospectus and under the headings "Enforceability of Civil
Liabilities", "Legal Matters," "Interest of Experts" and "Documents Filed as Part of the Registration Statement". 


        We
confirm that we have read the Prospectus and have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained in the Prospectus that is derived from our
opinions
referred to above or that is within our knowledge as a result of the services we provided in connection with such opinions. 



        This
letter is solely for the information of the addressee set forth above in connection with the Prospectus and is not to be relied upon by any other party or for any
other purpose. 



	 	 	Yours truly,
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

(signed) "Stikeman Elliott LLP"





	 





	 





	 





	 




CALGARY      VANCOUVER      TORONTO      MONTREAL      OTTAWA      NEW
YORK      LONDON      SYDNEY 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.14
Exhibit 12.2

INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
    AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

|                                                    | Years Ended Dec. 31, 
|--------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|                                                    |                      
|                                                    | 2007                 
|                                                    |                      
|                                                    | (dollars in millions)
|                                                    |                      
|EARNINGS:                                           |                      
|Net income                                          |                      
|Income taxes (a)                                    |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Income before income taxes                          |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Fixed charges as defined                            |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Total earnings as defined                           |                      
|                                                    |                      
|FIXED CHARGES:                                      |                      
|Interest expense                                    |                      
|Estimated interest component of rent expense        |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Total fixed charges as defined                      |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                  |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) (b) |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements   |                      
|                                                    |                      
|Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and     |                      
|Preferred Dividend Requirements                     |                      
|                                                    |                      

(a) Includes net interest related to unrecognized tax benefits.

(b) Preferred dividend requirements
(pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirements by one
hundred percent minus the respective annual effective income tax rate.
Case No. 15,034.

#### UNITED STATES v. EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE BOXES OF SUGAR.

[11 Int. Rev. Rec. 63.]

District Court, D. Louisiana.

1870.

Customs Duties—False Invoices.

P. H. Morgan, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Hudson & Fearn, for the United States.

Billings & Hughes, J. L. Tissot, and W. R. Whittaker, for importers.

In this case the sugar was libelled as having been imported under false invoices, with a view to defraud the revenue. The case was given to the jury February 5th, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the government.
#### DeForrorra LOCUST, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7021.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 2, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*953ON MOTION

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss DeForrorra Locust’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Locust opposes.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed as untimely Locust’s 2000 appeal of a 1996 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. Locust appealed to this court.

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292, not every decision entered by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is appealable. Section 7292(a) provides that a party may only seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims with respect to the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation relied on by the court in making its decision. Further, except to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, this court may not review “(A) a challenge to a "factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). If an appellant’s case does not meet these criteria, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. *See In re Bailey,*182 F.3d 860 (Fed.Cir.1999).

In his response to the motion to dismiss, Locust states that he is entitled to “default judgment.” Locust does not challenge the basis of the Veterans Court’s decision, lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of his notice of appeal. Because Locust is not challenging the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or asserting a constitutional issue, this court’s limited jurisdiction does not permit review. *See Livingston v. Derwinski,*959 F.2d 224, 225-26 (Fed.Cir.1992); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d); *Albun v. Brown,*9 F.3d 1528 (Fed.Cir.1993).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,174,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,163,061<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,074
<INVENTORY>                                    689,781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,046,863
<PP&E>                                       1,263,280
<DEPRECIATION>                                 999,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,298,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,149,641
<BONDS>                                      5,116,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,275,000
<COMMON>                                         4,351
<OTHER-SE>                                     608,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,298,505
<SALES>                                      3,513,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,513,056
<CGS>                                        1,674,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,097,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             172,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (401,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,630
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (429,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (429,024)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES AFFILIATE RECEIVABLE OF 179,836
</FN>


</TABLE>
November 16, 2015

Attn:

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: STEVEN LIGHTCAP JR AND AARON BAUM OF ELITE DRONE SERVICES LLC.

REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE

OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING 

COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI Phantom 3 and Blade 350 QX3 UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION 

AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Addendum- I would like to add the following UAS to my exemption, DJI INSPIRE ONE, DJI 

S900, DJI S1000. To be included with my original UAS's DJI PHANTOM 3, and BLADE 

350QX3. 

These UAS's will be used for Aerial Photography and Videography, Inspection and Patrolling, 

Agriculture Documenting, Wildlife and Forestry Monitoring, Surveying, Search and Rescue, 

Disaster and catastrophe events, Motion Picture Filming, Aerial Imaging/Mapping, 

Cinematography, Roof Inspections.

All of the rules set by the FAA will be followed with extreme precaution to the safety of the 

public. All pre-flight checklist will be excuted. All UAS's will be used in accordance with the 

FAA rules and regulations. Thank you for your time and please call me with any questions.

Steven Lightcap Jr - Operator

Elite Drone Services LLC

11532 Crescent Pines Blvd.

Clermont, FL 34711

352-267-9132

EliteDroneServices@yahoo.com

Aaron Baum - Operator
Elite Drone Services LLC

352-572-9993

EliteDroneServices@yahoo.com
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/28/2023 1

Suit to Extend the Voter-Registration Deadline 

in South Carolina Because of Covid-19 

Was Too Late 

South Carolina Progressive Network Education Fund 

v. Andino (Mary Geiger Lewis, D.S.C. 3:20-cv-3503) 

Two days before South Carolina’s voter registration deadline, a voter-registration organization filed a federal complaint seeking an extension of the deadline to accommodate the social distancing made 

necessary by the global infectious Covid-19 pandemic. One week 

later, the district judge denied the organization immediate relief, 

because the suit had been brought too short a time before the election. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; Covid-19; laches; intervention. 

A voter-registration organization filed a federal complaint in the District of 

South Carolina on Friday, October 2, 2020, against state election officials 

seeking an extension of the October 4 voter-registration deadline to accommodate social distancing and stay-at-home orders resulting from the global 

infectious Covid-19 pandemic.1 With its complaint, the organization filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

On the following day, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis set the case for hearing 

on October 6,3 but the hearing was canceled on October 5.4 On October 9, 

Judge Lewis denied the organization immediate relief: “the Court is unable to 

order the change in election law the [plaintiff] seeks so close to the November 3, 2020, election.”5

 “The [plaintiff’s] goals are laudable. They are as laudable as the untimeliness of the filings of both their lawsuit and their motions 

are troubling.”6

The organization voluntarily dismissed its case on October 19.7

1. Complaint, S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund v. Andino, No. 3:20-cv-3503 (D.S.C. 

Oct. 2, 2020), D.E. 1; S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund v. Andino, 493 F. Supp. 3d 460, 

463–64 (D.S.C. 2020). 

2. Motion, S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund, No. 3:20-cv-3503 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2020), 

D.E. 2; S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund, 493 F. Supp. 3d at 463–64. 

3. Docket Sheet, S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund, No. 3:20-cv-3503 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 

2020) (D.E. 11). 

4. Id. (D.E. 26). 

5. S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund, 493 F. Supp. 3d at 469. 

6. Id. at 470. 

7. Notice, S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund, No. 3:20-cv-3503 (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2020), 

D.E. 41.