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

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-0776 TLN EFB P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and

informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). Despite an extension of

time, plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded

to the court’s order.

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). 

“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding

party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. ” Id. A

responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be

1

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 245 Filed 06/24/13 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

deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition

of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local

Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute

or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may

recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir.

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing

to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

DATED: June 24, 2013.

2

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 245 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

 

INTERNATIONALALUMINUM CORPORATIONSUBSIDIARIES

 

 

The following is a list of the significantsubsidiaries of the Registrant and the jurisdiction under which each isorganized.  The Company owns 100 percentof the voting securities of each such subsidiary.

 
| **Name Of Subsidiary**                                 |   | **Jurisdiction  Of  Organization** |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |                               |   |
| International Window Corporation                       |   | California                         |   |
| General Window Corporation*                            |   | California                         |   |
| International Window-Arizona, Inc.                     |   | California                         |   |
| United States Aluminum Corporation                     |   | California                         |   |
| United States Aluminum Corporation-Illinois            |   | California                         |   |
| United States Aluminum Corporation-Texas               |   | Texas                              |   |
| United States Aluminum Corporation-Carolina            |   | California                         |   |
| United States Aluminum Of Canada-British Columbia Ltd. |   | Canada                             |   |
| United States Aluminum Of Canada-Ontario Ltd.          |   | Canada                             |   |
| Raco Interior Products, Inc.                           |   | Texas                              |   |
| International Extrusion Corporation                    |   | California                         |   |
| International Extrusion Corporation-Texas              |   | California                         |   |

 

----

*  dba InternationalWindow-Northern California

 

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3970 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made by such members towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2024 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. TILLIS, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the 

Armed Forces for certain contributions made by such 

members towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and 

for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3970 IS

1 SECTION 1. REPAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

2 FORCES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD 

3 POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3327(f)(3) of title 38, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘together’’ 

6 and all that follows through ‘‘(as applicable),’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall take effect on August 1, 2023. 

9 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES. 

10 The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, 

11 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘November 

12 14, 2031’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘November 

13 28, 2031’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the First Division,

October 18, 1946

No. 51362.

#### Protest 121130-K of L. Heller & Son (New York).

Opinion bj

Oliver, P. J.

From the testimony of the witnesses and by a preponderance of the evidence it was held that the plaintiff established that the stones in question are known in the trade as semiprecious stones, are bought and sold as such, and are also suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry. The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was therefore sustained.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR. S-04-0388 MCE 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

vs. ) ORDER

 ) 

TYSON BARTHOLOMEW TROTTER, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

By stipulation of Barry V. Voss, Attorney for Defendant Tyson Trotter, 

Ms. Krista Hart, Attorney for Defendant Brady Morse, and Mr. Phillip Talbert, 

AUSA, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

That Ms. Krista Hart will appear on behalf of Barry V. Voss at the status 

conference scheduled for October 25, 2005, in the above-entitled matter. 

Dated: October 21, 2005 

 ______________________________ 

 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

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

27

28

Case 2:04-cr-00388-MCE Document 119 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 1
# Data

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-08	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2019
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

DOCK McNEELY,

Petitioner,

v.

LOU BLANAS,

Respondent.

 /

Civ. S-00-1358 DFL PAN P

NON-RELATED CASE ORDER

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-00-1508 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

 /

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-00-2797 DFL PAN P

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 58 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-01-2084 EJG GGH P

Plaintiff,

v.

ROY K. SIMMONS, et al.

Defendants.

 /

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-03-2172 DFL PAN 

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD BONNER, et al.

Defendants.

 /

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-04-0062 DFL PAN 

Plaintiff,

v.

LOU BLANAS, et al.

Defendants.

 /

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-04-1215 DFL PAN 

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD BONNER, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 58 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

DOCK McNEELY, Civ. S-05-1401 MCE DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

 /

A Notice of Related Cases was filed concerning the abovecaptioned cases on September 27, 2005. See Local Rule 83-123

(E.D. Cal. 2005). On review of the cases, the court finds that

the cases ought not be related or reassigned. This order is

issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect

on the status of the cases, including any previous Related (or

Non-Related) Case Order of this court. Therefore, they shall not

be considered related. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/20/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 58 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of Jostens, Inc. as of and for the year ended
January 1, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          38,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,775)
<INVENTORY>                                     87,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,309
<PP&E>                                         271,790
<DEPRECIATION>                               (181,150)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,142
<BONDS>                                          3,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,108
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,716
<SALES>                                        782,438
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               782,438
<CGS>                                          349,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  349,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               351,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,882
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,179
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,179
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

September 16, 1948

No. 52540.

protests 68400-K, etc. (New York).

#### O. Brager-Larsen et al. *v.*United States,

*202Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
Before the Third Division,

May 29, 1957

No. 60803.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 277551-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that one bale of white wool reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the bale of wool reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 4.73


 





 


January 31, 2008


 


BY PERSONAL DELIVERY


 


Mr. Jerry Ormiston


28 Eagle Road


Toronto, Ontario 
M8Z 4H5


 


Re:
Employment Agreement


 


Dear Jerry:


 


Further
to our recent discussions, we hereby confirm that your employment agreement
with DRAXIS Health Inc. dated May 15, 2001 and amended March 26, 2004
(the “Employment Agreement”) is hereby amended as follows:


 


·                  By
deleting Section 3 and replacing it with the following Section 3:


 


You
will be entitled to participate in all benefit plans which the DRAXIS Group
shall, from time to time make available to its executive employees, subject to
applicable eligibility rules thereof. 
The benefits currently offered are:


·                  major medical


·                  drug


·                  dental


·                  group life


·                  short and long term disability


·                  accidental death and dismemberment


 


You will also be entitled
to an amount of up to 5% of your Base Salary, which exact percentage shall be
determined from year to year in lieu of participation in DRAXIS’ Retirement
Savings Program. (the “DRSP Amount”).


 


·                  By
deleting Section 17(c) and replacing it with the following Section 17(c):


 


(c)                                  Termination
by DRAXIS Without Cause and Without Notice


 


DRAXIS may
terminate this Agreement and your employment hereunder, in its sole discretion,
Without Notice and Without Cause, effective immediately upon the date you are
advised of the termination (the “Date of Termination”)


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DRAXIS HEALTH  INC. / SANTÉ DRAXIS INC.


16751 Route Trans Canada Highway, Kirkland, Québec, Canada H9H 4J4  Tel: (514) 694-8220 Fax: (514) 694-8201
Jfmutl) Court of

Sntonio,

August 26. 2014

No. 04-14-00076-CR

The State of Texas.

Appellant

v.

Ernesto lihazar Vela.

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. CR12 1162

i) i;

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on October 7, 2014, to the following panel: Chief

Justice Stone. Justice Angelini, and Justice Martinez. All parties will be notified of the Court's

decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. APP. P. 4X.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. APP. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on August 26. 2014.

2L Cameripe Stone. Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/lixed the seal o/thc said court on this Aueust 26. 2014.

e, Clerk'
No. 53513.

protest 87076-K (San Francisco).

#### Chong Sing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
General Fund TAS/ALC 

Validation

July 7th, 2021
• Financial audit report published April 15, 2021

General Fund Financial Audit Update

Page 2 L E AD ∙ T RA NS F O RM ∙ D EL IVER

Closed Remained Open New

18-04 Evaluating and Resolving 

Differences on the Schedules of 

the General Fund

18-01 Identifying Journal Entries 20-01 Supporting Account Attributes

of Active Treasury Account 

Symbols (TAS)

18-06 Business Event Type Code (BETC)

Guidance

18-02 Tracing Payment Schedules 

to Payment Vouchers

20-02 Account Reconciliation 

Requirements for Federal 

Agencies

18-09 Enhance Journal Voucher Review

Procedures

18-03 Identifying Transactions in

Certain Line Items

20-03 Restricting Access to TAS’

18-10 Validating Liability for Fund 

18-11 Balance with Treasury (LFBWT)

18-05 Management’s Risk Assessment

and Monitoring of Internal

Control Over Financial Reporting

18-12 Prior Period Transactions 18-07 Evaluating BETC Guidance

18-08 Entity Submission Form Review 

and Completeness
• New Recommendations

➢ 20-01 Design and implement procedures to periodically review and maintain 

documentation to support account attributes for all active TAS’ to reasonably 

assure that activity recorded for each account is properly recognized in the 

Schedules of the General Fund

➢ 20-02 Design and implement procedures to reasonably assure that federal 

agencies reconcile their account balances per their internal records to the 

Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS) at the appropriate detailed level 

to provide for accurate reporting of line items

➢ 20-03 Establish controls to restrict access to each TAS to only those federal 

agencies to which the account belongs

General Fund Financial Audit Update

Page 3 L E AD ∙ T RA NS F O RM ∙ D EL IVER
• High Level Plan for Remediation

➢ Create a validation mechanism that each feeder system to CARS can use to ensure 

that proper TAS/ALC relationships are maintained

➢ Proper being defined as TAS and ALC are related in that they share common key 

attributes (AID on the TAS and first two digits of ALC being the same)

➢ Anything that would fall out of the traditional relationship should be vetted by 

Federal Entities and Fiscal Service for confirmation.

➢ Data call forthcoming to help Fiscal Service validate proper relationships. The 

timing for this data call is TBD at this point.

General Fund Financial Audit Update

Page 4 L E AD ∙ T RA NS F O RM ∙ D EL IVER
Luke Sheppard

Luke.Sheppard@fiscal.treasury.gov

Joe Deem

Joe.deem@fiscal.treasury.gov

Contacts

Page 5 L E AD ∙ T RA NS F O RM ∙ D EL IVER
No. 59510.

protests 125963-K, etc. (New York).

#### Comex Wine & Spirits Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NADINE JOHNSON, : CIVIL ACTION

6434 N. 15th Street :

Philadelphia, PA 19126 :

: No. 02-CV-4165

Plaintiff, :

vs. :

:

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., :

507 Prudential Road :

Horsham, PA 19044 :

:

 Defendant. : 

VERIFICATION

Andrew M. Schwartz, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, NCO Financial

Systems, Inc., verifies that the facts set forth in NCO Financial Systems, Inc.'s

Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, are true to the best of his knowledge, information

and belief. If the above statements are knowingly false, the deponent understands

that he may be subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn

falsification to authorities.

 

ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE

Dated: August 29, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-04489-WY Document 6-2 Filed 08/29/2002 Page 1 of 1
#### Timothy Lamont HAZEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.R. HUNT, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6084.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Timothy Lamont Hazel, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Lamont Hazel seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Hazel v. Hunt,*No. CA-00-564-1 (M.D.N.C. June 9, 2000). We further deny Hazel’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0488 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-002-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 206B and 206L Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 970 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during 

steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $20 for the decal

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to update 

the RFM)

(0.2 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to install 

the decal)

$43

$17

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $80

Total US Fleet Cost $77,600

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified

Statements

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2021 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal

Entity Reporting Requirements for the Financial Report of the United States Government. Each report

crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the

reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary

information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information

on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by

Fiscal Service:

Section VI Page Number

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Balance Sheet (RBS) VI RBS - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Net Cost (RSNC) VI RSNC - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Operations and

Changes in Net Position (RSOCNP)

VI RSOCNP - 1 

Page 1 of 1
No. 46095.

#### Protests 55014-K, etc., of Mon Hing & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the protests were sustained as to certain of the items.
June 25, 1942

No. 47339.

#### Protest 15159-K of Bailey Green & Elger, Inc.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
# sec5_snc_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2019-10	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2019