alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 27, 2010

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 111-Middle Atlantic Region

(3RAOO)

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Garvin:

The Maryland Department ofthe Environment’s 2009 Ozone ambient concentration data, along with the

quality assurance data is completely submitted to the National Air Quality database, AQS. The data was reviewed andcertified as correct to the best of their knowledge taking into consideration the quality assurance findings by the

Ambient Air Monitoring Program, Air and Radiation Management Administration.

The AMP45O report is included with this letter. The 2009 Ozone sites are listed in the AMP45O (report ID: 710026).The AMP255 (report ID: 710307) is also included with this letter. This report contains the precision and accuracy

summaries for the 2009 Ozone data.

As the senior air pollution official for the State of Maryland, I agree with the Ambient Air Monitoring

Program’s assessment ofthe 2009 Ozone data. I request that the data be included as early certified official data forMaryland in the National Air Quality database. MDE is submitting this data for early certification so that it can be

reviewed by EPA for the Baltimore Metro and Cecil County 8-hour Ozone 1-year attainment date extension process.

Once Region 3’s review of the certification package is complete please forward it to Mr. David Lutz, DataCertification Contact, US EPA (D243-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711for insertion into the AQS database as certified 2009 Maryland Ozone data.

Sinc y,

* Geo e (Tad) Aburn, Director

Air and Radiation Management Administration

TAD/EG

cc: Walter Wilkie, EPA, Region III

Edwin Gluth

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
No. 47347.

#### Protest 682440-G/9802 of S. Goldman (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The importer appeared in his own behalf, without •counsel. He testified that he is an expert on antique English furniture and has worked as a cabinet maker all his life; that he attended a school in London which specializes in training students for cabinet making; that he worked in different cabinet-making shops in England, New York, and Texas; and that he purchased all of the articles in London before they were packed for shipment and relied on his own knowledge as to their antiquity. Four exhibits were received in evidence, three being chairs and exhibit 4 a pole screen. These, he testified, were artistic antiques produced prior to the year 1830. An examination of the invoice showed that there were twenty-three different items of chairs, twelve of which were returned free of duty by the collector, and one item of mahogany pole screens which was also returned free. The importer did not identify the items on the invoice which were represented by exhibits 1, 2, and 3. The protest was therefore overruled as to those exhibits. It was held that the evidence introduced with respect to exhibit 4 was sufficient to make out,a *prima facie*case and indicates that the pole screens covered by item 60 are artistic antiquities produced prior to 1830. The protest was therefore sustained as .to this item only.
No. 64103.

protests 60170-K, etc. (New York).

#### National Wines & Liquors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,034
<INVENTORY>                                     99,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,745
<PP&E>                                         434,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 597,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,965
<BONDS>                                        203,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,983
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                           216
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   597,516
<SALES>                                        486,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               486,687
<CGS>                                          448,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  448,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    31
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,933)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.49)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 1, 2011

t0525 

# Order

June 1, 2011

142448

VERNA SPAYTH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142448 COA: 292460 Washtenaw CC: 08-001000-NO CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY 

### , J., would grant leave to appeal.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 6, 2019

a1203

Order 

Clerk

December 6, 2019

159982

WILLIAM McCALLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159982

COA: 346858

Ingham CC: 17-000113-NH

MID-MICHIGAN PHYSICIANS, PC,

DR. DOUGLAS VANDERJAGT,

WILLIAM CLARK, PA, and

WILLIAM JORDAN, PA,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2019 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOSHUA WARD,

NO. Cr. S-04-0678 FCD PAN

Plaintiff,

AMENDED

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS),

CALIFORNIA AMTRAK, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, JACOB KEATING

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, YOLO COUNTY,

WEST SACRAMENTO CITY, and 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 

COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

On April 5, 2004, this action was removed from Sacramento

Superior Court to this court. On August 4, 2004, a Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued setting all case

management dates up to and including a trial date. 

Case 2:04-cv-00678-FCD-PAN Document 39 Filed 05/03/05 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

27

28

2

On April 12, 2005, defendants’ Union Pacific, and National

Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK) filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment to be heard on May 27, 2005. 

A preliminary review of the file and the docket, in

preparation for the pending motion, shows that no return of

service has been filed showing service was completed upon

defendants Jacob Keating, Sacramento County, City of 

Sacramento, Yolo County, and City of West Sacramento as required

by Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l) and Local Rule 4-20(b). 

The court, therefore, makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why defendants Jacob

Keating, Sacramento County, City of Sacramento, Yolo county, and

City of West Sacramento should not be dismissed for failure to

timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

2. Plaintiff shall file their response to the Order to

Show Cause on or before May 20, 2005.

3. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion for summary

judgment set for May 13, 2005 is VACATED and RESET for 

May 27, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing on the order to show

cause shall follow the motion hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00678-FCD-PAN Document 39 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/4/2023 1

Court-Ordered County Precinct Lines 

While Preclearance Is Pending 

Vasquez-Lopez v. Medina County 

(Orlando L. Garcia, W.D. Tex. 5:11-cv-945) 

Eighteen days before the beginning of a ballot-qualification period, a 

federal complaint challenged postcensus county redistricting as not 

precleared pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Thirteen 

days later, the district judge approved a districting plan proposed by 

the parties, and later the judge awarded the plaintiffs $35,546.93 in 

attorney fees and costs. 

Subject: District lines. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; 

malapportionment; attorney fees. 

A federal complaint filed on November 10, 2011, in the Western District of 

Texas, eighteen days before the beginning of a ballot-qualification period for 

Medina County elections for county commissioners and justices of the peace, 

sought to enjoin a districting plan established after the 2010 census that had 

not yet received preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.1

With their complaint, the plaintiffs—two voters—filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

On the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Orlando L. Garcia granted 

the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order.3 Five days later, he ordered briefing on various issues, including, “If Medina County’s proposed redistricting 

plans are not precleared before November 28, 2011, an interim court-ordered 

plan will be necessary for the 2012 elections to proceed in a timely fashion.”4

On November 22, the plaintiffs and the county reported that they had 

agreed on a proposed court-ordered plan.5

 Judge Garcia approved the plan on 

the following day.6

 On May 22, 2012, Judge Garcia awarded the plaintiffs 

$35,546.93 in attorney fees and costs.7

1. Complaint, Vasquez-Lopez v. Medina County, No. 5:11-cv-945 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 

2011), D.E. 2; see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as 

amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination). 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Vasquez-Lopez, No. 5:11-cv-945 (W.D. Tex. 

Nov. 10, 2011), D.E. 1. 

3. Temporary Restraining Order, id. (Nov. 10, 2011), D.E. 3. 

4. Order at 2, id. (Nov. 15, 2011), D.E. 5. 

5. Joint Submission, id. (Nov. 22, 2011), D.E. 8. 

6. Order, id. (Nov. 23, 2011, filed Nov. 25, 2011), D.E. 9; see Order, id. (Dec. 8, 2011, filed 

Dec. 9, 2011), D.E. 11 (approving agreed election precincts). 

7. Order, id. (May 22, 2012, filed May 23, 2012), D.E. 18; see Fee Motion, id. (Dec. 21, 

2011), D.E. 12.
# sec5_custodialact_2020

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCA - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
No. 50912.

#### Protest 25325-K of Tuck High & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial a Government chemist testified that he found the sample to be composed of a synthetic phenolic resin, colored with a small amount of white pigment, and that in his opinion the synthetic phenolic resin was not a binding agent in the article. The case was submitted for decision, counsel for the plaintiff citing Abstract 49907. Following Abstract 50728, it was held that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS,

NO. CIV. S-04-1059 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE DISPOSAL

DOCUMENTS AFTER

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO., NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

Defendant.

 /

Counsel for defendant has informed the court that the parties

have settled the above-captioned case. The court now orders that

the dispositional documents disposing of the case be filed no later

than sixty (60) days from the effective date of this order.

All hearing dates heretofore set in this matter are hereby

VACATED.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM Document 43 Filed 07/13/05 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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL OR PARTIES WHO

CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM Document 43 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 54017.

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 920886-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Volpe journal**
 
2001 | 2003 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:TD 10.15:
Item Number:0982-K-10 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000516567
 
February 11, 2020
No. 52252.

protests 85077-K, etc. (New York).

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Administrative Reports: CIR File Status

To view a CIR file status report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Deposit Processing Reports. The View Reports page 

appears. 

2. Under Administration Reports, click View CIR File Status. The View CIR File Status page 

appears. 

The Collections Information Repository (CIR) was formerly referred to as Transaction 

Reporting System (TRS).

3. Under the Transmission(s) Not Processed section, click a Transmission ID of the CIR 

transmission details you must view.

Or

Under the All Transmission(s) section, click a Transmission ID of the CIR transmission 

details or processing errors you must view.

• If a Transmission ID with Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) CL CA$HLINK Type is 

selected, the CIR Transmission Status (FRB) report appears in a new window. 

• If a Transmission ID with CLII CA$HLINK Type is selected, the CIR Transmission 

Status (FI) report appears in a new window.

• There are two sections on the View CIR File Transmission Status page. The

Transmission(s) Not Processed section displays report files that have not been 

successfully processed by CIR.

• The All Transmission(s) section displays all deposit report files regardless of 

transmission status or success.

4. The View CIR Transmission Status preview page appears.

Under Export as, you have the following options:

o Select PDF, Excel or Word format

o Click Download

Or

o Print PDF Report

5. For further debit or adjustment voucher details, click the Voucher # hyperlink. The Deposit 

or Adjustment Voucher Detail report appears.

Application Tip

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

6. Click Open, Save or Cancel.

7. The DepositVoucherDetail_XXX.pdf or AdjustmentVoucherDetail_ XXXX.pdf report appears

as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Adjustment-Voucher Detail PDF

• Click Open the PDF is displayed. 

• Click Save choose the location where to save the file. 

• Click Cancel to return to the View CIR File Status preview page.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Additional Buttons
Financial Statement Guidance Structure and Timeline for FY 2023 

May 2022

1

Why is there a new structure and timeline?

More Time to Implement Changes

System changes

3rd quarter (June 30) financial statements

Increase Collaboration

Identify issues collectively

Determine the resolution in a collaborative way

No surprises to guidance updates

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

‹#›

New FY 2023 Timeline

Identify all FY 2021 Lessons Learned – 02/2022

Work with agencies and auditors to identify changes needed to TFM 2-4700 and OMB A-136 – 03/2022 to 06/2022

Review periods/clearances of guidance for FY 2023 TFM 2-4700 and OMB A-136 – 07/2022 to 09/2022

Issue FY 2023 TFM 2-4700 – 11/16/2022

USSGL Board Meeting and Issue USSGL TFM Supplement – 12/2022

Issue FY 2023 OMB A-136 – Spring 2023

Nov. 15

February

December

Mar - June

July - Sept

Nov. 16

Spring

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

‹#›

Agency Financial Statements

Financial Report of the U.S. Government

Identify Changes

TFM 2-4700

USSGL Board Meeting and USSGL TFM Supplement

OMB A-136

Review/

Clearance

Benefits of New Timeline

New FY TFM 2-4700 guidance available the day after the prior FY financial statements are published

USSGL crosswalks are published by the end of 1st quarter

New FY OMB A-136 guidance available in the spring 

Agencies able to finalize current year financial statement templates in 2nd quarter

3rd quarter and year-end financial statements based on the same set of guidance

Agency auditors should be able to do more audit work based on 3rd quarter

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

‹#›

Jaime M. Saling

	Department of the Treasury	Bureau of the Fiscal Service

	Jaime.Saling@fiscal.treasury.gov

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Contact Information

‹#›

5

# image2.png

# image1.png

# image3.png
No. 55919.

protest 113205-K (St. Albans).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919) the claim for free entry was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4070 

To amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of ‘‘small refinery’’ 

for purposes of the Renewable Fuel Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of 

‘‘small refinery’’ for purposes of the Renewable Fuel 

Program, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Energy 

5 in Rural America Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL REFINERIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 

7 (a) DEFINITION OF SMALL REFINERY.—Section 

8 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)) is 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4070 IS

1 amended by striking subparagraph (K) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(K) SMALL REFINERY.—The term ‘small 

4 refinery’ means a refining company— 

5 ‘‘(i) for which the average aggregate 

6 daily crude oil throughput for a calendar 

7 year (as determined by dividing the aggre8 gate throughput for the calendar year by 

9 the number of days in the calendar year) 

10 produced by all refineries owned by that 

11 company, including any subsidiaries of that 

12 company, does not exceed 200,000 barrels; 

13 or 

14 ‘‘(ii) that employs not more than 

15 1,500 employees.’’. 

16 (b) SMALL REFINERY EXEMPTION.— 

17 (1) METHODOLOGY REQUIRED.—Not later than 

18 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

19 Secretary of Energy shall develop methodology to be 

20 used by the Administrator of the Environmental 

21 Protection Agency for purposes of evaluating peti22 tions submitted under section 211(o)(9)(B)(i) of the 

23 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)(B)(i)). 

24 (2) CAA AMENDMENT.—Section 211(o)(9)(B) 

25 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)(B)) is 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4070 IS

1 amended by striking clause (ii) and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(ii) EVALUATION OF PETITIONS.—In 

4 evaluating a petition under clause (i), the 

5 Administrator shall— 

6 ‘‘(I) use methodology developed 

7 and approved by the Secretary of En8 ergy pursuant to section 2(b)(1) of 

9 the Supporting Energy in Rural 

10 America Act; and 

11 ‘‘(II) in consultation with the 

12 Secretary of Energy, consider— 

13 ‘‘(aa) the findings of the 

14 study under subparagraph 

15 (A)(ii); and 

16 ‘‘(bb) other economic fac17 tors.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS