alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Improving Financial Reporting and Audit Model – Data Entry

Luke Sheppard

May 2019

Facilitate the removal of the closing package

Reduce redundant reporting

Reduce manual reporting required by entities

Identify gaps in reporting model that could be automated in the future

IFRAM – Project Goal for FY19

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Previous to FY19

GTAS ATB Submission Transferred to GFRS

GFRS Manual Data entry for notes

Closing Package Sign off in Approvals Module

Closing Package attached in GFRS and Sent to OMB Max for collection

IFRAM – History

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

GTAS Data Submitted and Certified

GTAS Creates FS and Notes data (ones that can be crosswalked)

FRAD Accountants use this data to assist in data entry into our internal system

A-136 Note 44 (Reclassification Adjustments of AFR due to FR Compilation) is a key point in removing the need for the Closing Package for FY19

FRAD accounts use these sources to manually fill out Entity note data

IFRAM – FY19

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Fiscal Service will use a data hierarchy when determining priority of data usage 

Priority Order

Notes Crosswalk (GTAS)

AFR 1-1

Agency Data Calls/Communications

Data Heirarchy	

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Fiscal Service will conduct a Dry run of this reporting model June 3rd – June 14th

Identify gaps in reporting

Estimate workload

Establish Correct Agency POCs for each note

Ensure process captures complete and accurate data

Compare to actual agency reported note data from GFRS

Dry Run	(FY 18 Data)

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

Agency POC availability

Please provide contacts who will be available during business hours so that communication of issues is smooth

Dry Run Participation

June 3rd – June 14th

FYE 19 

November 20th – December 6th 

Keys for Success

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

GTAS ATB/Notes Crosswalk Questions

Luke.Sheppard@fiscal.treasury.gov

Andrew.Morris@fiscal.treasury.gov

FR Notes Subject Matter and Content Questions

Melissa.Williams@fiscal.treasury.gov

Michael.Conley@fiscal.treasury.gov

Questions

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

# image2.png

# image1.png
#### Pennell Norman FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Pennell Norman Foust, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pennell Foust appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (Westl994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Foust v. Stouffer,*No. CA-00-3499-AW (D. Md. filed Dec. 4, 2000; entered Dec. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*122quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 00-31267

_______________________

PARENTS AGAINST TESTING BEFORE TEACHING, an unincorporated

association; CHARMAINE BRYANT, individually and on behalf of her

minor child, Krystal Bryant; BRYANT SMOOT; STEPHEN SMOOT,

individually and on behalf of their minor child, Lynette Smoot;

WAYNE THOMPSON; ROMONA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of

their minor children Savannah Thompson and Stephen Thompson;

NATHANIEL BROWN; DIANNE BROWN, individually and on behalf of their

minor child, Irene Brown; ALTHEA FRANKLIN, individually and on

behalf of her minor child, Dominique Franklin; DIEDRA RAYFIELD,

individually and on behalf of her minor child, Jessie Rayfield;

EVELYN MAGEE; MELVIN MAGEE, individually and on behalf of their

minor child, Maurice Magee; TAMAR ALLEN, individually and on behalf

of her minor child, Daniel Allen; NAOMI MARK, individually and on

behalf of her minor child, Tiffany Raines,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD; GAIL MOORE GLAPION, in her official

capacity as Board President; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF

ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; GLENNY LEE BUQUET, in her

capacity as president of the State Board of Elementary and

Secondary Education; CECIL PICARD, in his capacity as Louisiana’s

State Superintendent of Education,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Civil Docket #00-CV-2525

_________________________________________________________________

September 17, 2001
* District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges and BARBOUR, District

Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

This court has carefully considered the issues on appeal

in light of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and pertinent

portions of the records. Having done so, we, first, find no

deficiency in the appellants’ notice of appeal and therefore have

appellate jurisdiction.

Next, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court. The court did not err in finding no due process

violations under federal or applicable state law. In particular,

the Deborah P. case cited by appellants pertains to the narrow

right of graduating seniors to obtain a diploma, and not to any

expectation of promotion in the public schools from year to year.

Deborah P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. -- Unit B 1981).

Further, appellants’ briefing did not sustain their assertion of

private causes of action under federal statutes, including those

covering age discrimination. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the

administration of the LEAP21 test and enforcement of its results.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
October 16, 1946

No. 51374.

#### Protests 117822-K, etc., of J. A. Forrest Co. et al.

Abstract 51289. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
#### Val ALBERT; Galen Cook, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Larry JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-35555.

D.C. No. CV-98-01180-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*573Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies appellants' request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Val Albert and Galen Cook appeal pro se the district court’s summary judgments for defendants in their action alleging state law claims and violations of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”). Appellants also alleged state law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, *T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n,*809 F.2d 626, 629-30 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment on appellant Cook’s federal claims because he lacked standing. *See*29 U.S.C. § 402(o); *Finnegan v. Leu,*456 U.S. 431, 436-38, 102 S.Ct. 1867, 72 L.Ed.2d 239 (1982) (indicating that the LMRDA applies only to union members).

Because appellant Albert failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that he was not afforded a full and fair hearing, *see Johnson v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers Branch 1100,*182 F.3d 1071, 1073-74 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1075, 120 S.Ct. 788, 145 L.Ed.2d 665 (2000), and failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that he was expelled for engaging in activity protected by the LMRDA, *see Finnegan,*456 U.S. at 436-37; *United Steelworkers of America v. Sadlowski*457 U.S. 102, 115, 102 S.Ct. 2339, 72 L.Ed.2d 707 (1982), the district court properly granted summary judgment on appellant Albert’s federal claims.

Contrary to appellants’ contention, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims because the district court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. *See Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court,*24 F.3d 1545, 1555-56 (9th Cir.1994).

Because appellants failed to appeal to the district court judge the magistrate judge’s grant of appellees’ motion for a protective order, they have forfeited their right to appeal it to this court. *See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp.,*77 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1996).

We deny appellees’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. *See Gabor v. Frazer,*78 F.3d 459, 459-60 (9th Cir.1996) (order); *Eisen v. Curry (In re Eisen),*14 F.3d 469, 471 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:

| | A) | the Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                               
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | B) | the   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as   of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

|May 8, 2006 | /s/ Kim S.   Price                     
|----------- | ---------------------------------------
|Dated       |                                        
|            | Kim S. Price                           
|            | President   and Chief Executive Officer

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

21

---
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 7

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 35

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 35 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                       830
<INVENTORY>                                     31,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,477
<PP&E>                                          67,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,078
<BONDS>                                         60,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           557
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,310)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,675
<SALES>                                        176,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,564
<CGS>                                          105,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   326
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (397)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,991)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)


</TABLE>
Case No. 5,294.

#### In re GEBHARDT.

[3 N. B. R. 268 (Quarto, 63).] 1

District Court, E. D. Missouri,

1869.

Bankruptcy — Practice.

Answer need not be verified. If debtor, in cases of involuntary bankruptcy, do not appear on return-day of rule, he cannot demand a trial of issues by a jury.

A rule was issued directing the defendant to show cause on the 31st of August why he should not be adjudged bankrupt. An answer to the rule was lodged with the clerk by the attorney on the 18th of September, after the expiration of the rule. The answer was not verified. The petitioning creditors applied to have judgment by default, and the defendant applied for leave to file answer.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.)

PER CURIAM.

The defendant not having filed his answer on the return-day of the rule, cannot demand that the issues shall be tried by a jury. But, under the circumstances, leave will be given to file an answer, the issues to be tried by the court. The statute does not require the answer to the rule to be verified by affiant.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 1

Seeking Federal Relief 

for Denial of Certification as a Write-In 

Candidate After Losing in State Court 

Bonds v. Orr (Robert M. Dow, Jr., N.D. Ill. 1:13-cv-2610) 

At approximately 1:00 p.m. on the day before an election for a highschool-district board of education, a federal district-court judge received a complaint seeking the plaintiff’s listing as a write-in candidate. After a 3:30 hearing, the judge determined that because the 

plaintiff’s claims had already been pursued unsuccessfully in state 

court, they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which 

states that among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts; pro se party. 

A plaintiff wishing to be listed as a write-in candidate for a high-schooldistrict board of education in Cook County, Illinois, filed a federal complaint 

in the Northern District of Illinois on April 8, 2013, the day before the election.1

 With her complaint, the plaintiff filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis.2 She also filed the court’s form motion for attorney assistance.3

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., received the complaint at approximately 1:00 

p.m. and set the matter for hearing at 3:30, instructing the plaintiff to serve 

the complaint on the county clerk defendant.4 After the hearing, at which the 

plaintiff appeared pro se, Judge Dow determined that because the plaintiff 

had already unsuccessfully sought relief for her federal claims in state courts, 

federal relief from the federal district court was barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only the Supreme 

Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings.5

1. Complaint, Bonds v. Orr, No. 1:13-cv-2610 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2013), D.E. 1. 

2. In Forma Pauperis Application, id. (Apr. 8, 2013), D.E. 3. 

3. Attorney Assistance Motion, id. (Apr. 8, 2013), D.E. 4. 

4. Amended Minute Order, id. (Apr. 29, 2013), D.E. 13. 

Judge Dow became Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s counselor in October 2022. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/ 

judges; Press Release, Oct. 3, 2022, www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/ 

pr_10-03-22. 

5. Amended Minute Order, supra note 4; see D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 3d ed. 2014).
exh4-7_ltragmt.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

     

     

    EXHIBIT 4.7

     

    LETTER AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES WITH

    IMA EXPLORATION FOR JOSEPH GROSSO

    EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 2007

    
 

    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    

              
____________________

                               A GROSSO GROUP MEMBER
COMPANY

     

    


    July 30,
2007

    


    Amera
Resources Corporation

    


    Re:  Services
Provided to Amera Resources Corporation (Amera)

    


    ATT:
NIKO CACOS

             CEO

     

    We are
writing to outline our agreement with respect to the fees to be billed by IMA
Exploration Inc. (IMA) to Amera for services provided by Mr. Joseph Grosso
(Grosso) through his management company, Oxbow International Marketing Corp.
(Oxbow).

    


    Oxbow is
under exclusive contract to IMA, the terms of which allows Grosso to provide
services to other companies pursuant to contractual arrangements between IMA and
such other companies.

    


    At
Amera’s request, Grosso, through Oxbow, has been providing executive assistance
in various matters for Amera.

    


    The
monthly fee which IMA will be charging Amera for these services, effective as of
May 1, 2007 is $833 plus GST.  IMA will issue an invoice for these
monthly services which will be due on receipt.  On a periodic basis,
IMA and Amera will assess amount billed and will adjust the monthly fee as
required.

    


    In the
event Amera determines to not use the services of Grosso in providing executive
assistance and wishes to terminate this agreement, Amera will provide IMA with
30 days written advance notice.

    


    IMA
reserves its right to restrict services provided by Grosso to Amera depending on
its own need for Grosso’s time, and the monthly fee will be adjusted
accordingly.

    


    It is
acknowledged and agreed that this letter agreement regarding the payment of a
monthly fee, is the only contractual arrangement that exists between IMA and
Amera as regards to services of Grosso.

    


    If the
above accurately reflects the terms of our arrangement, please so acknowledge by
signing and returning a copy of this letter.

    


    Yours
very truly,

    


    /s/ Art Lang

    


    IMA
Exploration
Inc.                                                                                                    Reviewed
and agreed

    Per: Art
Lang                                                                                                                 this
_____ day of

            CFO                                                                                                                       
____________  2007

    


    


     Amera Resources
Corporation.

     per:  Niko
Cacos

     CEO

     

    
      
        Terminal
  City   Club   Tower , Suite709-837 West Hastings Street ,
Vancouver , BC , Canada   V6C 3N6 

      

      Tel:
604.687.1828 · Fax:
604.687.1858 · Toll
Free: 1.800.901.0058
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2017 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2017
No. 43985.

#### Protest 919820-G of Crosse & Blackwell, Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
Order entered February 2 4 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00581 - CV SIMON MENGELE, Appellant

V. UNITED TOWS, LLC AND HENRY MILLER, Appellee s On Appeal fr om the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 17 - 06296 - A



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his opening brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk Februar y 18, 2020 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
# sec5_sbr_2020

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-14	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout July 11, 2019
No. 60816.

Suit 4896

#### (United States *v.*Fisher Scientific Company) and Suit 4897 (Fisher Scientific Company *v.*United States).

A. R. D. 68 affirmed April 4, 1957. C. A. D. 648. (Note: There were 41 appeals for reappraisement decided in A. R. D. 68, 34 of which were the subject of suit 4896, the remaining 7 appeals for re appraisement being appealed in suit 4897.)