alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 24, 2020

Dear Government Vendor: 

Thank you for the valuable work you perform for us. We recently reached out to federal 

agencies that continue to pay you by paper check. To comply with the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996, the U.S. Department of the Treasury requires all federal 

payments, with the exception of tax refund payments, be made electronically. For your reference, 

click the link to 31 CFR Part 208 which enforces the DCIA: 

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/eft/regulations/31cfr208final.pdf. Effective immediately, we need 

to begin paying you by ACH (Direct Deposit) instead of with a paper check. 

Along with the benefit of automatically receiving payment(s) deposited in your bank account, 

you can expect a sense of security knowing payments are safe, reliable and faster than a paper 

check. ACH payments also provide remittance data to help you do your accounting and 

reconcile payments against outstanding invoices. 

We appreciate your cooperation in taking this required step with us. Click the link 

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/forms/3881.pdf, to fill out the ACH 

VENDOR/MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT ENROLLMENT FORM - SF 3881. Please 

complete the form and return it to your federal paying agency. The Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

will be frequently checking payment records and working with your payment agency to 

determine your compliance, so we strongly encourage you to take this action immediately. We 

look forward to your continued support to implement this step. For any questions or for further 

information, please contact your federal agency representative. 

Sincerely, 

Brett Smith, 

Director, EFT Strategy Division 

Payment Management
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENT  OF  CONSOLIDATED  INCOME AND RETAINED  EARNINGS AND THE  STATEMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000

<S>                                                     <C>


<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               OCT-31-2000<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   41,600
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         1,679,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            (12,900)
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0
<PP&E>                                                   14,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (8,500)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,518,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0
<BONDS>                                               1,874,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              134,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,518,900
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        311,400
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           109,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         55,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         12,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      104,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          91,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (35,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      56,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                              500
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         (10,500)
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             46,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>
<F1>
THE CORPORATION'S  STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;  THEREFORE,
THE  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  CURRENT AND LONG-TERM  ASSETS AND  LIABILITIES IS NOT
AVAILABLE
</FN>




</TABLE>
****Consumer Product Safety CommssionProtect Your ChildCPSC Document #241****
June 30, 1942

No. 47342.

Suit 4348.

#### David *L. Moss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 415 affirmed. C. A. D. 206.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: AMERICAN INVESTORS : CIVIL ACTION

LIFE INSURANCE CO. ANNUITY :

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES : NO. 05-md-1712

LITIGATION : MDL DOCKET NO. 1712

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2013, upon 

consideration of the Aviva defendants’ Motion to Enforce Final 

Order and Judgment (Docket No. 547), the Attorney General’s 

brief in opposition, and the defendants’ reply thereto, and

following oral argument held on June 20, 2013, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED, for the reasons stated in a memorandum of law bearing 

today’s date, that the defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as set forth in the 

accompanying memorandum, that the subject class members,1 and all 

persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf who receive 

actual notice of this Order, are ENJOINED from seeking or 

receiving any additional restitution or other monetary relief 

 

1 “Subject class members” include the named plaintiffs and 

settlement class members identified in the Motion and all 

supporting declarations, see Herman Add’l Decl. ¶ 9 (Docket No. 

555-1), as well as any other plaintiffs or settlement class 

members who apply to receive additional restitution or monetary 

relief in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Estate Planning 

Advisors Corp., et al.

Case 2:05-md-01712-MAM Document 561 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2
from the Aviva defendants2 in connection with the action 

captioned Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Estate Planning 

Advisors Corp., et al., 740 M.D. 2004, pending in the 

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, relating to the transactions 

released by the Final Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall 

send a copy of this Order by first-class United States mail, 

postage prepaid, to John M. Abel, Senior Deputy Attorney 

General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 15th Floor, Strawberry 

Square, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102, and that the Aviva 

defendants shall send a copy of this Order by first-class United 

States mail, postage prepaid, to all of the subject class 

members at their last known addresses; and

Finally, IT IS ORDERED that this Court shall retain 

jurisdiction of this matter for all purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

 

2 The Aviva defendants are: AmerUs Group Company and AmerUs 

Annuity Group Company (now collectively known as Aviva USA 

Corporation) and American Investors Life Insurance Company (now 

known as Aviva Life and Annuity Company).

Case 2:05-md-01712-MAM Document 561 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2
No. 66807.

#### Taylor Friedman Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 229643-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon ribbons and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: The items marked “A” at 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1206, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for silk pile ribbons, by similitude under paragraph 1559, or as amended; the items marked “B” and “O” at 23% and 22%, respectively, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108) for silk pile ribbons, by similitude; the items marked “D” at 22% percent under the provision in paragraph 1207, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for silk fabrics, with fast edges, not over 12 inches wide, by similitude; and the items marked “E” and “F” at 21 or 20 percent, respectively, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108, for silk fabrics, with fast edges, not over 12 inches wide, by similitude, as claimed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (07-010)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

February 22, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kent N. Stone, Patent Counsel, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135; telephone (216) 433-8855; fax (216) 433-6790. 

NASA Case No. LEW-17642-4: Energetic Atomic and Ionic Oxygen Textured Optical Surfaces for Blood Glucose Monitoring;

NASA Case No. LEW-17975-1: Protective Coating and Hyperthermal Atomic Oxygen Texturing of Optical Fibers Used for Blood Glucose Monitoring; 

NASA Case No. LEW-17877-1: Antenna Near-Field Probe Station Scanner;

NASA Case No. LEW-17825-1: Zero G Condensing Heat Exchanger With Integral Disinfection;

NASA Case No. LEW-17306-2: Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor of Improved Design Utilizing a Resistance Bridge; 

NASA Case No. LEW-18042-1: Process for Preparing Polymer Reinforced Silica Aerogels. 

Dated: February 9, 2007. 

Keith T. Sefton, 

Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. 

[FR Doc. E7-2919 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
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

[Proposed] Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

 ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time for filing Respondent’s answer be

extended to and including August 31, 2005. No further extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: July 26, 2005.

DAD:4

burg0021.eot4

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 41 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 1
Accordingly, petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that our

intervention is warranted, 

### Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844, and we therefore deny the petition. NRAP 21(b)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

cc: Jerry L.O. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ate°
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Mark W. Durishan, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
the Company, certify solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 that based on my knowledge:

    (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.



/s/ Mark W. Durishan
--------------------
Mark W. Durishan
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
May 14, 2003


A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and will be retained by
Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.































                                       28
# EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated March 3, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations), on
the consolidated financial statements of Alliant Energy Corporation appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliant Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2003 in the following Registration Statements of Alliant Energy Corporation:

|1. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-41485 and 333-92783)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-46735 and 333-88306)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-51126)
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

|4. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-88304)
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

|5. | Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-26627)
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

|6. | Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-104269)
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------

|7. | Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-101209)
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------

|8. | Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-101307).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 
March 11, 2004
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 1

Trying to Get on the Ballot 

After Voting Has Started 

Raiklin v. Virginia Department/Board of Elections 

(John A. Gibney, Jr., E.D. Va. 3:18-cv-288) 

A district judge denied immediate relief to a pro se plaintiff who filed 

an action challenging his exclusion from a primary-election ballot, 

because he filed the complaint after early voting had started. 

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

laches; pro se party; primary election; early voting; absentee ballots. 

Ivan Raiklin filed a pro se federal complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia’s Richmond courthouse on May 1, 2018, alleging that he was wrongfully 

excluded from the June 12 primary-election ballot for U.S. Senator.1 He styled 

his complaint as a “Complaint and Request for Emergency Injunction.”2

On May 9, Judge John A. Gibney found that laches precluded immediate 

relief.3

Raiklin may ultimately prevail on the merits of his claim, but the Court cannot equitably enjoin the defendants from printing primary ballots without 

Raiklin’s name when he knew of the defendants’ intentions to keep him off 

of the ballot in early April yet failed to bring this case until after primary ballots had already been printed and made available to the public for voting.4

Early voting began on April 27.5 “Between filing his motion and [the time 

of Judge Gibney’s ruling], Raiklin [had] not contacted the Court to request a 

hearing on his motion.”6

Judge Gibney dismissed the complaint without prejudice on July 9 for failure to prosecute the action, also noting mootness.7

1. Complaint, Raiklin v. Va. Dep’t/Bd. of Elections, No. 3:18-cv-288 (E.D. Va. May 1, 

2018), D.E. 1; see Opinion, id. (July 9, 2018), D.E. 12 [hereinafter Dismissal Opinion] (noting 

allegation of a refusal to properly count the candidate’s ballot-petition signatures); see also 

Jenna Portnoy & Laura Vozzella, Senate Hopeful Files Lawsuit Over Ballot Exclusion, Wash. 

Post, May 2, 2018, at B4. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, D.E. 1, 3. 

3. Opinion, Raiklin, No. 3:18-cv-288 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2018), D.E. 5 [hereinafter Preliminary-Injunction-Denial Opinion]; see Dismissal Opinion, supra note 1. 

4. Preliminary-Injunction-Denial Opinion, supra note 3, at 2. 

5. See Portnoy & Vozzella, supra note 1; see also Preliminary-Injunction-Denial Opinion, 

supra note 3. 

6. Preliminary-Injunction-Denial Opinion, supra note 3, at 1. 

7. Dismissal Opinion, supra note 1.
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

THOMAS ANKARBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON TRUCKING,

Defendant.

___________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-0028 MCE/CMK

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, the court has determined that this case is settled.

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before May 31,

2005. 

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MAY 9, 2005

_______________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00028-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 1
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

1 The parties erroneously assumed they had authority to

notice the motion for hearing on July 12, 2005. The ruling herein

vacates that notice.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an )

individual, ) CIV NO. S-04-47 GEB PAN

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

) 

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a )

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

The Final Pretrial Order filed June 21, 2005 (“FPO”),

obligated the parties to address “any evidentiary dispute capable

of being resolved in limine” by a procedure prescribed in Section

III of the FPO. (FPO at 3-4.) Since the parties failed to follow

the prescribed procedures, the disputed motions in limine are

denied.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 119 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10373)

Entry No. 756770-1/4.

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 21, 1962)

*Eugene R. Piohrell*for tbe plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

Tbe instant appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, that the merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement consists of Sensitized and Unsensitized Paper, exported from West Germany during the year 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany; that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany for export to the United States; that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that cost of production, as defined in Section 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, for such merchandise during 1956 was as follows:

> Invoice Description Cost of Production

> GpN Invoice unit values less 20% plus 34.65% packed

> GpP Invoice unit values less 20% packed

> GpT Invoice home consumption price net packed

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal for reap-praisement is abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoice, and that these appeals may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were, during 1956, as follows:

> Invoice description Cost of production

> OpN Invoice unit values, less 20%, plus 34.65%, packed

> GpP Invoice unit values, less 20%, packed

> CpT Invoice home consumption price, net, packed

*454As to all other merchandise listed on said invoices, the appeal for reappraisement having been abandoned, the same is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LOCAL UNION 626, ET AL. :

 : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

MIDDLESTATES DRYWALL, INC, ET AL. : NO. 02-CV-2761 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9 day of September, 2005, counsel having notified the Court th

that the above captioned action may be dismissed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41 (a)(2) of

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

BY THE COURT:

S:/R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02761-RBS Document 23 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 1
Served: July 22, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 22nd day of July, 2011

Essential Air Service at

DEVILS LAKE AND JAMESTOWN, 

NORTH DAKOTA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

Docket DOT-OST-1997-2785

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

On July 15, 2011, Mesaba Aviation, Inc., Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., and SkyWest Airlines, all 

operating as Delta Connection, filed 90-day notices of their intent to suspend services at 24 

Essential Air Service (EAS) communities, including Devils Lake and Jamestown, North 

Dakota. Prior to the airlines’ announcement, the Department solicited proposals for EAS at 

the above communities, whose contract was due to expire, and established a due date for

proposals. As a result of the filing of these notices and in order to attract as broad an array 

of proposals as possible, we have decided to issue an Order soliciting a new round of 

proposals, including a revised due date for the above communities. Carriers who were 

prepared to submit proposals by the previously stated due date should wait until the 

Department issues the forthcoming Order requesting proposals.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the at

http://www.regulations.gov