alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 57968.

protest 204994-K (New York).

#### Silmo Chemical Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that if the affidavit of the ultimate consignee had been filed with the collector prior to liquidation of the entry, the 64 drums would have been returned free of duty under *445paragraph 1615, *supra,*and the certificate of outward manifest would have been waived by the collector in view of the appraiser’s affirmative report that said 64 drums were of American origin, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said drums.
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 4 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 5 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 6 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 7 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 8 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 9 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 10 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 11 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 12 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 13 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 14 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 15 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 16 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 17 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 18 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 19 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 20 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 21 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 22 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 23 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 24 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 25 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 26 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 27 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 28 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 29 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 30 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 31 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 32 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 33 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 34 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 35 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 36 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 37 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 38 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 39 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 40 of 41
Case 2:05-cv-05428-RB Document 34 Filed 11/17/08 Page 41 of 41
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Security Reports: Users by Access Group (FI)

To view users by access group Financial Institution (FI) report, complete the following steps:

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

appears. 

2. Under Security Reports, select Users by Access Group (FI). The Users by Access Group 

(FI) parameters page appears. Enter your search criteria.

• Select Yes or No for Report With Children

• Select Yes to generate a report that contains data for the selected FIs and all lower 

level FIs. 

• Select No to generate a report that contains data only for the selected FI.

3. Select a Financial Institution to initiate the report. The Users by Access Group (FI) preview 

page appears in a new window as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Users by Access Group (FI) Report Preview Page

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• For new users who have not logged into OTCnet yet, both the User Name and User 

ID values will be empty in the database and displayed as blank values on the 

preview page. 

• TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC Endpoint.

• CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint.

• M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access permission; 

and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

• CDC denotes card processing OTC Endpoint.

4. Under Export as, you have the following options:

o Select PDF, Excel or Word format

o Select Download

Or

o Select Print PDF Report

Select Previous to return to the previous page.

Application Tips

Additional Button
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4116 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to allow members of the Selected 

Reserve and National Guard holding employment within the Federal 

Government the choice between military and civilian healthcare plans, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11 (legislative day, APRIL 10), 2024 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. SMITH, Ms. SINEMA, and Mr. 

FETTERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to allow members 

of the Selected Reserve and National Guard holding employment within the Federal Government the choice between military and civilian healthcare plans, 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 ‘‘Servicemember 

5 Healthcare Freedom Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4116 IS

1 (1) Thousands of members of reserve compo2 nents and the National Guard, in addition to their 

3 military service, work for the United States Govern4 ment in a civilian capacity. 

5 (2) Nearly all members of the Selected Reserve 

6 and the National Guard, and their families, are enti7 tled to purchase a TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) 

8 healthcare plan as a service-related benefit. 

9 (3) As of the day before the date of the enact10 ment of this Act, eligibility for Federal Employee 

11 Health Benefits (FEHB) prohibits members of the 

12 Selected Reserve and National Guard from enrolling 

13 in TRS plans. 

14 (4) Removal of such prohibition for members of 

15 the Selected Reserve and the National Guard will 

16 provide continuity of care throughout mobilization 

17 cycles. 

18 (5) Providing members of the Armed Forces 

19 with the ability to purchase comprehensive, low-cost 

20 health insurance increases the readiness and 

21 lethality of the Armed Forces as a whole. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4116 IS

1 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF EXPIRATION DATE TO ALLOW 

2 MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE AND 

3 NATIONAL GUARD, ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL 

4 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS, TO ENROLL 

5 INTO TRICARE RESERVE SELECT AS OF JAN6 UARY 1, 2025. 

7 Section 1076d(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

8 is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2030’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘January 1, 2025’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6687

CARLTON L. CHANEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary Lee

County,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00121-jlk)

Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton L. Chaney, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carlton L. Chaney, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Chaney v. O’Brien, No. 7:07-cv-00121-jlk (W.D.

Va. Apr. 23, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4061 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain a toll-free telephone 

helpline for veterans and other eligible individuals to use to obtain 

information about the benefits and services provided by the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain 

a toll-free telephone helpline for veterans and other eligible individuals to use to obtain information about the 

benefits and services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 ‘‘Veterans Assistance 

5 Helpline Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4061 IS

1 SEC. 2. TELEPHONE HELPLINE FOR ASSISTANCE FOR VET2 ERANS AND OTHER ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS. 

3 (a) MAINTENANCE OF HELPLINE.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall main5 tain a toll-free telephone helpline that a covered indi6 vidual may use to obtain information about, or 

7 through which a covered individual may be directed 

8 to, any service or benefit provided under a law ad9 ministered by the Secretary. 

10 (2) CONTRACT FOR DIRECTION OF CALLS AU11 THORIZED.—The Secretary may enter into a con12 tract with a third party to direct calls made to the 

13 toll-free helpline maintained pursuant to paragraph 

14 (1) to the appropriate office regarding a service or 

15 benefit described in that paragraph. 

16 (3) LIVE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED.—The Sec17 retary shall ensure that a covered individual using 

18 the telephone helpline maintained pursuant to para19 graph (1) has the option to speak with a live indi20 vidual. 

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) COVERED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘covered 

23 individual’’ means— 

24 (A) a veteran; 

25 (B) an individual acting on behalf of a vet26 eran; or 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4061 IS

1 (C) an individual, other than a veteran, 

2 who is eligible to receive a benefit or service 

3 under a law administered by the Secretary. 

4 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

5 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

6 (3) VETERAN.—The term ‘‘veteran’’ has the 

7 meaning given the term in section 2002(b) of title 

8 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 8154)

#### Bert Friedberg *&*Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5203, etc.

(Decided July 25, 1952)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George B. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Bichard E. FiizOibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliveh, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked *“A”*on the invoices and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to that described in these invoices was not sold or freely offered for sale in France for home consumption upon the respective dates of exportation, and that the tax referred to above was not paid on merchandise sold for exportation to the United States or other countries.

> 3) That said merchandise is such or similar to merchandise which when sold or offered for sale in France for exportation to the United States in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique Tax) as added on entry, packed.

> 4) That all claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, except the claim that the tax described above should not be included in the value, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise represented on tbe invoices by tbe items marked *“A”*and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, and tbat sucb values were tbe appraised values, less tbe French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added on entry, packed.

Tbe appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to tbat extent tbe appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 63054.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protests 218646-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30927

Summary Calendar

 

THE NEW ORLEANS TOWING ASSOCIATION, INC.;

DUCROS AUTOMOTIVE INC.; D & G BODY SHOP, INC.;

DON HINGLE’S BODY SHOP, INC.; STEVENS BODY & FENDER, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

M.J. FOSTER, JR., individually and in his official capacity as

Governor of the State of Louisiana; RICHARD P. IEYOUB,

individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of

the State of Louisiana; W.R. WHITTINGTON, Colonel, individually

and in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary and

Superintendent of the Department of Public Safety and

Corrections, Office of State Police,

Defendants-Appellants.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(99-CV-539-F)

--------------------

July 11, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

M.J. Foster, Jr., Richard P. Ieyoub, and Colonel W.R.

Whittington (“State Officials”) appeal the district court’s

denial of their motion to continue the pretrial conference and

trial in this proceeding until after the district court ruled on

their motion to dismiss the state law claims against them as
No. 99-30927

- 2 -

barred by their Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunities. The

State Officials argue that the district court’s denial of their

motion to continue denied them the full protection of their

Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunities. The district court

has now ruled on the State Officials’ motion to dismiss without

requiring them to conduct extensive discovery before the ruling. 

Because the State Officials have not shown that the district

court’s denial of their motion to continue is an appealable order

under the collateral order doctrine and because they have not

explained what relief the court could grant at this time, the

appeal of the district court’s denial of the motion to continue

IS DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
(Reap. Dec. 8633)

Entry No. 800853, etc.

#### Chas L. Huisking Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided August 31, 1956)

*Lane, Young & Fox,*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision herein, present a question of the proper dutiable value of certain 30- to 35-gallon and 50- to 55-gallon drums and casks of iron or steel imported from Norway, filled with duty-free cod-liver oil.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that the market value or price of the involved drums and casks at the time of exportation to the United States, at which such or similar drums and casks were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Norway, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was as follows:

> 30- to 35-gallon drums and casks_$1.70 (U. S. Cy.) each

> 50- to 55-gallon drums and casks_$2.00 (U. S. Gy.) each

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar drums and casks at the time of exportation thereof.

*492Upon the agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is as follows:

> 30- to 35-gallon drums and casks_$1.70 (TJ. S. Cy.) each

> 50- to 55-gallon drums and casks_$2.00 (U. S. Oy.) each

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Before the First Division,

April 20, 1955

No. 58962.

protests 912032-G, etc. (New York).

#### Caracul Fur Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*339Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of A. *S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
p. 1 of 2 

From: Backfisch Don (NORALNM) [mailto:Don.Backfisch@noralinc.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:18 PM 

To: Putney, David 

Subject: RE: TF emissions data 

David, 

Attached is a file with the TF emissions for the testing done so far this year for the same areas that

were tested as part of the ICR. This includes the primary/stack emissions and the monthly 

secondary/roof emissions. The sheet with the secondary emissions includes the total emissions when 

both sources are combined. Let me know if you need anything else. 

Don Backfisch 

Environmental Superintendent 

Noranda (NYSE: NOR) 

P. O. Box 70 

New Madrid, MO 63869 

Phone: (573) 643-2361 x2126 

Fax: (573) 643-6721 

Email: don.backfisch@noralinc.com

Website: www.norandaaluminum.com

From: Putney, David [mailto:putney.david@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:08 AM 

To: Backfisch Don (NORALNM) 

Subject: TF emissions data 

Hello Don, 

We (EPA) are finishing up our review of the emissions test results you submitted in response to the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) sent out in March of 2013. Thank you so much for the time and effort you 

dedicated to conducting those tests and submitting the results. The next step in the residual risk analysis is to 

develop the risk modeling files for your facility. It is essential that we use the best, most accurate estimates of 

your facility’s emissions in these files so as to most accurately estimate the residual risk from your facility (i.e., 

the risk remaining after application of the MACT standards). Through the 2013 ICR we have obtained recent, 

reliable data for emissions of metals and POM from the primary aluminum industry. 

However, we did not collect TF data via the 2013 ICR. Since TF affects the multipathway risk assessment, the 

ecological risk assessment, and the acute risk assessment a reduction in the estimates of emissions of that 

pollutant can have a significant impact on the estimate of residual risk associated with your facility. 

With that in mind, I am asking for some recent data on TF emissions from your facility (e.g., from NESHAP 

compliance reports). If possible, could you please send me some data (a summary table of values cited in 

NESHAP compliance reports) for a few recent, representative TF emission rates for your facility by COB this 
p. 2 of 2 

Friday (09/20/13)? This data would allow me to avoid using the emission rates allowed under the NESHAP to 

estimate your TF emissions (which would likely overestimate your facility’s TF emissions and the associated 

risks). 

Thanks so much, 

David Putney, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
# Rupprecht Law P. A.

3 24 Datura Street , Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E : jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

Ju ly 15 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590

RE: A dditional I nfo rmation for Elevated Productions, LLC ( Docket FAA

- 2015

- 1693 ) Regarding Why Granting the Petition Will Benefit the Public.

Dear Sir or Madam: The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned
aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most manned aircraft have only one engine. Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution. In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust which affects the environment while the UA of the petitio ner are electric and do not produce any emission. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.2

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter
crash

. Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits because the danger of a mid

- air collision is lessened If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222

- 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.