alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Create an MVD Record

To create a Master Verification Database (MVD) Record, complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Processing tab, select Manage Verification>Create MVD Record. The 

Step 1 of 2: Define the MVD Record page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Define the MVD Record

2. Enter the MVD details and click Next.

• Enter the User Defined Field details

• Select the Search Type

• Enter the Bank Routing Number, required

• Enter the Account number

• Select the Trade Status, required

• Enter the Deny Date, required

• Select the OTC Endpoint, required

• Enter comments in the Note
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• A trade status of Blocked or Denied automatically defaults to the Deny Date of 

9/09/2099 and the date cannot be modified.

• The Deny Date indicates the date when the suspension period ends. The Deny Date

must be greater than or equal to today's date.

3. The Step 2 of 2: Create MVD Record page appears. Verify the information is correct and 

click Submit. Click Edit to modify the information entered.

4. A Confirmation page appears stating that the MVD Record has been created.

• Click Cancel to return to the OTCnet Home Page. No data is saved. 

• Click Clear to clear all data fields and reset to the default selections.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return Home to the OTCnet Home Page.

Application Tips

Additional Buttons
February 10, 2012 

Mr. William Wilkinson 

Vice President of Engineering 

International Biophysics Corporation/Inova Labs, Inc. 

2101 East St. Elmo Road, Suite 275 

Austin, TX 78744 

Dear Mr. Wilkinson: 

In your January 21, 2011, letter, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 106, section 2 and section 3(a), of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This amendment would change the 

manufacturer’s name on the previously approved LifeChoice Portable Oxygen Concentrator 

from International Biophysics Corporation to Inova Labs, Inc. 

On January 27, 2012, the FAA amended SFAR 106 to update changes in manufacturer for 

two POC devices (77 FR 4219). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the amended SFAR, we will take no further 

action on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY (IN
THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,375
<INVENTORY>                                      1,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,734
<PP&E>                                         912,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                 224,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,109,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,511
<BONDS>                                        563,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,109,634
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               490,672
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  504,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,238
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,364)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (10)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESMON LOEB,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0730 LKK EFB P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

July 19, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and accepted as

timely plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and cross-motion. 

Defendants have not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to plaintiff’s crossmotion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this order, defendants

shall file and serve an opposition or a statement of no opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for

summary judgment.

DATED: September 29, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00730-LKK -EFB Document 64 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 1
----

Conference of Committees for European and Community Affairs of the European Union Parliaments (COSAC)

Contribution adopted by the XXXVth COSAC

Vienna, 22 to 23 May 2006

(2006/C 238/01)

The Future of Europe and the Period of Reflection

The Constitutional Treaty

Subsidiarity and Proportionality

Better regulation

Openness in the Council

The 5th Biannual Report

The Western Balkans

Neighbourhood Policy

----
(Reap. Dec. 10699)

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 738607.

(Decided April 1, 1964)

Lane, *Young*<6 *Fox*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> XT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of footwear in chief value of India rubber, exported from Japan subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> That said footwear is identified in the Final List, published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27,1958; and that said merchandise was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value less the item designated on the invoice as “Buying Comm. (5%)” in the amount as shown thereon; and that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the footwear in question is export value, as defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less the amount of the item designated on the invoice as “Buying Comm. (5%).”

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended April 1, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 12, 2005
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Mark A. Richman, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our provision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: May 9, 2005   By /s/ Mark A. Richman       Mark A. Richman   Chief Financial Officer
No. 64101.

protests 716799-G, etc. (New York).

#### Park & Tilford Import Corporation *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 plaintiff was sustained.
----

Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Dethomas v Commission

(Case F-93/06)

(2006/C 237/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Dethomas (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

While he was a member of the temporary staff in Grade A*14, step 8, the applicant applied for the post advertised in vacancy notice COM/229/04 for the recruitment of the Head of the Commission Delegation to Morocco (1). His application being successful, he was appointed a probationary official in Grade A*14, step 2.

In his application, the applicant claims that, since he was appointed an official in the same Grade immediately following his period of service as a member of the temporary staff, the Commission should have appointed him, under the third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, in grade A*14, step 8. By refusing him the benefit of that provision, the Commission made a manifest error of law.

----

(1)OJ C 246 A, 5.10.2004, p. 1.

----
BlairCounty

June 17,2014 Mr. Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis Authority

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) Re: OST-2002-11446 Sun Air International Proposal to Provide Subsidized Air Service to Altoona**Pennsylvani~** Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Sun Air International proposal to provide air service to our airports. The BlairCounty Airport Authority is committed to maximizing the value ofour airport to the local community. Further, we understand the critical role the airport plays in the economic development ofour community. The decisions we make now regarding commercial airline service will have I)rofound effects on the future ofour airport and the economichealth ofout Altoona Blair County community. The BCAA has formed an airline committeemade up ofboard members, community leaders a:nd indi\\iduals with backgrounds in the travel industry. This committee has taken on the task ofmanaging the air service transition. In addition, the board is dedicated to the creation ofa long-term strategy to ensurethat commercial service remains available at Altoona Airport in the future which may or may not include EAS support. After areview and discussion oftheproposals submitted, the Blair County Airport Authority endorses and supports Sun Air International to provide Essential Air Service to the Altoona Blair County Airport. We believe that ifwe can establish safe, reliable, convenient and economical air service for ourcommunitywe can, with 

### astrategic effort, tap into the travel demand ofourregional area and channel it through our airportto build enplancment volume and create a self-sustaining environment. On behalf**oftlte.membe~~** 

### of,V1e,AJrport Authority, the Blair County Commissioners and the entire BlairCounty community, we express our gratitude to the US Dept. ofTransportation for the continued support ofthe (EAS) Program. Sincerely,

' ' 

# . CC: · Congressman Bill Shuster ,

:r>



## ., '.'



# . ' u· r Tim Hite Altoona-BlairCounty Airport Manager

Thomas M. Hite Blair County Airport Chairman
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

 LAPLANTE, SPINELLI & DONALD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAVID MARTIN

 A Professional Corporatio n

 SACRAMENTO, CA

LAPLANTE, SPINELLI & DONALD

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

815 S Street, Second floor

Sacramento, California 95814

TELEPHONE (916) 448-7888 - FAX (916) 448-6888

John M. Laplante (SBN 088941)

Attorney For DEFENDANT

DAVID MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUYEN NGUYEN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID MARTIN, and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive. 

Defendants.

 /

Case No.: S-04-0655 LKK KJM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR

DEFENDANT DAVID MARTIN

Date: March 28, 2005

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 4

TO DAVID MARTIN AND ALL OTHER PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The motion filed by Laplante, Spinelli & Donald to withdraw as attorney for defendant

David Martin came on for hearing on March 28, 2005 in the above-entitled court on the law and

motion calendar, the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, presiding. John Laplante appeared on behalf

of Laplante, Spinelli & Donald. No appearance was made by or on behalf of David Martin.

Having reviewed the papers and pleadings on file and counsel having presented oral

argument and good cause appearing therefor;

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 37 Filed 04/26/05 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

 LAPLANTE, SPINELLI & DONALD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAVID MARTIN

 A Professional Corporatio n

 SACRAMENTO, CA

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Laplante, Spinelli & Donald to withdraw

as attorney for defendant David Martin is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to SUBSTITUTE David Martin, in pro se, in the place of John

LaPlante at the following address:

David Martin

250 The East Mall 

Suite 1241 

M9B 6L3 

Toronto, Ontario 

Canada 

Counsel is directed to ensure that, if he has not already, David Martin be provided with 

his entire file within ten (10) days.

A Status Conference is now SET for May 31, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 4. 

All appearances shall be in person.

DATED: April 25, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 37 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2
# Bulletin No. 2022-12

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-12	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"June 2022

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-12	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"June 2022
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting

Section V

Bulletin No. 2014-07 Draft V - 58 IRC Handout August 14, 2014

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Debit/Credit Begin/End Auth Type Code Fed/NonFed TAS Status Fund Type Addl. Info.

Budgetary Resources:

1000

1000 438400 Temporary Reduction/Cancellation Returned 

by Appropriation

D/C B P E EG 3

1020

1020 438400 Temporary Reduction/Cancellation Returned 

by Appropriation

D/C E P E EG

1020 439200 Permanent Reduction - New Budget 

Authority

D/C E C U ES

1290

1290 438400 Temporary Reduction/Cancellation Returned 

by Appropriation

D/C E P E EG 1

1290 438400 Temporary Reduction/Cancellation Returned 

by Appropriation

D/C B P E EG 1

1690

1690 413100 Current-Year Contract Authority Realized D/C E U EG/EP/ER/ES/ET

1690 439200 Permanent Reduction - New Budget Authority D/C E C U EG/EP/ER/ES/ET

Unobligated balance brought forward, Oct 1

USSGL Crosswalk - Statement of Budgetary Resources

Appropriations (discretionary and mandatory)

Adjustment to unobligated balance brought forward, Oct 1 (+ or -) (Note 28)

Contract authority (discretionary and mandatory)
1

Filed 3/ 10 /21 P. v. Young CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent ,

v. CHARLES DAVIS YOUNG , Defendant and Appellant

. A 159701 ( Contra Costa County Super

. C t. No. 5130925

- 1 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Defendant Charles Davis Young was convicted by jury of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), 2 assault with a deadly weapon (a cane) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) , and false imprisonment (§ 237, subd. (a)), as well as an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court found prior conviction allegations to be true and sentenced Young to a prison term of 45 years to life. In an unpublished opinion otherwise affirming the conviction s, we agreed with Young that the sentence on the assault conviction should have been stayed under section 654, and remanded for resentencing. ( People v. Young ( Jan. 3, 2019 , A144481 ) [ non pub. opn.].)

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

In resentencing Young , the court imposed the upper term of six years
for the first degree residential burglary conviction , and doubled it to twelve years based upon a prior strike (da ted October 2, 2003 for § 192, subd. (a), manslaughter). The court imposed another three years, consecutive, for the enhancement under section 12022.7, subd ivision (a). The sentences for the assault and false imprisonment convictions were stayed pursuant to section

654. Two prior convictions (for a robbery and another first degree burglary) brought five years each, adding another ten years under section 667, subd ivision (a)(1). Young’s counsel pointed out to the sentencing court it now had discretion to strike those prior convictions, but the court declined to do

so, while acknowledg ing it could. The new aggregate sentence totals 2 5

years, determinate. Young n o w appeals the sentence imposed on him on re mand. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 , determined that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal , requested that this court carry out an independent review of t he record pursuant to Wen de , and advised Young of his right to file any supplemental submission he may wish to file. Having conducted the independent review called for by Wende , we conclude there are no arguable issues that are worthy
of addressing on appeal. We therefore affirm the new sentence

. STREETER, J. WE CONCUR:
POLLAK, P. J. BROWN, J.