alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 1, Section VII: GTAS Validations and

Edits

One of the goals the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has

envisioned for GTAS is to improve the consistency in agency trial balance

reporting. This will be accomplished through validations and edits.

The validations ensure that the attributes reported in agencies’ GTAS trial

balance submissions are valid for the USSGL account. The validations encompass

both USSGL level attributes per the USSGL Attribute Table and Treasury Account

Symbol (TAS) level attributes found in the Super Master Account (SMAF). Simple

validations are those involving one attribute while special validations involve

more than one attribute. All validations are fatal.

The edits compare the agency trial balances with USSGL rules and with data from

authoritative sources such as the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS),

Fiscal Service, and the Federal Financing Bank. The edits may be either fatal or

proposed. Fiscal Service will use the proposed edits only for analytical

purposes. Fiscal Service disclaims any role or responsibility with the agency

auditor relationship concerning the GTAS fatal and proposed analytical edits.

The following are the validation and edit reports included in this section:

Section VII Page Number

GTAS Validation Summary Report (VSR) VII VSR - 1

GTAS Validation Detail Report (VDR) VII VDR - 1

GTAS Edits Summary Report (ESR) VII ESR - 1

GTAS Edits Detail Report (EDR) VII EDR - 1

GTAS Closing Edits Report (CER) VII CER - 1

Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11.0


                        EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Three Months ended                       Six Months ended
                                                             June 30                                June 30
                                                       1999               1998              1999                 1998
                                                   ------------       -----------       -----------           ----------
<S>                                                  <C>                 <C>               <C>                <C>
Net Earnings                                       $     (3,256)      $     2,301       $    (9,049)          $    4,208
Weighted Average Number of
   Common Shares Outstanding                                947               947               947                  947
                                                   ------------       -----------       -----------           ----------

Net earnings per Common Share                      $         (3)      $         2       $       (10)          $        4
                                                   ============       ===========       ===========           ==========
</TABLE>


The Company does not have a complex capital structure and therefore, only has
basic earnings per share.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v LEONARD H. SWARTZ, Jr., Private, U. S. Army, Appellee

21 USCMA 75, 44 CMR 129

No. 24,319

October 8, 1971

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain Benjamin P. Fishburne, III,*and *Captain Walter A. Smith, III,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, United States.

*Colonel George J. McCartin, Jr., Captain Francis X. Gindhart, Captain Stewart Pettet Davis,*and *Captain Robert H. Dickman*were on the pleadings for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Chief Judge:

The military judge in this case dismissed three specifications of absence without leave charged against Private Swartz after a defense motion alleging lack of speedy trial. The convening authority disagreed with the basis for dismissing one of the specifi*76cations, however, and ordered the court reconvened for reconsideration of that particular decision.1 Trial and conviction on this single reinstated unauthorized absence followed. Ultimately, the case was assigned to Panel 3 of the United States Army Court of Military Review. Following assignment of errors by defense, replies by the Government, and oral argument, Panel 3 requested en banc consideration of the case. A draft opinion accompanied this request. The full Court then undertook en banc review.

The Judge Advocate General of the Army has since certified to this Court two issues that challenge the Court of Military Review’s actions in this case. Our disposition of the case causes us not to reach the certified issues.

In United States v Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 123 (1971), this Court held that Article 66(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 866, does not sanction a hearing before a full Court of Military Review after a panel decision. See also United States v Croney, 20 USCMA 292, 43 CMR 132 (1971), and Maze v United States Army Court of Military Review, 20 USCMA 599, 44 CMR 29 (1971). Circulation of a panel draft opinions precludes subsequent en banc action. United States v Wheeler, 20 USCMA 595, 44 CMR 25 (1971). A case can be referred for en banc consideration at any time before a panel “determination on the merits,” however. *Id.,*at page 598. Government counsel’s contention that this case is distinguishable because Panel 3 requested review rather than some other Court of Military Review member is unavailing. Cf. United States v Goldman, 21 USCMA 22, 44 CMR 76 (1971).

The en banc decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review in this case is therefore reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for action consistent with this opinion.

Judge Quinn and Senior Judge Ferguson concur.

1

 See Article 62(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 862; Priest v Koch, 19 USCMA 293, 41 CMR 293 (1970).
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10September 2023
No. 43988.

#### Petition 5824-R of Royal Fruit Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The record not disclosing any basis for relief the petition was denied. *Gresham*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 70) cited.
**.ED sY;()i~ 

# mi UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 3 

## w %W,4 REGION IX 75 HawthorneStreet San Fr ncisco CA 94105 

### ~AY 0 

### 5 2206

Mr. Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director Clark County Department ofAir Quality and Environmental Management 500 S Grand Central Parkway, lSt Floor P.O. Box 555210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-5210
Dear Mr. Wallenmeyer: Thank you for your timely submission ofthe Annual Network Plan Report, June 2007. We recognize that producing this document and the associated public inspection process represented new requirements and we appreciate your effort to meet them.
We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that for the most part it meets the minimum requirements set forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. Specifically, we found that the plan was complete, informative, very detailed and met nearly all of the requirements for annual networkplans as required by our regulations. However, the plan contains some language which EPA Region 9 cannot approve. In the Section entitled "Particulate Matter of 2.5 microns or Less" on page 16,the plan includes the following paragraph: "Since there are no PM2.5 samplers in the DAQEM monitoring network that violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), there is no public review process in place with respect to sampler location, community monitoring zone, or the PM2.5 monitoring network. DAQEM officially requests EPA Region 9 to authorize the elimination of a PM2.5 monitoring network public comment process until a violating sampler is discovered." EPA regulations at 40 CFR 58.10(c) state that "The annual monitoring network plan must document how States and local agencies provide for the review of changes to a PM2.5monitoring network that impactthe location of a violating PM2.5monitor or the creationlchange to a communitymonitoring zone, including a description of the proposed use of spatial averaging for purposes ofmaking comparisons to the annual PM2 5NAAQS as set forth in appendix N to part 50 of this chapter. The affected State or local agency must document the process for obtaining public comment and include any comments received through the public notification process within their submittedplan." While Clark County is currentlyin attainment ofthe PM2.5 NAAQS and, based

. . on data trends, will most likely remain in attainment ofthis NAAQS for the foreseeablefuture, EPA Region 

### 9 does not have the authority to issue an exemption for this regulatory requirement. This part ofthe regulation requires DAQEM to engage the public in the event that a violating PM2.5 monitor is relocated. Other agencies in Region 

### 9 have met this requirement by simply committing to provide notice to the public in the event that a violating PM2.5 monitor needs to be discontinued or relocated and responding to any comments received.
If you have any questionsregarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at 

### (415) 972-3261.
Sincerely,

Air Quality Analysis Office Air Division

cc: Tina M. Gingras, CCDAQEM Michael Sword, CCDAQEM YousafHammeed, CCDAQEM
AP9 R04-30-92 S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civil Courts & Post Judgment\Post Trial\Appeal Status Card Revised 01-18-2013

RDATE 10/26/2015

 NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 1ST COURT OF APPEALS 

From: Deputy Clerk: IRMA MEDINA

 Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S

CAUSE: 2000-34109F 

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 67580268

DUE 10/26/2015 ATTORNEY PRO-SE #1

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 1ST

DATE ORDER SIGNED: 7/13/2015 

THIS CASE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MAIN CASE# 01-15-00207-CV

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED N/A

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 10/16/2015

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 10

FILE ORDERED: YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO 

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: D, OA

CHRIS DANIEL 

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/IRMA MEDINA 

 IRMA MEDINA, Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED – GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D - ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL)

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/26/2015 11:06:20 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk



JU2FN (NSD#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OCT 26, 2015(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1

 

CASE NUM: 200034109F_ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 151 PUB? _

CASE TYPE: GARNISHMENT AFT JUDGMENT CASE STATUS: ACTIVE 

STYLE: LEMONS, RITA VS TRANSPLANT ASSOCIATES OF BAYLOR H

=============================================================================

 **** ACTIVE PARTIES **** 

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

 _ 00003-0001 AGT TRANSPLANT ASSOCIATES OF BAYLO 

 _ 00002-0001 DEF 19296300 TRANSPLANT ASSOCIATES OF BAYLO STONE, KENNET

 _ 00001-0001 PLT LEMONS, RITA PRO-SE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==> (3) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=INACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP
(V. D. 40)

Entry No. 73209, etc.

#### S. E. Laszlo *v.*United States

(Decided September 26, 1956)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *S. E. Laszlo*v. *United States,*35 Cust. Ct. 343, Abstract 59556. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the value of the involved merchandise and that such values were as follows:

> Entry No. Binoculars Case Total S' P

> 73209_ $9. 99 $1. 00 $10. 99 M M Oi

> 4.67 0. 80 5.47 M H *Or*

> 107212_ 11. 40 1. 20 12. 60 *X*Ol O

> 4.90 0.80 5.70 ^ M H ÜT

> 6. 16 1.00 6. 15 OO M [O O

> 100408. 7 x 50 11. 40 1. 20 12. 60

> 7 x 35 9. 60 1. 00 10. 60

> 6 x 15 4. 40 0. 80 5. 20

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Pa g e 1 of 1 6/20/2011 htt p ://www.southeastflo ridareefs.net/u p loads/ima g es/CRI05-005C _ FL _ Ma p_ Sm.jpg
# sec5_snc_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-21	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BAugust 2020
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFFINANCIAL REPORTSPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Maurice S. Nelson, Jr., certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY(“EMJ”);

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.EMJ’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of EMJ’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any changes in EMJ’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during EMJ’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, EMJ’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.EMJ’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to EMJ’s auditors andthe audit committee of EMJ’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonablely likely to adversely affect EMJ’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in EMJ’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 
| Date: June 25, 2004                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                            |
|                                                            |
| /s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                      |   |
| Maurice S.  Nelson, Jr.                                         |
| President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Operating Officer |

 

----
# sec6_rbalsh_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2019-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2019
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

The undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American BankNote Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By: /s/ Alan Goldstein                                                 |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Alan Goldstein                                                         |
|   | Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and  Chief Accounting Officer |

 

Date:  May 16, 2005

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 99.5

   Written Statement of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Wisconsin
Power and Light Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on
my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
March 25, 2003
U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONRECE\VED FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

## NOV 1**~** 

### 2013 

## HEARING DOCKET**------------------------------------------~~---** In the Matter ofNortheastern Aviation Corp., Respondent DocketNos. FAA-2012-1264

Case Nos. 2012EA110030 Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
COMES NOWthe Agency, by counsel, and supplements its response to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, to add the following in response to Interrogatories (l) and (2):

In addition to those already listed, the Complainant intends to call the following witness:its claims:Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) John Wilkins, Farmingdale Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 7150 Republic Airport, Administration Building, Suite 235, Fanningdale, NY 11735. !'lubst11nce of testimony:: The check ride that Michael Kalish conducted with ASI Wilkins on August 22, 2011, and the surroundingcircumstances. Respectfully submitted, Alfred R. Jolmson, Jr. Regional Counsel

By:

# f.d~ Zachary

# M Jlllan Attorney FederalAviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL:718 553-3258 FAX: 718 995-5699 Date: November 5, 2013

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY thatthe foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS has been sent via first class mail and facsimile to the following: Mr. James Ehrig, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, 

### LLC 1717 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW, 12thFloor Washington, DC 20006- FAX 202-659-6699 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: (202)366-7536
I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTS has been sent via first class mail to the following: Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy via first class mail) 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Room 2014

Date: 

### NOV - 7 2013 ' ' 

# ./



# .**"::i:L~**

a Hooks Paralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434
3
e~in J. wesely 

wlnt~roc, Stimaon, 'ut~ , 

lcoeru 

St~en ,. "off~n 

Otp,lty Chlir 

. 'cmer."u Levy 1II...otit Iloclt , GroSIIMn 

PauL All." 

eh.ir1llln 

ALTA Li.it~ Plrtners, L. p. 

~coerc L. letltittr 

Chitf, Civil Oivlsion 

unit~ SC.C .. Attorney's 

OfficI 

Joel 'Ir9ar 

S."ior Liti;ltor 

Corporltion Counall 

City of IIttI Yorlt 

-Ir;artt A. 'Irtlr 

• rook l '" lltl School 

lcoert J. Itrltc* 

lI.cionel Director Let.l 

CGNUlCI". 

Ernee , 'OU'II 

I,rtr .. Ironzlft ~I~in, Ironzlft, e.rstlin I 

'illl.r 

Dr. lichlrd l. C.rlson 

Oirector 

Univ.rlity M.Ilth S.rvici 

ColURbI. Univ.rsity 

".,.and L. C.ley 

EcMrd D. Cav~ 

hc:lOrUr 

St. Jof\nll ~1"''''lty 

Sd\ool of La.. 

oa.:.r G. Ch ... 

lIew York ~i\'lr.fty 

School of La.. 

Th~1 ,. eilUlI, Jr. 

Winthrop, Itl_on, ~c,.,.. , 

I.rta 

Tha.. Conc8l"nOn 

letal Aid Socllty 

.10 Davl. 

K.ye, ldIol.,., PI,,...,, I ~.", 

' : 

ADV I SCIIr CItO..P 

UNITED STATES DISTIICT COUIT 

EASTERN DISTIICT 0' NEw fOlK 

134 

T~~S l. ~~vtse 

Vice 'rtsi~t Ind C~rll 

C~ .. I 

Cr~n Corporltion 

Jolin C. GrlY, Jr. 

'rOJect Oirector 

'rcoltly" Let.L Services 

Corp. I. 

Ptur Klrberc 

Cow.n, Li.aowicz , Llt~, 

P.C. 

Ceor;1 ,. Mri U 

OIVIS, -Irlt.l , E~lrda 

,.Ur M. ICIIII.ll 

Senior Vice 'r .. iOint 

Centtr for Public .,sources 

J~ K. Kill'lt. 

SeniOt" Viet 'r .. iOlnt . Cr~ 

~rll Ccu.11 

Unitld SUt .. ,idelity It'd 

GuartntyC~ 

V. Ant~ony .... Iplnto 

.. 

'lUl D. I~.ingold 

Ih.lngold , ~~ 

Sol SChr.iber 

~Ilberl, WeiSl, I.rshld, 

Speethri. , l.racft 

AIYw ,. SIII.lda 

SIt~, Arpe, SLit., Mtlgher , fl_ 

Guy Nlll.r Struve 

Davi I lIollr. , .. rdwell 

Ex Officio: 

Monorebl. Thaa.. C. IIlitC 

O\I.f Judge 

Monorebl. A. SI." Chr,in 

O\i,f N .. iltrlt. Judtt 

lrue. I.rton 

Dllcrlct latcutf.,. 

lobert C. llef"..,-n 

Clerk of Court 

LMH'IftC. J. Z",lfed\ 

IOordon, llUrVi tI, IuC ow ty , 

weI UIft, •• 10'1 , ~In 

: :