alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I,  Jonathan  P.  Ward,  the  Chairman  and  Chief  Executive   Officer  of  The
ServiceMaster  Company,  certify that (i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter  ended  September 30, 2003,  fully  complies  with  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in such  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster
Company.




                              /S/ JONATHAN P. WARD
                              -----------------------
                              Jonathan P. Ward
                              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                              November 14, 2003


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








                                       28
<PAGE>
#### Kermit H. BENDER, Petitioner, v. TALON RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 01-1030.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Kermit H. Bender, petitioner pro se. Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Konstantine Keian Weld, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, WV; Patricia May Nece, Timothy S. Williams, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kermit H. Bender seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.**See Bender v. Talon Resources, Inc.,*Nos. 00-172-BLA; 99-440-BLA (Nov. 21, 2000). 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.*

*

 We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, *see*Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed.Reg. 79919 (December 20, 2000), and have determined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES M. FANARO : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

:

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY :

OF AMERICA : NO. 02-2772

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of January, 2003, upon

consideration of the parties' joint Motion to Amend the

Scheduling Order (Doc. #12), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said

Motion is GRANTED and the discovery deadline is extended until

March 28, 2003, this case will be placed in the trial pool of

June 2, 2003 and the other deadlines in the court's scheduling

order of July 2, 2002 are extended accordingly.

BY THE COURT:

___________________

JAY C. WALDMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02772-HH Document 13 Filed 01/22/2003 Page 1 of 1
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3886 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to waive certain domestic content 

procurement preferences with respect to certain State home projects, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2024 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. LEE) 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 waive certain 

domestic content procurement preferences with respect 

to certain State home projects, 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 ‘‘Waiving Arbitrary and 

5 Inconsistent Veteran Home Eligibility and Requirements 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘WAIVER Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3886 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF DOMESTIC PROCUREMENT PREF2 ERENCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN STATE 

3 VETERANS HOME PROJECTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

5 shall waive under subsection (b) of section 70914 of the 

6 Build America, Buy America Act (subtitle A of title IX 

7 of division G of Public Law 117–58) the domestic content 

8 procurement preference under such section with respect 

9 to a project for the construction of State home facilities 

10 with respect to which the application under section 8135 

11 of title 38, United States Code, for such project was sub12 mitted on or before April 15, 2022, and included in the 

13 ‘‘VA State Home Construction Grants Priority List FY 

14 2023’’, dated June 1, 2023. 

15 (b) STATE HOME DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘‘State home’’ has the meaning given that term in 

17 section 101(19) of title 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 57986.

protests 207436-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alltransport, Inc., and Prime Lux Manufacturing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus corniculatus)*similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 12

                            INDIANA GAS COMPANY, INC.
                            AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (In Thousands, Except Ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                      Fiscal Year Ended September 30
                                       --------------------------------------------------------
                                         1999        1998        1997(1)      1996        1995
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------     -------
Earnings:
<S>                                    <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>
    Net income                         $31,377     $30,883      $13,478     $38,630     $32,109
       Income taxes                     16,967      17,510        7,147      22,568      18,630
       Fixed charges (see below)        16,343      16,967       17,728      16,844      16,395
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------     -------
Total adjusted earnings                $64,687     $65,360      $38,353     $78,042     $67,134
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------     -------


Fixed charges:
    Total interest expense             $16,012     $16,234      $16,774     $15,907     $15,530
    Interest component of rents            331         733          954         937         865
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------     -------
Total fixed charges                    $16,343     $16,967      $17,728     $16,844     $16,395
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------     -------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         4.0         3.9          2.2         4.6         4.1
                                       =======     =======      =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>



(1)  Reflects the recording of restructuring costs in fiscal 1997 (see Item 8,
     Note 3). Indiana Gas' ratio of earnings to fixed charges for 1997 before
     restructuring costs was 4.4.
# C_2016106EN.01002701.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 25 January 2016 — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-38/16)

(2016/C 106/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compass Contract Services Limited

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the UK’s different treatment of output tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 4 December 1996) and input tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 1 May 1997 — i.e. later than output tax Fleming claims) result in:






  a) | a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment; and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does the UK’s different treatment of output tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 4 December 1996) and input tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 1 May 1997 — i.e. later than output tax Fleming claims) result in:

Fleming

Fleming

Fleming

a)

a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment; and/or

| b) | a breach of the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality; and/or |
| --- | --- |

b)

a breach of the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality; and/or

| c) | a breach of the EU law principle of effectiveness; and/or |
| --- | --- |

c)

a breach of the EU law principle of effectiveness; and/or

| d) | a breach of any other relevant EU law principle? |
| --- | --- |

d)

a breach of any other relevant EU law principle?

| 2. | If the answer to any of Question 1(a) to 1(d) is affirmative, how should output tax Fleming claims relating to the period from 4 December 1996 to 30 April 1997 be treated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to any of Question 1(a) to 1(d) is affirmative, how should output tax Fleming claims relating to the period from 4 December 1996 to 30 April 1997 be treated?

Fleming

---
No. 66306.

#### Aimcee Wholesale Corp. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/2870, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-36707, 333-43625, 333-72912) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-19425, 33-48818, 33-56061, 33-57677, 33-58933, 33-62367, 33-65230, 333-16037, 333-42247, 333-44517, 333-50346, 333-56930, 333-68153, 333-82433, 333-83365, 333-95727) of FleetBoston Financial Corporation of our report dated January 29, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, MassachusettsMarch 1, 2002
#### Jerome MARKAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CDC Sacramento Mailroom; et al.; Defendants-Appel-lees.

No. 00-17415.

D.C. No. CV-99-1531-WBS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*560Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, appellant's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jerome Markay, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials denied him access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment by opening confidential legal mail at various times between February 1995 and February 1996. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based .on the statute of limitations, *see Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,*208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because Markay did not file the instant complaint until June 29, 1999, more than three years after he first knew of his injury, the district court properly dismissed his action as time-barred. *See Fink v. Shedler,*192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 352.1.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Follow up call with Connecticut - Questions

October 14, 2014

1. “EE Input Sales.pdf” and the questions in that document 

2. Follow-up to the 9/25 discussion on fuel cells

3. EIA reporting in terms of whether single facilities are separated by RE generation type

4. Sources that make up CT’s “existing biomass” in the alternative RE approach

5. Derivation of data for Indian territory (if not covered in #1)
STATE OF MAINE 

OFFICE oF THE GovERNOR 

1 STATE HOUSE STATION 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 

04333·0001 

Paul R. LePage 

GOVERNOR 

June 6, 2011 RECEIVED 

JUN 0 9 2011 

Ms. Lisa Jackson, Administrator 


USEPA Headquarters 


Ariel Rios Building 


1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 


Mail Code: 1101A 


Washington, DC 20460 


RE: 	 State Concurrence with listing the Leeds Metal Site in Leeds Maine, 


on the National Priorities List 


Dear Ms. Jackson: 

Due to the apparent scope of contamination and potential clean-up cost at the former Leeds Metal 

Site in Leeds, Maine, the State of Maine concurs with EPA's proposed listing of this Site on the 

National Priorities List. This listing will provide needed federal resources under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (aka Superfund Program) to 

investigate and remediate threats to local citizens from the PCBs, lead, solvents and other 

hazardous substances at the site and in the area groundwater. We trust that you will continue to 

work closely with area businesses and residents, the Maine DEP, and other interested parties to 

develop cost-effective approaches to these efforts. 

If you have further questions, please contact Patricia Aha, Deputy Commissioner at the 

Department of Environmental Protection at 207-287-2812. 

Sincerely 

v~ta.r~ Paul R. LePage 

Governor 

CC: 	 Patricia Aho, Deputy Commissioner, Maine DEP 


Curt Spalding, EPA Region 1Administrator 


David Wright, Director of Remediation, Maine DEP 


PRJNl F:D(IN 

~ I{FC:YCLED PAPEI~ 

PHONE: (207) 287-3531 (Voice) 888-577-6690 (TTY) 	 FAX: (207) 2tl7-JOH 

www.maine.gov
No. 54614.

#### Edward Lembeck et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142511-K, etc. (New York).

*257Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HOLMES PRODUCTS CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,190
<INVENTORY>                                    146,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,954
<PP&E>                                         132,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 435,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,026
<BONDS>                                        334,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,935
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,820)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   435,692
<SALES>                                        207,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,525
<CGS>                                          151,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,658<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   475
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,359)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES.
<F2>THE COMPANY'S SHARES ARE NOT PUBLICLY TRADED.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRENDAN BODDIE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Thomas S. Kleeh , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cr
- 00016

- TSK

- MJA

- 2 )

Submitted : August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Brendan Boddie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Brendan Boddie appeals the distri ct court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239

. * When denying relief,
the court considered Boddie’s desire to care for his elderly, disabled grandparents but did
not address the purported dire financial circumstances of his immediate family . Because
the court did not consider all of Boddie’s arguments in support of his motion for compassionate release , we conclud e that the court abused its discretion in denying the
motion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating standard). We therefore vacate the court’s order and remand so that the court may consider
Boddie’s motion in its ent irety

. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, p.s. (2018) (providing nonexhaustive list of extraordinary and compelling circumstances). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

* The district court originally denied Boddie relief due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. After Boddie appealed that order, the court considered the merits of his motion, effectively supplanting the original order. Although Boddie did not note a separate appeal from the district court’s second order, we construe his informal brief as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248

- 49 (1992).
17.01 View a Business Report
No. 47333.

#### Protests 981000-G, etc., of Border Brokerage Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, or tonguing and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
212 Airport Drive

www.bradfordairport.net

•... -,

BRRDFORD

REGIOnnL

RIRPORT

;(00]- /'/>:<~

IlrAd f~N.(. /li"fO,-1 fi..11.<4-;iy

reJpbMC ~ !s~J kee/...

Lewis Run, PA 16738

814-368-5928 EX10

=

January 16, 2014

Mr. Koch,-

N

W

I was copied on your 12/12/13letter to Mr. Smisek, President and CEO ofUni.ted Airlines.

While I am sympathetic and sorry for your bad experience, I do appreciate you taking the

time to writc a letter to United Airlines. Your letter captures and portrays exactly what is

going on with many airlines which provide air service to rural communities through the

Essential Air Service (EAS) program.

The Department of Transportation through an act of Congress is holding rural airports (not

the airlines) accountable for sustaining a minimum of 10 enplanements per day to continue

eligibility in the EAS program.

Unfortunately, as your letter portrays the airlines are providing sub-standard service which

is turning potential passengers away; yet the rural airports are held accountable for

marketing and advertising a product and service we cannot control.

Your question "Why isn't the Essential Air Service program working in some areas?" is

right on target. I have passed along your letter on to Federal representatives and others

and hope your negative experience can invoke some positive changes in the future.

As you indicated in your letter; Cape Air is one airline that appears to be working;

providing reasonable, safe and dependable service. Also Cape Air gets involved in the

communities they serve.

The Bradford Regional Airport is hopeful we can survive this next obstacle in the EAS

program and obtain Cape Air as our future air service provider; if so please give our airport

another opportunity on your next flight into the Bradford area.

Please contact me at (814) 368.5928 EX 10 or tllm(Ulin'"i'ordairport.netif I can be of any

assistance.

Again, thanks for taking the time to write your letter.

Sincerely,

~c:lJ

Thomas C. Frungillo, A.A.E.

Airport Director

Bradford Regional Airport