alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OGE Letter in Response to EPA Meeting Held 04/06/10. Regional Haze

Funck, Kathryn to: Thomas Diggs, Joe Kordzi 04/29/2010 04:55 PM

Cc:

"'jssolomon@aep.com'", "'hlground@aep.com'" , 

"'eddie.terrill@deq.ok.gov'", "Horn, Trish", "Shoop, Kimber", 

"Branecky, David", "'ctwehland@JonesDay.com'"

From: "Funck, Kathryn" <funckka@oge.com>

To: Thomas Diggs/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "'jssolomon@aep.com'" <jssolomon@aep.com>, "'hlground@aep.com'" <hlground@aep.com>, 

"'eddie.terrill@deq.ok.gov'" <eddie.terrill@deq.ok.gov>, "Horn, Trish" <hornpd@oge.com>, 

"Shoop, Kimber" <shoopkl@oge.com>, "Branecky, David" <branecda@oge.com>, 

Mr. Diggs and Mr. Kordzi, 

Trish Horn has asked me to provide you with the attached document. If you have any 

problems opening the document please feel free to contact me directly. 

Thank you, 

Kathryn Funck

Executive Assistant

OGE Energy Corp.

funckka@oge.com
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 Petitioner presented his appeal to prison authorities for mailing on April 6, 2006. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER MAURICE SAVAGE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1079 MCE PAN P 

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's March 9, 2006 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before 1

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 32 Filed 04/21/06 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

2

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s January 24, 2006 findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 32 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                    1,352,030     
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                   21,200,000     
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  0     
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0     
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>               6,700,017     
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            0     
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              0     
<LOANS>                                  50,161,144     
<ALLOWANCE>                               1,570,012     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           80,413,528     
<DEPOSITS>                               73,182,562     
<SHORT-TERM>                              3,500,000     
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         369,908     
<LONG-TERM>                                       0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0     
<PREFERRED>                                       0     
<COMMON>                                          0     
<OTHER-SE>                                3,361,058     
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           80,413,528     
<INTEREST-LOAN>                           1,077,076     
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           104,161     
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             42,373     
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                          1,223,610     
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          607,540     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          651,621     
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       571,989     
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                15,000     
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0     
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             535,838     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              55,632     
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   55,632     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0     
<CHANGES>                                         0     
<NET-INCOME>                                 33,432     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0     
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0     
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 8.15     
<LOANS-NON>                               3,344,861     
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0     
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                          1,464,391     
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           1,195,984     
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          1,612,981     
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               105,187     
<RECOVERIES>                                 32,218     
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         1,570,012     
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      1,570,012     
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0     
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0     
        

</TABLE>
Consent of Independent Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of IBP, inc. on Form S-3  (File No. 33-64459) and on Form S-8
(File No. 33-19441) of our report dated March 19, 2001, except as to
Note U for which the date is March 29, 2001 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
IBP, inc. as of December 30, 2000 and December 25, 1999, and for each of
the three years in the period ended December 30, 2000 which report is
included in this Form 10-K.



Omaha, Nebraska
March 30, 2001
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS WAYNE PERRY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL ZUPAN et al.,

 Defendants.

CIV S-04-0868 DFL PAN (JFM) PS

ORDER

On May 4, 2006, this court denied as moot defendants’ motion for summary

judgment filed April 14, 2006, and directed the parties to file a joint status report. Defendants

have correctly informed the court their motion was expressly invited by the November 10, 2005,

findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Peter Nowinski. 

Accordingly, the court’s May 4, 2006 order is hereby VACATED. In

anticipation of yet another reassignment of this case, defendants’ motion is hereby SET FOR

HEARING on Thursday, July 27, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 24, before Magistrate Judge

Gregory G. Hollows. 

DATED: June 8, 2006.

NOW6:perr0868.ord II

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 1
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Create a Credit/Debit Adjustment

To create a credit/debit adjustment, complete the following steps:

1. From the Deposit Processing tab, click View Deposits. The View Deposits page displays.

To locate deposits, you can also click Search Deposits.

2. From the Select Display drop-down menu, select My Deposits in Process.

3. Click the Voucher Number for the deposit details you want to process. The View Submitted 

Deposit page displays, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Adjust Deposit

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Depending on your user role, the My Deposits in Process page displays your current 

deposits. If you only have the Viewer role, the My Deposits in Process does not 

display any deposits.

4. Click Adjust. The Step 1 of 2: Define Information for Deposit Adjustment page displays.

You can only create adjustments for US Currency and Foreign Currency Cash

deposits with Submitted or Confirmed status.

5. Enter the adjustment information and click Next.

• Select the CAN/ACCT Key (CA$HLINK II Account Number/Account Key)

• Enter the Date of Deposit

• Enter Comments, if applicable and/or required

• Enter the CCWU (Cost Center Work Unit Number)

• Enter the 1 Day Deferred 

• Enter the 2 Day Deferred 

• Select Debit or Credit for Adjustment Type

• Enter the Adjustment Amount

• Select the Adjustment Reason

• Enter Adjustment Comments

• The CCWU, 1 Day Deferred Amount, and 2 Day Deferred Amount are for Federal 

Reserve Bank (FRB) deposits only.

• Adjustment Comments are required if the reason is Other.

6. The Step 2 of 2: Review Information for Deposit Adjustment page displays. Verify the 

information is correct and click Submit. Click Edit, to modify the adjustment information and 

review the information again.

7. A Confirmation page displays stating the deposit was adjusted.

Application Tip

Application Tip

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

3

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

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

• Click Confirm to confirm a deposit. 

• Click View Voucher Event Log to view the history of the deposit voucher 

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page. 

• Click Reject to reject a deposit.

Additional Buttons
No. 55223.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152037-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cedilanid substance, digitalis glucosides, digilanid substance, and gynergen substance the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 115, C. D. 1273), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Scigliano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Company.

                                             /s/ William Scigliano
                                             -----------------------------
                                             William Scigliano
                                             Chief Executive Officer

February 17, 2004
Case No. 6,726.

#### In re HOUGHTON.

[See Case No. 6,727.]
No. 62513.

#### Applicator Enterprises, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 328616-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respect to those the subject of Abstract 61191, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
----

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Vienna

(2006/C 246/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2.   The public service obligation is as follows:

2.1.   Frequency

The minimum level of service provided between Strasbourg and Vienna must be two round trips per day from Monday to Friday, all year round except for the month of August, when there must be a minimum of one round trip per day, from Monday to Friday. The flights in question must be non-stop.

2.2.   Type of aircraft used and minimum capacity provided

The services must be operated by aircraft with at least 25 seats.

2.3.   Timetables

The first flight in the day departing from Vienna must leave at a time that enables flights from other European countries to connect.

The timetable must coincide with parliamentary sessions, i.e. arriving at Strasbourg close to but no later than 14:00 for the session beginning at 15:00 and leaving Strasbourg close to but no earlier than 17:00, when the sessions end.

The two daily rotations must enable passengers to make a return trip in one day.

2.4.   Flight bookings

Seats on these flights must be marketed by a computerised booking system.

2.5.   Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 2 % of the number of flights scheduled in any IATA scheduling season. The carrier must give a minimum of six months' notice before discontinuing these services.

Community carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the abovementioned public service obligation may result in administrative and/or criminal penalties.

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4166 

To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service for 

co-payments of medical appointments required as part of the Military 

Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service for co-payments of medical appointments 

required as part of the Military Entrance Processing 

Station (MEPS) process. 

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 ‘‘Applicant Medical Re5 imbursement Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4166 IS

1 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT OF APPLICANTS FOR UNIFORM 

2 MILITARY SERVICE FOR CO-PAYS OF MED3 ICAL APPOINTMENTS REQUIRED AS PART OF 

4 MEPS PROCESS. 

5 The Secretary of Defense is authorized to reimburse 

6 applicants for uniformed military service for up to $100 

7 per applicant for co-payment costs incurred by such appli8 cants for medical appointments required as part of the 

9 Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 99-1559

                    HERMINIO PICHARDO-BERGES,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                          UNITED STATES,

                       Defendant, Appellee.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

          [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     
     Herminio Pichardo-Berges on brief pro se.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant
United States Attorney on brief for appellee.







JANUARY 19, 2000


  
            
            Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and
  the record on appeal.  We affirm the district court's denial of
  petitioner's motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 2255
  essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's
  opinion and order, dated February 19, 1999.
            Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27(c).
```
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS

LITIGATION

 

This order pertains to: 

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et

al v Bush et al (C-07-0109 VRW), 

 /

MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW

ORDER

On June 3, 2009, the court held a hearing on the order

dated May 22, 2009 that directed defendants to show cause why:

(1) defendants should not be prohibited, under FRCP

37(b)(2)(ii), from opposing the liability component of

plaintiffs’ claim under 50 USC § 1810 —— that is, from

denying that plaintiffs are “aggrieved persons” who were

subjected to electronic surveillance; and

(2) the court should not deem liability under 50 USC §

1810 established and proceed to determine the amount of

damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.

 

The order to show cause is hereby ordered continued

pending the briefing and hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment, which shall proceed as follows: 

Plaintiffs shall notice their motion for summary judgment

for September 1, 2009 at 10:00 am. Plaintiffs shall base their

CaseM:06-cv-01791-VRW Document643 Filed06/05/09 Page1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion on non-classified evidence. If defendants rely upon the

Sealed Document or other classified evidence in response, the court

will enter a protective order and produce such classified evidence

to those of plaintiffs’ counsel who have obtained top

secret/sensitive compartmented information clearances (Messrs

Eisenberg and Goldberg) for their review. Otherwise, the court

will consider the motion on non-classified evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

CaseM:06-cv-01791-VRW Document643 Filed06/05/09 Page2 of 2
No. 58948.

protest 239513-K (New York).

#### P. H. Petry Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing nothing to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACOB HENRY BARRETT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF OREGON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-35432 

D.C. No. 6:14-cv-01204-HZ 

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Jacob Henry Barrett appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state 

law claims arising out of Barrett’s transfer from custody in Oregon to custody in 

Florida. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. San 

Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & County, 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-35432

2004), aff’d, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (dismissal based on issue preclusion); Lee v. City 

of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6)). We vacate and remand. 

The Oregon Supreme Court recently affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals 

reversal of the state trial court’s judgment dismissing Barrett’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Barrett’s 

complaint on the ground that it was precluded by the prior habeas decision and 

remand for further proceedings. See Cmty. Bank v. Vassil, 570 P.2d 66, 68-69 (Or. 

1977) (if a prior judgment is reversed on appeal, it no longer has preclusive effect); 

see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 914-15 (9th Cir. 

1993) (the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a federal proceeding is 

governed by state law).

Barrett’s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, filed on November 

7, 2016, is denied. 

In light of the decision to remand, we do not reach any other issue on appeal.

Defendants shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34994]

Tri City Railroad Company, L.L.C.--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--in Olympia, WA

    Tri City Railroad Company, L.L.C. (Tri City), a Class III rail 
carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 
to acquire by lease, pursuant to an agreement with Union Pacific 
Railroad Company, and operate a 7.29-mile line of railroad, known as 
the Olympia Industrial Lead, extending from milepost 0.00 at East 
Olympia, WA (including wye and house tracks at East Olympia), to 
milepost 7.29 at Olympia, WA.
    Tri City certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result 
of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or 
Class I rail carrier.
    The earliest this transaction may be consummated is the March 14, 
2007 effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was 
filed).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its notice of exemption, Tri City indicated a 
consummation date of March 1, 2007. Tri City has been informed by a 
Board staff member that consummation may not take place until March 
14, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. 
Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 7, 2007 (at least 
7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34994, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Filings made on 
or after March 5, 2007, should be sent to the Board's new address: 
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-
0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Randolph 
Peterson, Tri City Railroad Company, L.L.C., 2579 Stevens Drive, 
Richland, WA 99352.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: February 16, 2007.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3250 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```
**Part 1 	 	Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting**

**SUPPLEMENT 	 	Section IV**

**U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report**

**Part 1 	 	Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting**

**SUPPLEMENT 	 	Section IV**

**U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report**

**Part 1 	 	Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting**

**SUPPLEMENT 	 	Section IV**

**U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report**

**Bulletin No. 2020****-08 	IV ADR -****1 	December 2019**

**Bulletin No. 2020****-08 	IV ADR -****1 	December 2019**

**Bulletin No. 2020****-08 	IV ADR -****1 	December 2019**