alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- News
- Fiscal Service Launched the Treasury Financial Experience, Providing Agencies User-Friendly Access to Financial Management Guidance

# Fiscal Service Launched the Treasury Financial Experience, Providing Agencies User-Friendly Access to Financial Management Guidance

October 20, 2021 

The Bureau of the Fiscal Service is making it easier for the financial management workforce to access guidance with the launch of a new website, the Treasury Financial Experience (TFX). The TFX is the most recent Fiscal Service product developed following human-centered design techniques aimed at improving the customer experience. This release is the culmination of a multi-year effort that included gathering feedback from financial practitioners across the government on how to improve the presentation and usability of guidance.

The TFX is a one-stop shop for financial management guidance, policies, and instructions from the Treasury Financial Manual (Volume I) and standards from the Federal Integrated Business Framework. The site simplifies the financial management content with intuitive navigation, plain language, robust search capabilities, expanded resources, and a searchable glossary. "In the complex world of federal financial management (FFM), managers need resources that are intuitive, searchable, and accessible whether you are using a computer, tablet, or mobile device," said Acting Assistant                    Commissioner for Financial Innovation and Transformation Adam Goldberg.

Fiscal Service is in the process of modernizing and transforming many of its products and services. Enhancing the customer experience is a central design tenant of those efforts. "Like USAspending.gov, the TFX is another example of the bureau delivering on our vision to provide a more modern, inclusive, seamless, and secure experiences for our customers" said Fiscal Service Commissioner Timothy Gribben.  "We are doing this by engaging our customers upfront to understand their needs and including them throughout the design process to ensure we deliver on those needs." 

We encourage you to stay connected by visiting TFX.Treasury.gov. Users can also sign up at join-tfx-mailing-list@lists.fiscal.treasury.gov to join the conversation by participating in user research or be the first to find out when new content and functionality is added. To provide feedback on this new resource, please send your comments to TFXFeedback@fiscal.treasury.gov.

Last modified 10/20/21
v118829_ex10-1 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


  

    

      Exhibit
        10.1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10043

MATTHEW ROLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS; DALLAS COUNTY CONSTABLE OFFICE

PRECINCT 2; MICHAEL GOTHARD,

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CV-1235

Before KING, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

AFFIRMED. See 5 Cir. R. 47.6.

th

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 3, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10043 Document: 00511400508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2011
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 24, 2011

h0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

141878

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141878 COA: 283213 Wayne CC: 07-009813-FC MICHAEL DEJUAN POWELS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 17, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Larry D. Alexander,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0823 DFL PAN P

vs.

Stockton Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 31, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

Case 2:04-cv-00823-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 11/14/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 31, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed.

Date: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00823-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

               CERTIFICATION UNDER SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Industrial Development Bank of Israel Limited ("the
Company"), herby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 22, 2009

                                                     /s/ Uri Galili
                                                     --------------
                                                     General Manager
```
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended September 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Linda L. Lowry,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ LINDA L. LOWRY
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Linda L. Lowry *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 6, 2003
_______________________

* Linda L. Lowry functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

    STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                          2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     The undersigned, Dwayne Powell, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Pocahontas Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

     This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003 (the "Report").

     By execution of this statement, I certify that:

          A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
               or 78o(d)) and

          B)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
               covered by the Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
     that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906
     of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
     intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

May 14, 2003                            /s/ Dwayne Powell
---------------------                   ---------------------
Dated                                   Dwayne Powell
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/24/2023 1

Challenging the Invalidation 

of Ballot-Access Signatures 

Van Auken v. Blackwell 

(Gregory L. Frost, S.D. Ohio 2:04-cv-891) 

In 2004, the Socialist Equality Party failed to qualify a presidential 

candidate in Ohio for the general election and sought emergency 

relief in federal court. The district court denied immediate relief because the party had not shown that Ohio’s secretary of state had 

failed to provide a legally required review of their case or that they 

could not obtain mandamus relief from Ohio’s state courts if merited. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts. 

On September 15, 2004, the Socialist Equality Party candidates for President 

and Vice President and a Dayton voter filed a federal complaint in the 

Southern District of Ohio alleging unreasonable invalidation of 4,172 of the 

7,983 signatures the candidates submitted for ballot qualification, leaving 

fewer than the 5,000 required.1 On the following day, the plaintiffs filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Gregory L. Frost held a teleconference with the parties and, on 

September 17, denied injunctive relief.3 Judge Frost determined that he could 

resolve the motion on the briefs, without a hearing.4 The plaintiffs had not 

shown that Ohio’s secretary of state had failed to provide a legally required 

review of their case or that they could not obtain mandamus relief from 

Ohio’s state courts if merited.5

On November 22, the parties stipulated dismissal of the action.6

1. Complaint, Van Auken v. Blackwell, No. 2:04-cv-891 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2004), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (Sept. 16, 2004), D.E. 3. 

3. Opinion, id. (Sept. 17, 2004), D.E. 4. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Frost for this report by telephone on June 1, 2012. Judge 

Frost retired on May 2, 2016. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III 

Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Interview with Hon. Gregory L. Frost, June 1, 2012. 

5. Opinion, supra note 3, at 5–7. 

6. Stipulation, Van Auken, No. 2:04-cv-891 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2004), D.E. 10.
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

AMENDMENT TO THE

AMERICAN BANK NOTEHOLOGRAPHICS, INC.

2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

Pursuant to Section 12of the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, asamended (the “Plan”), the second sentence of Section 7(d) of the Planis hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Except asotherwise determined by the Board, if a director’s service on the Boardterminates for any reason other than death or Disability, then: (1) anyportion of an Option granted pursuant to this Section 7 that is notexercisable on the date of termination shall immediately terminate, and (2) anyportion of an Option granted pursuant to this Section 7 that isexercisable on the date of termination shall remain exercisable during theninety (90) day period following the date of termination or, if sooner, untilthe expiration of the stated term thereof and, to the extent not exercisedduring such period, shall thereupon terminate.”

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned Secretary of the Company certifies that the foregoing amendment tothe Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on May 24,2005.

Dated: May 24, 2005

 
|   | AMERICAN BANK NOTE  HOLOGRAPHICS, INC. |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   | By: /s/ Alan Goldstein                 |   |
|   |  Secretary                        |

 

1

----
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE ANDREW REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. HAFERKAMP, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed two separate requests for appointment of counsel. The United

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

In the motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff also requests that the court reserve him with the scheduling order. Good cause appearing, the court will direct the Clerk to reserve plaintiff with this document. Plaintiff is informed that all further requests for copies of

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 06/21/06 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

court documents may be made to Attorney’s Diversified Services (ADS): 1424 21st Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814. Their phone number is 916-441-4396. The court will provide copies of

the docket sheet at $0.50 per page. Checks in the exact amount are made payable to “Clerk,

USDC.” Please Note: In Forma Pauperis status does not include the cost of copies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 15, 2006, and June 7, 2006, motions for the appointment of

counsel are denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve plaintiff with a copy of the

scheduling order filed January 20, 2006.

DATED: 6/20/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

reed0936.31

 

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARLON CORTEZ ROSS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00271-WO-1;

1:17-cv-00443-WO-LPA)

Submitted: November 18, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Cortez Ross, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Cortez Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ross has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Atlantic Data Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul K.
McGrath, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Paul K. McGrath
---------------------------------------

Paul K. McGrath
Chief Financial Officer
August 06, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SOLOMON HAMM, a/k/a Soloman Ham, a/k/a Charles R. Brewer, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-53-N, CA-96-160-2) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Solomon Hamm, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hamm , Nos. CR-90-53-N; CA-96-160-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for review ofthe denial of post-judgment motions by the district court. 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.

DISMISSED
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WATER HEATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS Forrestal Building Room 1E-245 July 23, 1999 9:00 a.m. PRELIMINARY AGENDA Expected Outcomes: Receive comments on theanalysis,recommendationson standard levels andfactorsto considerinsettingstandards.
9:00 am

- 9:05 am Welcome (DanReicher)- 9:05 am - 9:20 am Introductions and Agenda Review (DougBrookman) * Housekeeping * Introduction * Agenda Review 9:20 am - 9:30 am Assistant Secretary's Remarks (DanReicher) 9:30 am - 10:15 am Summary ofDOE Results (TerryLogee) * Price-efficiency, LCC, Energy Savings, NPV & Emissions * Manufacturing Impacts 10:15 am - 10:30 am Break 10:30 am - 2:00 pm Summary ofComments (MichaelMcCabe) (aftereachtopictherewill be anopportunity forstakeholder discussion) * Engineering, e.g., venting, heat traps, hot water usage, insulation

· Small Water Heater Closets * Price & Markup, e.g., gas equipment markups, installation costs * Marginal Energy Rates

· Life-cycle Cost, e.g., RECS Data, blended fuel projections

· National Energy Savings, e.g., fuel-switching * Measured EF vs Rated EF * Standards Recommendation 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Lunch on Your Own2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Discussion Questions (DanReicher) 

### Including:

· What standard levels do youbelieve the analysisjustifies? * We have a recommendation from GAMA that appears to be the beginning ofa consensus process. What should DOE do to continue this dialogue? * What can DOE do to help the industry meet the new standards in the time between the final rule and the effective date ofthe 

### rulemaking, e.g. NFGC, CPSC initiatives? * When DOE completes this rulemaking, what steps could the Department take to support and increase the market demand for water heaters which will exceed the new minimum standards, e.g. Energy Star program, FEMP executive order? 4:00 pm Adjourn
Before the Second Division,

August 15, 1945

No. 50408.

#### Protest 96285-K of Arrow Mill Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

During the trial counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest upon the ground that it was insufficient to meet the requirements of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. Later, counsel for the defendant addressed a letter to the court to the effect that the Government would not press its- motion to dismiss the protest in view of the fact that in *United States*v. *Mill & Mine Supply Co.*(30 C. C. P. A. 128, C. A. D. 224) the appellate court held that gasoline-driven chain saws and parts were properly dutiable as claimed by the plaintiff in this case. The motion to dismiss the protests was therefore treated as abandoned. Following the ruling announced in *United States*v. *Mill & Mine Supply Co., supra,*the merchandise was held dutiable at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372, as claimed. The collector of customs was directed to refund to the importer the sum of $109.92.