alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2021 ReportingSection VII  &"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 4/23/20
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99.2


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


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the "Corporation") for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Vice President - Finance of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.



/s/ Julie F. Lancaster
Julie F. Lancaster
Vice President - Finance (Principal Financial Officer)
November 14, 2002
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Proposed Order RE: Request for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-CV-0887-GEB-GGH-P

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE

MOTION DEADLINE

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, Defendants’ request for a thirty-day

extension of the dispositive motion deadline in this matter, is granted.

DATED: 7/17/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

H onorable G regory G . H ollow s 

U. S. Magistrate Judge

high887.eot(dis).wpd

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 56 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
**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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of EMJ.Date: June 28, 2006     /s/William S. Johnson       **Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary**  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EMJ and will be retained by EMJ and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD E. WILMSHURST )

) No. 02:4-cv-0988-DFL-KJM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

) 

BILL LOCKYER, ATTORNEY )

GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; )

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, )

COUNTY OF CALAVERAS )

)

Defendants. )

)

On August 8, 2005, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a

motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Bill Lockyer,

the attorney general of California, and the Superior Court of

California for Calaveras County (collectively “Defendants”). It

appears that Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendants from conducting

any further action in People v. Wilmshurst, No. F-3229, a criminal

case filed in the Superior Court of California for Calaveras County, 

until after a ruling issues on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations (hereafter “F&Rs”), which were filed in this federal

civil action on August 2, 2005. Plaintiff indicates the TRO is 

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 81 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

necessary to preserve the status quo in Wilmshurst until a decision is

issued on the above-referenced F&Rs in this federal action.

Plaintiff’s arguments are insufficient to justify the

issuance of a TRO because he fails to articulate a substantial

likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

TRO request is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 81 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Dennis E. YARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. JORDAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6244.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 8, 2001.

Dennis E. Yarrell, pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dennis E. Yarrell, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Yarrell v. Jordan,*No. CA-99-863-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2001). 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.*
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

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the 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.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 35 Filed 07/28/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 14, 2005 request for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: July 27, 2005.

/001;kf

eich1108.31 

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 35 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Bulletin No. 2021-07

To: Heads of Government Departments, Agencies, and Others Concerned

Subject: Change to Bulletin No. 2020-15, U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL) —

A Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Supplement

1. Purpose: This bulletin notifies agencies that Part 1 and Part 2 of

the USSGL Supplement have been revised for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021.

2. Summary of Changes: The Summary of Changes identifies specific revisions

made to the USSGL.

3. Changes by Part/Section/File:

Part 1-FY2020 Reporting changes to files in Sections IV, V, VI, and VII:

Section IV: Account Attributes for USSGL Proprietary Account and Budgetary

Account Reporting

USSGL Account Attribute Table

Section V: Crosswalks to Standard External Reports for FY 2020 GTAS Reporting

OMB Form and Content:

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary

Resources and Budget Program and Financing Schedule

Section VI: Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements for FY 2020 Reporting

Reclassified Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position

Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits for FY 2020 Reporting

Validations Detail

Edits Detail

Part 2—FY 2021 Reporting changes to files in Sections I, II, III, IV, V, VI,

and VII:

Page 1 of 3
Section I: Chart of Accounts

Section II: Accounts and Definitions

Section III: Account Transactions

Transaction Listing

Transactions

T-Accounts

Section IV: Account Attributes for USSGL Proprietary Account and Budgetary

Account Reporting

USSGL Account Attribute Table

Section V: Crosswalks to Standard External Reports for FY 2021 GTAS Reporting

OMB Form and Content:

Balance Sheet

Statement of Budgetary Resources

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary

Resources and Budget Program and Financing Schedule

Section VI: Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements for FY 2021 Reporting

Reclassified Balance Sheet

Reclassified Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position

Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits for FY 2021 Reporting

Validations Detail

Validations Summary

Edits Detail

Edits Summary

Closing Edit Details

4. Effective Date:

Part 1 requirements for FY 2020 are effective immediately.

Part 2 requirements for FY 2021 are effective immediately.

5. Inquiries:

Direct questions concerning this bulletin to your agency's USSGL Board

representative or:

Jaime M. Saling

Page 2 of 3
Director, Financial Reports and Advisory Division

Fiscal Accounting

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

PO Box 1328

Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

Telephone: 304-480-6485

Date: December 17, 2020

Page 3 of 3
Before the Third Division,

February 8, 1951

No. 55234.

#### M. Pressner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 154664-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entry for the date of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entry and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entry are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoice should have been *359converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
No. 56361.

protests 161185-K, etc. (New York).

#### Metasco, Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 63034.

#### S. Christian of Copenhagen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/10443, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL, et al., : No. 02-4488

Defendants. :

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that:

This Court’s Revised Scheduling Order of February 21, 2003, as amended by the

Court’s Order of May 27, 2003, shall be further amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 3 is amended to read: “All fact discovery, except as set forth

below, shall be completed by July 14, 2003. Defendant Kent Line

International shall make the Chief Mate Adamiak available for deposition

within two weeks of his return from sea, but in no event later than August

18, 2003.”

2. Paragraph 5 is amended to read: “Any motions for summary judgment

shall be filed by August 25, 2003. Responses to any motions for

summary judgment shall be filed within the time permitted under Local

Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(c). Counsel are expected to communicate

with each other and, if possible, to produce a joint appendix for

submission to the court.”

3. In all other respects, the Court’s Revised Scheduling Order shall remain in

effect, as amended by the Court’s prior Orders.

BY THE COURT:

___________________

Berle M. Schiller, J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 37 Filed 07/08/2003 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                          70,449
<SECURITIES>                                    45,215
<RECEIVABLES>                                  552,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,592
<INVENTORY>                                    291,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,005,987
<PP&E>                                       1,407,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 664,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,986,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          550,098
<BONDS>                                        260,257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,066,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,986,569
<SALES>                                      3,084,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,084,722
<CGS>                                        2,966,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,966,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
No. 65459.

#### Seedman International Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/5822, etc. (Los Angeles).

*427Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10688)

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

Entry No. 1076618.

(Decided February 19, 1964)

*Lane, Yowng & Foot*for the plaintiff.

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

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of radio sets exported from Japan subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That the radio sets are not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; and that the merchandise involved herein was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of *463sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value, less the item designated on the invoice as “Buying Commission” in the amount shown thereon.

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

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find that the involved merchandise is not listed on the final list of articles published in T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958, and that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, and T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and I hold that such statutory value is the appraised value, less the item designated on the invoice as “Buying Commission,” in the amount shown thereon.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael WITHERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4835.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2001.

Decided June 25, 2001.

Scott C. Brown, Law Office of Frank A. Jackson, Wheeling, WV, for appellant. Melvin W. Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for appel-lee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Withers appeals his 100-month sentence for being a felon in possession of *184a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), (g)(9), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). Withers argues the district court clearly erred in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 3C1.1 (1998) and in denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1. We affirm.

Withers first argues the Government did not carry its burden to prove he obstructed justice. We review factual findings concerning the Guidelines for clear error, *United States v. Daughtrey,*874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989), but do not review the district court’s estimation of the witnesses’ credibility, *see United States v. Saunders,*886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989). Following a thorough review of the record, we find the district court did not clearly err in determining that Withers attempted to obstruct justice by threatening a witness and attempting to convince the witness not to testify. *See*USSG § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(a)).

Next, Withers argues the district court erred by denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility based upon unrelated criminal conduct that occurred before he pled guilty to the offense. A district court’s decision to grant or deny an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1 is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Miller,*77 F.3d 71, 74 (4th Cir.1996). We find the district court did not clearly err in relying on conduct that occurred before Withers signed the plea agreement. *See United States v. Kidd,*12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir.1993). Nor was it clear error to rely on criminal conduct not related to the offense of conviction. *See, e.g., United States v. Ceccarani,*98 F.3d 126, 129-30 (3d Cir.1996).

We affirm Withers’ conviction and sentence. 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.*
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

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 21, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a third amended

complaint pursuant to the court’s order of May 27, 2005. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

request will be granted.

On June 21, 2005, plaintiff also filed a request for extension of time to challenge

this court’s ruling concerning his due process claims, rendered in this court’s March 16, 2005

order. Plaintiff states he received that order on June 8, 2005. Local Rule 72-303(b), states

“rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court

within ten court days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule

72-303(b). Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of March 16,

2005 is therefore untimely, and his request for extension of time will be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 30 Filed 07/14/05 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

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 21, 2005 request for an extension of time to file a third

amended complaint is granted; 

2. Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint on or before July 26, 2005. No

further extensions of time will be granted.

3. Plaintiff’s June 21, 2005 request for an extension of time in which to challenge

this court’s May 16, 2005 order is denied.

DATED: July 13, 2005.

/001:bb

eich1108.36

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 30 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Log in to OTCnet Offline for the First Time

To log in to OTCnet application for the first time, complete the following steps:

1. Double-click the OTCnet Offline (Production or QA) icon located on your terminal desktop. 

Or 

Click Start>Programs>OTCnet Offline (Production or QA)>Start OTCnet Offline

(Production or QA). The Retrieve Admin Profile page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. OTCnet Offline Application User Login Page

2. Enter your User ID and temporary Password in the appropriate text boxes. Click Log In. 

The Set Permanent Password page appears.

• If the icon does not reside in either location, contact your Check Capture 

Administrator to configure the terminal.

• If a workstation has more than one version of the OTCnet Offline application 

(Production or QA), do not run both at the same time as running more than one 

version at a time causes errors. 

• If you are a Check Capture Administrator and this is your first time logging into 

OTCnet Offline, or you must download user profiles, click the Retrieve Admin 

Profile link.

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

3. Enter your temporary Password, New Password, Re-Enter New Password and click Save 

as shown in Figure 2. A Confirmation page appears stating your new password has been 

set.

Figure 2. Set Permanent Password

After the profile is successfully downloaded and your password was reset, you are 

prompted to log in to the system with your new password. 

4. Click Return to Login Page to login to OTCnet Offline.

5. To stop the OTCnet Offline application, click Start Menu>Programs> OTCnet Offline 

(Production or QA)>Stop OTCnet Offline (Production or QA).

• Stopping the OTCnet Offline application ensures the application is completely closed 

and that your OTCnet session is terminated securely. It is recommended that after 

stopping OTCnet Offline, you wait at least one to two minutes before restarting.

• If more than one version of the OTCnet Offline application resides on a terminal, 

stop the correct version of the OTCnet Offline application (Stop OTCnet Offline 

Production or QA).

Application Tip

Application Tips
No. 52269.

protest 117282-K (El Paso).

#### American Import Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Poliowing the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.