alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the interim
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 1995, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000054291
<NAME> KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   934
<PP&E>                                           1,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              610
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                          26
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,814
<SALES>                                          2,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,239
<CGS>                                            1,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    103
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 65
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        65
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Cyco.net,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of  operation of the
Company.


Date: November 17, 2003                    By:  /s/ Daniel Urrea
                                                ----------------
                                                 Daniel Urrea
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
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 V. QUILLAR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1203 FCD KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee of $150.00 in effect at the time of filing of this action. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent

of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. The California Department

of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-CKD Document 27 Filed 12/06/05 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

 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect monthly payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and shall

forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until a total of $150.00 has been collected and

forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and

number assigned to this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of

plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections, 1515 S

Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: December 5, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

quil1203.cdc.a

Case 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-CKD Document 27 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 58971.

protests 163047-K, etc. (New York).

#### P. Robertet, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<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 Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas L. Carter, 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:

      (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/ Thomas L. Carter

Thomas L. Carter
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. and will be retained by
Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

Calendar No. 622 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4259 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the 

suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Lahaina 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Ms. HIRONO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, with amendments 

[Insert the parts printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 

to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 

certain land as the Lahaina National Heritage Area, 

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 ‘‘Lahaina National Her5 itage Area Study Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4259 RS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

4 the Secretary of the Interior. 

5 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

6 of Hawaii. 

7 (3) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

8 means the census-designated place of Lahaina in 

9 Maui County in the State. 

10 SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY. 

11 The Secretary, in coordination with the County of 

12 Maui and in consultation with State and local historic 

13 preservation officers, State and local historical societies, 

14 State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate or15 ganizations and governmental agencies, shall carry out, in 

16 accordance with section 120103(a) of title 54, United 

17 States Code, a study to assess the suitability and feasi18 bility of designating the study area as a National Heritage 

19 Area, to be known as the ‘‘Lahaina National Heritage 

20 Area’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 622 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4259 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

Heritage Area, and for other purposes. designating certain land as the Lahaina National a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported with amendments 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TONY MERRITT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2027

[ November 14, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Roger B. Colton, Senior

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CF007109AXXXMB

.

Tony Curtis Merritt, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C .J., T AYLOR and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# S?[rE ofWeSnINGToN



# sEcREmRr of sTArn I, SAM REED, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal, 

### hereby 

### issue 

### this



## CERTIFICATE 

# OF FORMATION

to MORNING 

### STAR PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC 

### AWashington 

### Limited filed for record in Liability

this office Company. An



### on the date

### applicatj-on was



### indicated below

UBI Number: 

### 602 

### LlB 189 

### Date: Januarv 

### 3L, 2402

Gioenunder my hand nndthe Seal ofthe State ofWashingtonat Olympio the State Capital
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
Corporation) for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, the Senior Vice President Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer 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/ RICHARD MACCHIARichard MacchiaSenior Vice President Finance andAdministration and Chief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2004
 33
No. 61843.

#### Catherine T. Alonge, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 271263-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of condimento similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Paolo Alonge, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 351, C. D. 1886), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain 
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is 
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory 
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the 
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Union Railroad Company

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2006-26603]

    The Union Railroad Company seeks a waiver of compliance from 
certain provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR Part 223 
that requires certified glazing for 33 locomotives. The Union Railroad 
Company is located in Monroeville, PA, and operates primarily as an 
industrial railroad with less then 20 miles of track, and at speeds not 
exceeding 20 mph.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings 
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate 
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party 
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in 
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for 
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the 
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number 2006-
26603) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management 
Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this 
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments 
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All 
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for 
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above 
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for 
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web 
site at http://dms.dot.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement 
may also be found at http://dms.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2007.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
 [FR Doc. E7-3479 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humphrey A. ALAMS, a/k/a Humphrey Amaobi Alabaraonye, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30058.

D.C. No. CR 99-00047-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*561Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Humphrey A. Alams appeals his 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Alams contends that the district court erred by denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 8E1.1.1

We review for clear error a district court’s decision to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. *United States v. Fellows,*157 F.3d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.1998).

Notwithstanding Alams’ timely admission of guilt, we cannot say the district court clearly erred by ruling against the adjustment based on its determination that Alams had not demonstrated sincere remorse for his crime. *See id.*(stating that otherwise significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility may be outweighed by inconsistent conduct such as failure to demonstrate contrition and remorse and that the district court’s decision must be afforded “great deference because of [the district court’s] unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility’).

In addition, Alams contends pro se, for the first time on appeal, that the indictment should be dismissed and the judgment and sentence imposed should be vacated because his rights under Article 36(l)(b) of the Vienna Convention were violated. Assuming this contention is properly before us, it fails because Alams has not shown that the district court committed plain error, as it is unclear whether the treaty creates individually enforceable rights. *United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga,*206 F.3d 882, 884-885 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (reserving question of whether treaty creates individually enforceable rights); *United States v. Turman,*122 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that error is not plain when state of law is unclear).

*562AFFIRMED.2

**

 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.

1

. Although the government correctly points out that Alams has completed his term of incarceration and was subsequently deported, this appeal is not moot. *See United States v. Valdez-Gonzcdez,*957 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that an appeal is not moot even though the defendant had completed his term of incarceration and had been deported); *United States v. Verdin,*243 F.3d 1174, 1176-1179 (9th Cir.2001) (concluding that defendant's appeal was not moot where district "court could reduce term of supervised release upon resentencing).

2

. The Government's unopposed Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal is granted. All other outstanding motions are denied as moot.
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

Number Name Description

Fatal/Proposed

Analytical Type

Applicable SMAF Attribute

/ Domain Value Left Side Label 

96

Discretionary Gross Outlays From New Authority Versus Discretionary Gross Budget Authority

Discretionary gross outlays from new authority (SF 133 line 4010) should not exceed the discretionary gross budget authority (SF 133 line 4000 minus anticipated amounts). If this instance is caused by a reduction of unobligated balances, submit a GTAS override.

Fatal Period # 08/09/10/11/12

Statement Line / Statement Line Account Type = EXPND

Discretionary gross oufrom new authority

97

Mandatory Gross Outlays From New Authority Versus Mandatory Gross Budget Authority

Mandatory gross outlays from new authority (SF 133 line 4100) should not exceed the mandatory gross budget authority (SF 133 line 4090 minus anticipated amounts). If this instance is caused by a reduction of unobligated balances, submit a GTAS override.

Fatal Period # 08/09/10/11/12

Statement Line / Statement Line Account Type = EXPND

Mandatory gross outlafrom new authority

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Summary Report

Bulletin No. 2018-04 DRAFT VII ESR - 1
Exhibit



Exhibit  10.1.9 



AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), that was effective August 31, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), is made between Costco Wholesale Corp. and W. Craig Jelinek (“Executive”).


In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth in the Agreement and in this
Amendment and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


1.    Section 7(b) of the Agreement shall be amended to read: Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2016, and may be renewed for one or more additional one-year or shorter terms upon the written agreement of both parties.


2.    All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.


	
							
	COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ JEFFREY H. BROTMAN
	 
	7/21/2016
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Jeffrey H. Brotman
Chairman of the Board of Directors
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	EXECUTIVE
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ W. CRAIG JELINEK
	 
	7/21/2016
	 
	 

	 
	 
	W. Craig Jelinek
President and Chief Executive Officer
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

SANTIAGO SOTO, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0571 FCD GGH P

vs.

WARDEN D.L. RUNNELS, 

Defendant. 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 at this time. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

The court notes that plaintiff’s request was not served on defendant. Every

document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5. Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S.

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 27 Filed 07/20/05 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

mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. 

Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to

defendant or his attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and

(c). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this

action, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s April 14, 2005 request for the appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff must properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this action

and include a proper certificate of service with such filing; failure to do so may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 7/20/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

soto0571.31+

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 27 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2