alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Part 1, Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits**

One of the goals the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has envisioned for GTAS is to improve the consistency in agency trial balance reporting. This will be accomplished through validations and edits.

The validations ensure that the attributes reported in agencies’ GTAS trial balance submissions are valid for the USSGL account. The validations encompass both USSGL level attributes per the USSGL Attribute

Table and Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) level attributes found in the Super Master Account (SMAF).

Simple validations are those involving one attribute while special validations involve more than one attribute.

All validations are fatal.

The edits compare the agency trial balances with USSGL rules and with data from authoritative sources such as the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS), Fiscal Service, and the Federal Financing Bank. The edits may be either fatal or proposed. Fiscal Service will use the proposed edits only for analytical purposes. Fiscal Service disclaims any role or responsibility with the agency auditor relationship concerning the GTAS fatal and proposed analytical edits.

The following are the validation and edit reports included in this section:

**Section VII	Page Number**

GTAS Validation Summary Report (VSR) VII VSR - 1

GTAS Validation Detail Report (VDR)	VII VDR - 1

GTAS Edits Summary Report (ESR)	VII ESR - 1

GTAS Edits Detail Report (EDR)	VII EDR - 1

GTAS Closing Edits Report (CER)	VII CER - 1Page 1 of 1

# image1.jpg
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION S FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Nai (“Jack”) Wang and Wang Investment Houston Partnership v. Jose

Gonzalez, All Americ an Demolition, LLC, and Nelson Equipment, Ltd.

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 00434

- CV

Trial court case number: 2009

- 26214

Trial court: 295th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Date motion s filed: January 29, 2013 , and January 31, 2013

Party f iling mo tion: Jose Gonzalez, All American Demolition, LLC , and Nelson

Equipment, Ltd.

It is ordered that the motion s for rehearing are granted

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

Date: May 2 4 , 2013
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

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0055 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 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 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 60 Filed 09/11/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s October 4, 2005, summary judgment motion is denied;

3. Defendants’ November 21, 2005, summary judgment motion is granted. 

DATED: September 11, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 60 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4000 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4000

 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
        Lytton Rancheria of California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2024

  Mr. Padilla introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
        Lytton Rancheria of California, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA LAND REAFFIRMATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Lytton Rancheria of California is subject to the Act of June 18, 1934 
(commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984, 
chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), and the Secretary of the Interior 
may acquire and take into trust land for the benefit of the Lytton 
Rancheria of California pursuant to section 5 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 
5108).
    (b) Land To Be Made Part of the Reservation.--Land taken into trust 
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be--
            (1) part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria of 
        California; and
            (2) administered in accordance with the laws and 
        regulations generally applicable to property held in trust by 
        the United States for an Indian Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
June 24, 2015

Mr. Peter Stuart 85 Highland Avenue Norwalk, CT 06853

Dear Mr. Stuart:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 5, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2121), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.2

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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

MARIO CANODY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1168 FCD KJM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

this court's September 9, 2005 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus as

duplicative. Before 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).

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

Case 2:04-cv-01168-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 09/23/05 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

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has

not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether petitioner

had filed a duplicative petition. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:September 22, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01168-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                         ------------------------------

                                                            Percentage of Voting
                                       Jurisdiction of        Securities Owned
Name                                   Incorporation          by the Registrant
----                                   -------------          -----------------

Bonnie International (Hong
 Kong) Limited                         Hong Kong                     100%

JLN, Inc.                              Delaware                      100%

The Bag Factory Inc.                   New Jersey                    100%

Max N. Nitzberg, Inc.                  Pennsylvania                  100%

Topsville, Inc.                        Florida                       100%(1)

-----------------------
(1)   Owned 100% by Max N. Nitzberg, Inc., which is a wholly-owned direct
subsidiary of the Registrant.
unis-ex1084_316.htm



 

Exhibit 10.84

 



 

September 11, 2015

 

Molly Miller, Ph.D. 1102 Robertson Way

Glenmoore, PA 19343

 

Re: Salary and Benefits Continuation

Dear Molly:

As you are aware, last week Unilife announced the initiation of a review of strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value. Molly, you have been instrumental in building this company and are a key pillar of our organization. The Management Team and Board of Directors are very grateful for your dedication, commitment, and contributions and we look forward to your continued contributions to ensure the future success of Unilife, particularly as the company focuses on its strategic alternatives. 

 

To recognize and express Unilife's commitment to you, effective immediately, in the unlikely event your employment at Unilife is terminated for any reason other than for cause by Unilife or by any successor or affiliate, Unilife will pay you your then current base salary, for six months, in accordance with Unilife’s standard payroll practices then in effect, commencing on the fifteenth day after the  date  that  your employment terminates and that you execute an appropriate general release. Furthermore, all of your outstanding and unvested stock-based awards shall vest immediately upon the unlikely termination of your employment for any reason other than for cause.

 

Additionally, provided that you elect to receive COBRA health, vision and dental care continuation coverage, Unilife will pay the cost of your COBRA health, vision and dental care continuation coverage premiums (for yourself and your eligible dependents) for six months, commencing on the first day of the month immediately after the month  which includes the date that your employment   terminates.

 

Molly, thank you very much for all that you are doing to ensure Unilife's continued success and we are looking forward to many more great contributions from you in the future.

 

Sincerely,

 


	
	
/s/ Ramin Mojdeh




 

Ramin Mojdeh, Ph.D.

President & Chief Operating Officer

 

Agreed and accepted:

 


			
	
/s/ Molly Miller
	
 
	
21Sep2015

	
Molly Miller, Ph.D.
	
 
	
Date
November 30, 2015 

Dear Mr. Scruggs: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3426). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/15/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst
Exhibit No. 99.3


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul M. Bonaiuto
----------------------------------
Paul M. Bonaiuto
March 31, 2003


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

                                       76
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Atlantic Data Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert W. Howe, 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, 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/ Robert W. Howe
--------------------------------
Robert W. Howe
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002
Before the First Division,

August 8, 1945

No. 50396.

#### Protests 113972-K/83, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400-the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Horizon Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, hereby certifies:

     (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/ Marshall B. Hunt
-------------------------------------------------
Marshall B. Hunt
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

December 2, 2003


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE 1>


                                                            EXHIBIT 4

                  NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP.
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 -------------------------------------------

                INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS
                             INCLUDING INDENTURES


     The following instruments of Navistar International Transportation Corp.
and its principal subsidiary Navistar Financial Corporation defining the
rights of security holders are incorporated herein by reference.

     4.1  Indenture, dated as of March 1, 1968, between Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. and Manufacturers Hanover
          Trust Company, as Trustee, and succeeded by FIDATA Trust
          Company of New York, as successor Trustee, for 6 1/4% Sinking
          Fund Debentures due 1998 for $50,000,000.  Filed on
          Registration No. 2-28150. 

     4.2  Indenture, dated as of  June 15, 1974, between Navistar 
          International Transportation Corp. and Harris Trust and Savings
          Bank, as Trustee, and succeeded by Commerce Union Bank, now known
          as Sovran Bank/Central South, as successor Trustee, for 9% Sinking
          Fund Debentures due 2004  for $150,000,000.  Filed on Registration
          No. 2-51111. 

     4.3  Indenture, dated as of September 22, 1989, between Navistar
          Financial Corporation, the First National Bank of Chicago, as
          Trustee, succeeded by Bank One, Columbus, N.A., as successor
          Trustee, for $400,000,000 of debt securities on terms to be
          determined at time of sale.  Filed on Registration No. 33-31003.

     4.4  Indenture, dated as of  November 15, 1993, between Navistar
          Financial Corporation and Bank of America, Illinois formerly
          known as Continental Bank, National Association, as Trustee,
          for 8 7/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 1998 for $100,000,000.
          Filed on Registration No. 33-50541

======

     Instruments defining the rights of holders of other unregistered
long-term debt of Navistar and its subsidiaries have been omitted from
this exhibit index because the amount of debt authorized under any
such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Registrant
and its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Registrant agrees to furnish
a copy of any such instrument to the Commission upon request.











                                  E-2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>           DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                         5,539,319
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                    467,393
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               6,006,712
<PP&E>                         4,860,403
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                11,097,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            626,780
<BONDS>                        1,866,179
<COMMON>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                     6,250,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  11,097,934
<SALES>                        3,331,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               3,564,209
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  1,947,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 151,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               264,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                1,201,147
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              833,564
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                     833,564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      40.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                      40.83




</TABLE>