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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                                          41,473
<SECURITIES>                                   110,452
<RECEIVABLES>                                  558,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,706
<INVENTORY>                                    299,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,053,343
<PP&E>                                       1,436,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 663,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,076,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          557,382
<BONDS>                                        260,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,148,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,076,905
<SALES>                                      6,344,990
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,344,990
<CGS>                                        6,051,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,051,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                225,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,015
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

</TABLE>
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:57 AM To: Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov; Hengst, Benjamin; Sutt on, Tia; james.tamm@dot.gov Cc: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov Subject: RE: EO 12866 Interagency Comments on HD Phase II NO PR Attachments: EPA and NHTSA Responses to Interagency Line Item Co mments Received on Ju....docx



### Chad and Chandana, We have accepted and incorporated these specific in teragency recommended edits, except as noted and ex plained in the attached file. Thanks, Tim

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 5:57 PM To: 'Hengst, Benjamin'; 'Sutton, Tia'; Mullins, Timoth y (OST); Tamm, James (NHTSA) Cc: Achanta, Chandana L. Subject: RE: EO 12866 Interagency Comments on HD Phase II N OPR


### All, Few responses to the redline passback from 5_ 29. Please let me know if you would like to discus s. Thanks, Chad
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus BRIAN WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-828-HMH-7) Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Brian Wright, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se motion to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We affirm. Wright pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a provision whereby the Government would “move the Court to depart from the United States Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to § 5K1.1 of those Guidelines, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(e) and/or move the Court for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Wright asserts that prior to sentencing, the Government approached him, explaining that his assistance was not complete until his co-defendants had been apprehended and convicted. Wright further alleges that the Government promised to file a Rule 35(b) motion if Wright’s co-defendants were captured and pled or were found guilty within one year after his sentence. Wright claims that because this motion has not been filed, the Government has breached the plea agreement. We disagree. On the day of Wright’s sentencing, the Government filed a Motion for Downward Departure pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000), that requested the court to depart downward in response to Wright’s substantial assistance. The motion noted that Wright’s cooperation was responsible for the- 3 - decision of “five of his co-defendants to plead ‘guilty’ to the conspiracy charges contained in the indictment.” We conclude the plea agreement required no more. By its explicit terms, the agreement simply did not obligate the Government to file a Rule 35 motion regardless of the extent of Wright’s assistance. Moreover, neither the record nor any other documentation supports Wright’s assertion that the plea agreement was amended to require the Government to file a Rule 35 motion. We therefore find that the Government fully fulfilled its obligations. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
September 11, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8652.

#### Bunge *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
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

BENITO JULIAN LUNA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0627 KJM GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 1, 2011, prior counsel assigned to

this case was relieved and new counsel was appointed, as it appeared petitioner’s federal habeas

petition was never filed even though the claims were exhausted several years ago in the

California Supreme Court. On September 27, 2011, new counsel provided a status report

indicating that the best way to address the statute of limitations issue would be for respondent to

be served with the petition recently filed by petitioner. Respondent was served and filed a

motion to dismiss on December 6, 2011. A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2012,

however the parties filed a stipulation to move the hearing to March 23, 2012. The court’s law

and motion calendar is on Thursdays, therefore the hearing was moved to March 22, 2012, at

10:00 am.

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/14/12 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

Local Rule 230(c) provides for an opposition to be filed no less than fourteen (14)

days prior to the hearing date. Opposition to the motion to dismiss should have been filed on or

before March 8, 2012, however no opposition was filed. Petitioner shall show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order to show cause will also be

heard on March 22, 2012, the same day as the hearing on the motion to dismiss which will

proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 13, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:AB

luna0627.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO A. OLIVAS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1306 DFL CMK P

vs.

DARREL ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 27, 2005, 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. Petitioner 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-01306-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 09/15/05 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 27, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed as moot.

DATED: 9/14/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01306-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DIST RICT OF TEXAS F ORT WORTH N O S . 2 - 0 9 - 3 3 8 - C R 2 - 0 9 - 3 3 9 - C R L E R O Y G A R Y R U S H I N G I I I A P P E L L A N T V

. T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S S T A T E

- - - - - - - - - - F R O M C R I M I N A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T N O

. 1 O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

- - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### AN D J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d “ A p p e l l a n t ' s M o t i o n T o D i s m i s s A p p e a l s . ” T h e m o t i o n c o m p l i e s w i t h r u l e 4 2

. 2 ( a ) o f t h e r u l e s o f a p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e . T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 2

. 2 ( a )

. N o d e c i s i o n o f t h i s c o u r t h a v i n g b e e n d e l i v e r e d b e f o r e w e r e c e i v e d t h i s m o t i o n , w e g r a n t t h e m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l

. S e e i d

. ; T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 3

. 2 ( f )

. P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : W A L K E R , M C C O Y , a n d M E I E R , J J

. D O N O T P U B L I S H T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 7

. 2 ( b ) D E L I V E R E D : M a y 2 0 , 2 0 1 0

1  S e e T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 7

. 4

.
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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

JEFFREY HOWARD GAUTIER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HOWARD GAUTIER,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S 04-0721 WBS GGH P

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

TRAVERSE

Pursuant to the unopposed request of petitioner, and good cause

appearing therefor, the traverse may be filed on or before August 24,

2005.

Dated: 7/14/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

________________________________

HONORABLE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

gaut0721.eot07

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 27 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 1
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to manage users in ISIM and view reports in OTCnet. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 ADMINISTRATION/CONFIGURATION MODULE 5: VIEWING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 5.1 View a Financial Institution
            PJA
            VideoView a Financial Institution
 DEPOSIT PROCESSING MODULE 10: SEARCHING DEPOSITS Certificate icon10.1 Search for a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoSearch for a DepositDownload Search Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 11: VIEWING DEPOSITS Certificate icon11.1 View a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoView a Deposit
 MODULE 12: SEARCHING ADJUSTMENTS Certificate icon12.1 Search for and View an Adjustment
            PJA
            VideoSearch for and View an AdjustmentDownload Search Adjustment Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 15: CONFIRMING DEPOSITS Certificate icon15.1 Confirm a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoConfirm a Single DepositConfirm Multiple DepositsReject a Deposit15.2 Create a Credit/Debit AdjustmentCreate a Credit/Debit Adjustment
 MODULE 16: MANAGING ADJUSTMENTS 16.1 Create a Returned Item Adjustment
            PJA
            VideoCreate a Returned Item Adjustment for US CurrencyCreate a Returned Item Adjustment for a Foreign Check Item
 MODULE 17: VIEWING DEPOSIT PROCESSING AND HISTORICAL REPORTS 17.1 View a Business Report
            PJA
            VideoView Business Reports: Adjustment Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Adjustments by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Daily Voucher ReportView Business Reports: Deposit Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Deposits by Accounting CodeView Business Reports: Deposits by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Deposit History by StatusView Business Reports: Non-Reporting OTC EndpointsView Business Reports: Processing Options by OTC Endpoints17.3 View an Administration ReportView Administrative Reports: CIR File StatusView Administration Reports: View Vouchers CompletedView Administrative Reports: Vouchers in Progress17.4 View Historical ReportsDeposit Historical ReportAdjustment Historical ReportView Previously Generated Historical Reports
 Welcome
Williams. Renee (OST) 

From: Henrik & Snow [nordstar@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:25 PM 

supervisor@town.massena.ny.us; anicola@twcny.rr.com; EAS (OST) 

Hawk and Toni-Marie Bayley 

Subject: support of Cape Air in Massena NY 

Cape Air is THE critical connection into (and out of Massena). Without which Massena becomes so isolated 

from the rest of the country, it's ridiculous. 

Cape Air is efficient, convenient, with excellent service and staff. 

For those of us who live across the country and have family in the Massena area, Cape Air makes visits 

possible. 

Snow Babakhani 

nordstar@sbcglobal.net 

1 

'\0-
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10498

Conference Calendar

__________________

TOMMY J. HAMILTON, On behalf

of himself and all others so

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN C. VANCE, Individually and

in his official capacity as

district attorney of Dallas

County, Texas; ROBERT DOE;

JOHN DOES; JANE DOES; SALLY ZOE;

BEN CLICK, Individually and in

his official capacity as chief of

police of Dallas County, Texas.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-291-X

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In order to recover damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that
No. 95-10498

-2-

his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized

state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Otherwise, such

a claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 and must be

dismissed. Id. 

If Tommy J. Hamilton's complaint is construed as a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action stemming from an unconstitutional imprisonment, his

claims are not cognizable, as he has failed to demonstrate that

his conviction has been set aside or otherwise called into

question. Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. By Hamilton's own

admission, he has not pursued any appeals or habeas remedies. 

Therefore, Hamilton cannot seek damages under § 1983 because he

cannot demonstrate that his conviction has been invalidated,

reversed, or otherwise called into question.

Although Hamilton's complaint could be properly construed as

a petition for federal habeas relief, because he has admitted

that he has not pursued any appeals or state habeas actions

regarding his conviction, he cannot demonstrate that his claim

was fairly presented to the state courts. Without this

demonstration, Hamilton cannot show that he is entitled to

federal habeas consideration. The district court did not err in

construing Hamilton's complaint as a federal habeas petition and

in dismissing that petition for failure to exhaust. Dispensa v.

Lynaugh, 847 F.2d 211, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of CEO and CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy
Incorporated (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Executive Vice President - Finance
and Strategic Development and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
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 the best of 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 operations of the Company.





/s/
      Michael J. ChesserName:
              Title:
            Michael
      J. Chesser
              Chairman
      of the Board and Chief
              Executive
      OfficerDate:
            February
      28, 2008/s/
      Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
      Bassham
              Executive
      Vice President – Finance and Strategic Development and Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            February
      28, 2008





This
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.  This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to
liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is
expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such
filing.





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 Great Plains Energy Incorporated and will
be retained by Great Plains Energy Incorporated 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-0449-DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to

respondent’s December 20, 2004 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 13, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to respondent’s December 20, 2004 motion to dismiss.

DATED: June 21, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

kf

roch0449.111

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

November 13, 1957

No. 61342.

protest 294298-K (New York).

#### Halsey Import Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the collector’s amended memorandum was received in evidence, reading as follows: "Following Appraiser’s description & on appraised value as one piece the merchandise would now be properly classified at 45% under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” On the record presented, the compotes were held dutiable at 45 percent under the provision in paragraph 212, as modified, *supra,*for decorated chinaware, not tableware, not containing 25 percent or more of calcined bone.
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

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 September 2, 2005, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his appeal. Accordingly,

plaintiff will be required to comply with this court’s July 28, 2005, order or risk having his case

dismissed for failure to prosecute this action. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this order in which to file a

certificate of service as required by this court’s July 28, 2005 order;

2. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: September 6, 2005.

/001;eich1108.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 41 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 1