alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TRACY THOMPSON, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-cv-1087 

 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

v. Magistrate Judge Deavers 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., 

 Defendants.

ORDER

On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to review the Clerk’s taxation of $5,560.15 in 

costs against her. (ECF No. 106.) Pursuant to Pursuant to Southern District of Ohio Civil Rule 

1.1(c), the Court departs from the default briefing schedule and ORDERS that the parties shall 

adhere to the following expedited schedule with respect to the pending motion: 

(1) Defendants’ memorandum in opposition, if any, shall be filed on or before April 20, 

2016; 

(2) No reply memorandum shall be permitted, and 

(3) The motion shall come on for a non-oral hearing on April 21, 2016. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-01087-GLF-EPD Doc #: 107 Filed: 04/14/16 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Interior Columbia RiverBasin : patterns of population, employment, and income change**
 
Part A | PartB
 
SuDoc:A 13.88:PNW-GTR-358
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000922208
 
November 29, 2017
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9346 

To provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be 

ineligible for employment by the Internal Revenue Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 13, 2024 

Mr. FEENSTRA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts 

shall be ineligible for employment by the Internal Revenue Service. 

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 ‘‘Audit the IRS Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY 

6 DELINQUENT TAX DEBTS FOR EMPLOYMENT 

7 BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

9 (1) the term ‘‘seriously delinquent tax debt’’ 

10 means an outstanding debt under the Internal RevVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:39 Sep 07, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9346.IH H9346

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9346 IH

1 enue Code of 1986 for which a notice of lien has 

2 been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 

3 of such Code, except that such term does not in4 clude— 

5 (A) a debt that is being paid in a timely 

6 manner pursuant to an agreement under sec7 tion 6159 or section 7122 of such Code; and 

8 (B) a debt with respect to which a collec9 tion due process hearing under section 6330 of 

10 such Code, or relief under subsection (a), (b), 

11 or (f) of section 6015 of such Code, is re12 quested or pending; and 

13 (2) the term ‘‘applicable employee’’ means an 

14 officer, employee, or contract employee of the Inter15 nal Revenue Service. 

16 (b) INELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT BY IRS.—An 

17 individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt shall 

18 be ineligible to be appointed, or to continue serving, as 

19 an applicable employee. 

20 (c) VERIFICATION.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months 

22 after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 

23 thereafter, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 

24 shall verify that each applicable employee is not in 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9346 IH

1 violation of the requirement described in subsection 

2 (b). 

3 (2) APPLICANTS.—In the case of any individual 

4 who is applying for a position with the Internal Rev5 enue Service as an applicable employee, the Commis6 sioner of Internal Revenue shall verify that such in7 dividual is not in violation of the requirement de8 scribed in subsection (b) prior to such individual 

9 being appointed as an applicable employee. 

10 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Man11 agement shall, for purposes of carrying out this section 

12 with respect to the Internal Revenue Service, prescribe 

13 any regulations which the Office considers necessary. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Before the First Division,

May 6, 1952

No. 56619.

protests 7716-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chekiang Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9322 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 675 Wolf Ledges Parkway in Akron, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Judge James R. Williams Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 9322 RFS

1 SECTION 1. JUDGE JAMES R. WILLIAMS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 675 Wolf Ledges Parkway in 

5 Akron, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Judge 

6 James R. Williams Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Judge James R. Wil11 liams Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(Reap. Dec. 9781)

#### Chemore Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 707-H, etc.

(Decided September 14, 1960)

*John B. Alfleri*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of appeals, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been *479submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by counsel for the respective parties herein, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement attached hereto in the annexed Schedule and made a part hereof, consists of polyvinyl chloride exported from Italy.

> That at the time of ithe exportation thereof, such or similar merchandise was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy, or for export to the United States, or for sale in the principal markets of the United States, in accordance with Sections 402 (c), (d), and (e), of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended.

> That at the time of the exportation thereof, the basis of appraisement should have been the “cost of production” as defined in Section 402(f) of the aforesaid Tariff Act.

> That said “cost of production” is represented by the invoice value of each importation covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the Schedule annexed hereto, less non-dutiable charges for Inland Freight, freight and insurance.

> That the appeals for reappraisement in the Schedule annexed hereto are submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value for the importations covered by the appeals enumerated in the aforesaid schedule of appeals is the invoice value in each case, less nondutiable charges for inland freight, freight, and insurance.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection withthis quarterly report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending October 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dale H. Sizemore, Jr.,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, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)                    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                    Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Dale H.  Sizemore, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| Dale H.  Sizemore, Jr.     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer         |   |
| December 15, 2008          |   |

 

----
#### Fondeville & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6718.

Entry Nos. 710872; 197; etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, August 1946, etc.

Certified August 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 13, 1945, etc. and at Philadelphia, Pa., July 28, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 7, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 4021 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2019082EN.01004301.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Schubert and Others v Commission

(Case T-530/16) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other members of staff - Regulations (EU) No 422/2014 and No 423/2014 - Adjustments of remuneration and pensions for 2011 and 2012 - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on dialogue between management and workers))

(2019/C 82/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ludwig Schubert (Overijse, Belgium) and the six other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents),

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decisions of the Commission to apply to the applicants’ salaries or pensions the adjustment of 0 % for 2011, provided for by Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the adjustment of 0,8 % for 2012, provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-4/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
Exhibit 12
                                                               ----------

    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                  (Amounts In Thousands,  Except Ratios)
                               (Unaudited)



                                                         Nine Months
                                                     Ended September 30,
                                                 ------------------------- 
                                                     1997           1996        
                                                 -----------     -----------
Earnings:

  Income from continuing operations. . . . . .   $  657,864      $  648,987 

  Undistributed equity earnings                     (22,729)        (28,158)   
                                                 -----------     ----------- 
      Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      635,135         620,829 
                                                 -----------     ----------- 

  Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      387,902         326,636 
                                                 -----------     ----------- 
 
Fixed Charges:

  Interest expense including amortization 
      of debt premium  . . . . . . . . . . . .      288,703         292,127 

  Portion of rentals representing an 
      interest factor. . . . . . . . . . . . .      104,984          77,720 
                                                 -----------     ----------- 

      Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . .      393,687         369,847 
                                                 -----------     ----------- 

Earnings available for fixed charges . . . . .   $1,416,724      $1,317,312 
                                                 ===========     =========== 



Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (Note 8). .          3.6             3.6 
                                                        ===             ===
# C_2004106EN.01003902.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/39

---

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-135/04)

(2004/C 106/68)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Gregorio Valero Jordano, member of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by allowing the practice of hunting migratory birds (woodpigeon – Columba palumbus) in Guipúzcoa, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by allowing the practice of hunting migratory birds (woodpigeon – Columba palumbus) in Guipúzcoa, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The hunting of returning migratory birds, ‘caza a contrapasa’, in this instance woodpigeon returning to their rearing grounds, entails a failure to comply with Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409.

None of the reasons put forward by the Kingdom of Spain to justify the practice of that type of hunting in Guipúzcoa is acceptable:

| — | adoption of a derogation from Article 7(4) on the basis of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive, since in this case the condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, which must be met for the system of exceptions to apply properly, is not fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

—

adoption of a derogation from Article 7(4) on the basis of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive, since in this case the condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, which must be met for the system of exceptions to apply properly, is not fulfilled.

| — | historical and cultural traditions and social convention, since those are not reasons capable of justifying the derogations laid down in Article 9, given that they are not mentioned in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

historical and cultural traditions and social convention, since those are not reasons capable of justifying the derogations laid down in Article 9, given that they are not mentioned in that provision.

| — | judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 252/85 Commission v France, since the judgment was given in relation to a derogation from Article 8(1) of the Directive relating to hunting methods. |
| --- | --- |

—

judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 252/85 Commission v France, since the judgment was given in relation to a derogation from Article 8(1) of the Directive relating to hunting methods.

---

(1)  OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979.

1

---
No. 49368.

#### Protests 95257-K, etc., of Wessel, Duval *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise consists o"f hides of cattle of the bovine species similar to those the subject of *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct.118, C. D. 807), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith certain of the hides in question entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to the effective date of the Argentine Trade Agreement (T. D. 50504) were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (a), and those entered or withdrawn from- warehouse for con•sumption on or after the effective (late of said trade agreement were hold dutiable at 5 percent under paragraph 1530 (a) and said trade agreement. The protests were •sustained to that extent.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for CSMC 2015-GLPA Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GLPA

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 15, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 8, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
## PUBLIC NOTICE 

# OF EPA’S 

## REVIEW

# OF MAINE 

# WATER QUALITY 

# STANDARD REVISIONS AS

# THEY APPLY IN 

## INDIAN TERRITORIES
The Maine Department of 

### Environmental Protection 

# DEP has submitted to the 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency 

# EPA a set of water quality standard 

# WQS revisions for 

### review under the federal 

### Clean Water Act section 

## 303

# c33

# US

# C 1313 DEP has specifically requested that 

## EPA approve these 

# WQS revisions to 

### apply statewide including in the Indian territories throughout 

## Maine citing the State’s authority under the 

## Maine Implementing Act 

# MIA 30

# MRSA 6401 et

## seq as ratified 

### bythe 

## Maine Indian 

### Claims Settlement 

### Act 

# MICSA 25

# US

# C 1721 et

# seq DEP provided public notice of the substance of these

# WQS revisions as they applied generally in the State but the notice did not explicitly indicate that

## DEP intended to seek 

## EPA’s approval of these revisions to apply in Indian territories In case this aspect of the State’s 

# WQS revisions 

## was unclear to 

## some members of the 

### public 

## EPA has 

### decided to solicit additional 

## comment on the approvability ofthese

# WQS in Indian territories 

## The revisions include 

### changes to the 

## human health 

### ambient water quality criteria for the allowable levels in surface waters for three toxic pollutants arsenic acrolein 

### and phenol For arsenic 

## DEP has 

### changed the cancer risk level 

### and fish 

### consumption rate for inorganic arsenic 

### used in calculating the criteria 

### and has revised the inorganic arsenic criteria 

### accordingly For acrolein 

### and phenol 

## DEP has 

### updated its 

### ambient water quality criteria consistent 

### with updates 

## EPA has 

## made to its 

## recommended criteria forthose pollutants 

### based on newly published reference 

### doses 

## EPA is inviting 

## comment on whether to 

### approve these 

# WQS revisions to apply in Indian territories in 

## Maine In particular 

## EPA asks for

### comments on the State’s authority 

### under the 

## MIA and 

## MICSA to set

# WQS in Indian territories 

### and on whether these 

# WQS revisions in particular adequately protect 

### water quality in Indian territories 

### The revised 

# WQS and supporting material the State submitted 

## may be obtained at 

### no cost 

### by contacting Ellen Weitzler at 

# USEPA 5 Post Office 

### Square Suite 

## 100 Mail code 

# OEP06

# 2 Boston 

# MA 02109 2912 Telephone 

## 617 9181582 email weitzler

## ellen

# EPAgov Commentsmust be submitted no later than 

### September 

## 132013 by mail or

### email to Ellen Weitzler at the 

### above addresses