alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aggregated Perspectives on Treasury Auction Sizes, October 2019

MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD 

Coupons

40.4 0.9 38.9 1.5 42.8 1.6 43.4 2.1 41.0 1.8 45.9 2.7 45.5 2.3 38.4 0.9 36.9 1.4 41.0 1.9 41.4 2.1 38.9 1.9 43.7 2.6 43.4 2.2 41.4 0.9 40.2 0.9 43.6 1.5 44.2 1.9 42.0 1.6 46.0 2.4 46.0 2.1 32.2 0.5 31.3 0.8 34.1 1.0 34.6 1.8 32.6 1.4 36.4 2.0 36.1 2.4 27.2 0.4 26.4 0.7 28.8 0.8 28.9 1.0 27.4 0.9 30.4 1.3 30.2 1.8 24.2 0.4 23.5 0.7 25.9 1.3 26.0 1.1 24.5 0.7 27.6 1.6 27.3 1.8 19.2 0.4 18.5 0.6 20.5 0.7 20.9 1.0 19.4 0.7 22.0 1.2 22.1 1.7 16.2 0.4 15.5 0.6 17.7 1.0 17.9 1.1 16.5 0.7 19.3 1.1 19.1 1.7 

TIPS

17.2 0.4 16.7 0.7 18.4 0.7 18.1 0.8 17.2 1.0 19.5 1.0 18.9 1.2 15.2 0.4 14.7 0.7 16.4 0.7 16.1 0.9 15.2 1.0 17.6 1.0 16.9 1.2 14.1 0.4 13.7 0.6 15.3 0.6 15.0 0.9 14.1 0.9 16.4 1.0 15.6 1.3 12.0 0.2 11.6 0.7 13.1 0.7 12.9 0.8 12.0 1.0 14.2 1.0 13.6 1.3 

8.3 0.5 7.8 0.5 9.1 0.7 8.8 0.8 8.1 0.8 10.0 1.1 9.4 1.2 7.0 0.4 6.5 0.7 7.7 0.8 7.4 0.9 6.6 0.9 8.5 1.2 8.0 1.1 

FRNs

20.0 0.0 18.8 1.5 21.4 0.8 21.4 1.0 19.7 1.6 23.1 1.5 22.5 1.7 18.0 0.2 16.8 1.7 19.3 0.8 19.5 1.1 17.7 1.8 20.9 1.2 20.5 1.7 

Bills

51.0 5.8 41.7 5.6 61.8 7.4 55.5 6.3 45.6 7.3 65.4 7.2 58.8 6.6 40.1 4.2 33.6 4.5 48.2 5.0 43.9 6.3 37.1 6.4 51.5 6.1 47.7 8.4 46.4 3.2 41.1 4.7 53.4 4.3 48.7 4.0 44.1 5.2 55.6 4.8 51.7 5.3 42.7 3.0 38.6 4.1 48.1 3.7 45.4 3.7 41.1 4.4 50.7 4.6 48.2 5.2 28.2 1.7 26.4 1.5 30.8 2.4 29.3 2.7 27.1 2.5 32.0 3.4 30.4 2.7 

3-mo bill6-mo bill1-year bill30-year TIPS (new)30-year TIPS (reop)2-year FRN2-year FRN (reop)1-mo bill2-mo bill30-year (new)30-year (reop)5-year TIPS (new)5-year TIPS (reop)10-year TIPS (new)10-year TIPS (reop)2-year3-year5-year7-year10-year (new)10-year (reop)

Low High Low High 

The Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management (ODM) would like your perspectives on Treasury auction sizes. This information would be used to help test ODM’s debt-issuance m

reflect potential policy decisions. We appreciate your participation in a similar survey conducted in April 2019, and the aggregate response can be found online at

https://www.treasury.gov/resource‐center/data‐chart‐center/quarterly‐refunding/Pages/archived‐auction‐survey.aspxGiven your expectations for the borrowing needs over the next three fiscal years (as presented in question 1), Treasury would like your expectations for:1. Auction sizes ($bln) in all tenors by the end of FY20, FY21, and FY22, and 2. Auction size ranges ($bln) that would not surprise you across all tenors by the end of FY20, FY21, and FY22.Auction size estimates should take into account the amount needed to address SOMA redemptions of Treasury securities.The Treasury Department’s ODM surveyed all 24 primary dealers on their firms’ perspectives on Treasury auction sizes. The results presented below are “trimmed mean” and “trimmed stalow values of all 24 responses for any maturity tranche are deleted before computing the average and standard deviation.

Tenor

Size Expectations 

for FY20 Year-End

Range that would not surprise you Size Expectations 

for FY21 Year-End

Range that would not surprise you Size Expectations 

for FY22 Year-End
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 26

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the right to life.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the right to life.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified

6 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States

7 within seven years after the date of final passage of this

8 joint resolution:
2

HJ 26 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the

3 word ‘person’ as used in this article and in the fifth and

4 fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of

5 the United States applies to all human beings irrespective

6 of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, in7 cluding their unborn offspring at every stage of their bio8 logical development.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of

10 life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this

11 article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical

12 procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States

14 shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate

15 legislation.’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP00-14-000, CP00-15-000, and CP00-16-000]

On December 1, 2000, the Office of Energy Projects staff will conduct a site visit at various locations of the proposed facilities of the Buccaneer Gas Pipeline Project in Pasco County, Florida with representatives of Buccaneer Gas Pipeline Company and others. The site visit will start at 9:30 am at the Pasco County Park on Bailey's Bluff Road about one-half mile north of the Anclote Plant Site. Sites to be visited include Gulftrace Subdivision at Milepost (MP) 3.5, State Route 54 near MP 17, a wetland and route near MP 29, route crossing near MP 43, and possibly other locations.

All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must provide their own transportation.

For further information, or if attending, please contact Laura Turner in the Office of Energy Projects at (202) 208-0916.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29867  Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. et al. v. PURCELL CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 21, 1951.

*918Allen, Duncan, Duncan & Arnold, Lexington, for appellants.

Harbison, ICessinger, Lisle & Bush, Lexington, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying the Travelers Indemnity Company recovery on a subrogation claim they held against The Purcell Company for the loss of a fur coat which had been placed in storage at Purcell’s. The owner of the coat had declared its value at $100 at the time of storage, and had paid a proportionate storage rate therefor. The coat was covered by an insurance policy of its owner with Travelers, and Travelers paid the owner $1,000 for Purcell’s loss of the stored coat. The owner also received and accepted a check of Purcell’s for $100 which was intended to release the latter of all liability for the loss of the coat.

The storage receipt expressly limited Purcell’s liability to $100. On the back of the receipt, Section 4 reads: “The value set opposite each article or articles in this receipt is accepted by the owner placing the goods as the maximum value of such article or articles, and *in no event*shall we be liable for an amount in excess of the value so placed.” (Emphasis ours.)

The coat was lost when The Purcell Company in an attempt to accommodate the owner who had requested its shipment to her at New Orleans, apparently mis-shipped it.

Travelers contends that the limitation of liability does not cover the negligence of Purcell’s in the shipment of the garment, but was intended to limit loss or damage to the coat while in storage from moths, fire, theft and water. The gist of their contention is that Purcell’s negligence, if any, in attempting to ship the coat to its owner was not covered by the storage contract and that public policy precludes a bailee for hire limiting its liability for negligence or fraud.

It is our opinion that the wording of Section 4 which we have quoted does not exempt Purcell’s liability from negligence, but sets the value of the article and thus limits the amount of recovery no matter what the cause of the loss except in the case of fraud. There is no fraud alleged here and no question but that the owner of the coat limited its value to $100 when she stored it. See Central Storage Warehouse Company v. Pickering, 114 Ohio State 76, 151 N.E. 39, 142 A.L.R. 768; Laurens v. Jenney’s, Inc., 77 Ohio App. 291, 66 N.E.2d 777; Schoen v. Wallace, 334 Ill.App. 294, 78 N.E.2d 801; Fidelity Storage Co. v. Kingsbury, 64 App.D.C. 208, 76 F.2d 978; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Fuqua, 150 Ark. 145, 233 S.W. 926.

This being our conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to pass upon other points raised such as whether the acceptance of Purcell’s check for $100 by the owner was a complete release of liability.

The judgment is affirmed.
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH REIMBURSEMENT FOR

LOCAL, COUNTY OR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

PARTICIPATING IN JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

WITH TREASURY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

TREASURY AGENCY. OCDETF? YES NO EOAF TRACKING NUMBER

OCDETF CASE NUMBER: (WILL BE ASSIGNED BY TEOAF)

MAILING ADDRESS:

IFOR 

OVERTIME: _YES NO

FOR OTHER YES NOICONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER

CONTACT PERSON:

IREQUE~TE:

TREASURY AGENCY FIElD OFFICE

APPROVAL (NAME & SIGNATURE)

TREASURYAGENCYHEADOUARTERS

APPROVAL (NAME. SIGNATURE & DATE)

FULL NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE

AND TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

OF LOCAL. COUNTY STATE AGENCY

EXPENSES TO BE REIMBURSED ESTIMATED COSTS

TFF APPROVAL AND DATE TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

ACCOUNTING DATA:

BFYS:

PROGRAM:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 300 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 300

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Providing for the convening of the second session of the One Hundred 
                            Third Congress.



                                     


103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 300


_______________________________________________________________________


                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
 Providing for the convening of the second session of the One Hundred 
                            Third Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, 
That the second regular session of the One Hundred Third Congress shall 
begin at noon on Tuesday, January 25, 1994.
    Sec. 2. That prior to the convening of the second regular session 
of the One Hundred Third Congress on January 25, 1994, as provided in 
section 1 of this resolution, Congress shall reassemble at noon on the 
second day after its Members are notified in accordance with section 3 
of this resolution.
    Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of 
the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 23 
      (legislative day, November 22), 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
October 27, 2000

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2000-8204.
    Date Filed: October 27, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC23 AFR-TC3 0108 dated 10 October 2000, TC23/TC123 
Africa-TC3 Resolutions r1-r43, PTC23 AFR-TC3 0110 dated 20 October 
2000, Technical Correction, Minutes--PTC23 AFR-TC3 0109 dated 20 
October 2000, Tables--PTC23 AFR-TC3 FARES 0048 dated 20 October 2000, 
Intended effective date: 1 April 2001.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-8205.
    Date Filed: October 27, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC23 ME-TC3 0104 dated 3 October 2000, TC23/TC123 Middle 
East-TC3 Resolutions r1-r52, Minutes--PTC23 ME-TC3 0105 dated 27 
October 2000, Tables--PTC23 ME-TC3 FARES 0045 dated 10 October 2000, 
Intended effective date: 1 April 2001.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-8208.
    Date Filed: October 27, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC1 0166 dated 27 October 2000, Mail Vote 092--Resolution 
010k, TC1 Caribbean Special Passenger Amending Resolution, Intended 
effective date: 15 November 2000.

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-29236 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DULCE MARIA GARCIA VALDEZ,

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72155 

Agency No. A208-118-305

 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHRODER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Dulce Maria Garcia Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72155 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm 

Garcia Valdez suffered in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim 

v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute 

past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so 

menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” (quotation and citation 

omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that 

Garcia Valdez failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future 

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility 

of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Garcia Valdez’s asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Garcia Valdez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, 

she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. 

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

In her opening brief, Garcia Valdez fails to challenge the agency’s denial of 

CAT relief; thus, it is waived. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 
3 18-72155 

1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in 

waiver).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 347

To designate July 23, 1994, as ‘‘General Bernardo de Galvez Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mrs. FOWLER (for herself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mr. DIAZ-BALART) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate July 23, 1994, as ‘‘General Bernardo de Galvez

Day’’.

Whereas few Americans have an appreciation of Spain’s role

and that of Spanish citizens in the American War of

Independence;

Whereas some of the missing pages of history of that fight

for freedom and independence have revealed the significant contributions of Spain, and General Bernardo de

Galvez in particular, to American history;

Whereas there are strategically important accounts of General de Galvez who, having been appointed Governor of

the Louisiana Territory in 1777, sought to provide aid
2

•HJ 347 IH

and comfort to American freedom fighters with cattle,

money, munitions, uniforms, and other material;

Whereas General de Galvez, the youngest governor of the

Spanish colonies, personally led troops against the British, driving them out of the Louisiana Territory and the

Gulf of Mexico, assuring their surrender, and ultimately

helping to secure Washington’s final War of Independence victory at Yorktown;

Whereas General de Galvez is recognized as having played a

significant role in our young republic’s fight for freedom

and independence during the American Revolution;

Whereas his intervention on behalf of the American cause has

earned him a place in history as a friend of the American

people and a hero of the War of Independence;

Whereas General de Galvez was a vital player in the defense

of our great States of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas and captured such cities as Pensacola, Baton Rouge, Natchez, Mobile, San Antonio, and

Galveston to aid our young country, and for this reason

he should be so honored; and

Whereas General Bernardo de Galvez, a friend of the American people and a hero of the War of Independence, deserves renewed honors and national recognition, particularly on July 23, his birthday: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That July 23 is designated as ‘‘General Bernardo de

4 Galvez Day’’, and the President is authorized and re5 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people
3

•HJ 347 IH

1 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

2 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes. In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, James G. Bradley, 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; and2.
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. Dated: May 10, 2005
    /s/      Paul J. MooneyChief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
Exhibit to this report and should not be considered filed as a part of this report.
#### In the Matter of Marriott Corporation, Appellant, v Henry W. Rose et al., Respondents, and Donald LaRocca, Intervenor-Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, which denied its application for a special exception, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered August 10, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner leased a parcel of property located in the Town of Hempstead, partly in an area zoned as a business district and partly in an area zoned as a residence district. Situated in the business district part of the property is a restaurant onto which the petitioner proposes to add a "drive-thru” facility whereby customers can obtain fast food from order and pick-up stations without leaving their vehicles. The petitioner applied for a special exception under the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance § 272 (c) (14), which application was denied, after a hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The Supreme Court properly confirmed the Board of Zoning *683Appeals determination. An applicant is not entitled to a special exception as of right *(see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals,*43 NY2d 801, 802). Where the use is not expressly listed as a permitted one in a use district, board action "refusing to grant a 'special exception’ is by definition and in essential character discretionary and not denial of a right” *(Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin,*11 NY2d 20, 24; *see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, supra).*In the instant case, the petitioner’s proposed use did not meet certain criteria under the zoning ordinance, which had to be complied with before the Board could give its approval *(see,*Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance § 267 [D] [2]). The determination of the Board that the petitioner’s application did not meet the standards in the ordinance governing the granting of special exceptions is sufficiently supported in the record. Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.