alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aggregated Perspectives on Treasury Auction Sizes, April 25, 2016

Tranche

MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD

Bills

4-week 21 3.3 57 3.8 14 4.6

13-week 20 2.4 39 2.8 9 1.6

26-week 20 1.9 37 3.3 7 0.8

52-week 17 2.5 30 2.6 5 1.1

Coupons

2-year 21 1.8 40 3.9 4 1.2

3-year 20 1.5 37 5.3 3 1.0

5-year 28 1.8 41 2.6 3 0.9

7-year 23 1.9 34 1.5 3 1.0

10-year 19 1.1 29 1.0 3 0.8

30-year 11 1.3 19 1.3 2 0.4

TIPS

5-year 13 0.8 20 1.2 2 0.7

10-year 10 1.0 18 1.3 2 0.7

30-year 6 0.2 11 0.9 2 0.5

FRN

2-year 10 0.2 19 1.2 4 1.8

The Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management (ODM) surveyed all 22 primary dealers on April 25, 2016 on their firms’ 

perspectives on current Treasury auction sizes. The results presented below are “trimmed mean” and “trimmed standard deviation”. 

That is, the high and low values of all 22 responses for any maturity tranche are deleted before computing the average and standard 

deviation.

Minimum Auction Size needed to 

maintain Benchmark Liquidity ($bil)

Maximum Auction Size that could be 

issued without causing significant 

yield deviations from fair value ($bil)

Maximum change (+/-) per quarter in 

auction size ($bil)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 18

- 0971

_____________________________ G ERNARD C HESTNUT , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpu s

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 10, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is d ismissed as unauthorized. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)

. B ILBREY , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur
.

_____________________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Gernard Chestnut, pro se , Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
Page 1 of 1 

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rulemaking to Address the Process for Tribes to Obtain 

Treatment in a Similar Manner as States for the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing 

and Total Maximum Daily Load Program – Meeting with the National Tribal Water 

Council 

 Wednesday, June 10, 2015 

2:00-3:30 p.m. Eastern Time 

Meeting Summary 

EPA Moderator: Felicia Wright, EPA Office of Water Tribal Coordinator 

EPA Presenter: Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology 

Participants: Approximately 10 tribal members of the Council 

The planned proposed rulemaking to address the process for tribes to obtain treatment in a 

similar manner as states for the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing and Total Maximum 

Daily Load Program was one of several on the agenda. A planned proposed rulemaking fact 

sheet (May 2015) of the same name was provided to invitees in advance of the meeting and is 

available in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0622. 

Fred Leutner provided a brief overview of the planned proposed rule. Several participants 

expressed their support for the action. Participants raised no questions or issues.
# Official Journal L 47/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 47 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5218 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 47

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5218 February 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 135/2009 of 17 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2009 of 17 February 2009 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 945/2008 for the 2008/2009 marketing year | 3 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version) | 5 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 135/2009 of 17 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2009 of 17 February 2009 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 945/2008 for the 2008/2009 marketing year

3

DIRECTIVES

*

Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version)

5

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

*

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### David Fischer et al., Appellants, v Zalman Deitsch et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. David Fischer et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the respective interests of the parties in a corporation, the plaintiff and third-party defendant David Fischer, the plaintiff 760 Montgomery Street Corp., and the third-party defendant Shipur Hashchuna Management Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 5, 1989, which denied their motion to disqualify counsel for the defendants third-party plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The facts underlying this appeal are set forth in the companion case *(Fischer v Deitsch,*168 AD2d 599 [decided herewith]). Pertinent to this appeal, however, the appellants assert that the law firm representing the defendants third-party plaintiffs must be disqualified because the appellant David Fischer had, on several occasions during the years 1983-1986, conferred with one of the attorneys of that firm on matters relevant to this litigation. We disagree.

The disqualification of an attorney is a matter which rests within the sound discretion of the court *(see, Mondello v Mondello,*118 AD2d 549, 550). Upon our review of the instant record, we are satisfied that the matters which the appellant David Fischer disclosed to the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ attorneys were unrelated to the instant action, and were disclosed outside the scope of any attorney-client relation. Accordingly, those attorneys’ participation in the instant action does not give rise to any appearance of impropriety or any conflict of interest *(see, Matter of Hof,*102 AD2d 591). Indeed, David Fischer conceded that he did not disclose any information regarding any of the properties which are the subject matter of the instant action. Since David Fischer discussed only matters "separate and apart from the case at bar” *(FSB Props. v Chait,*101 AD2d 848, 849), disqualification is not mandated. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 17 ) IV-E-1 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 17 of 117P. 2 

### ZEZT-^-l^r. Jul y 20,199 8 MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Recor

d o f Decembe r 23,199 7 Conferenc e Call wit h PatRaher

- and-JohnHolme s TO : NS R Refor

mDocke t (Numbe r A=92=8 ) A - -30

- 3 7 ' r FROM : Denni s Crumpler , NS RRefor mTea mLeader , II G ITPI D Participants : 

# L JU L 2 8

Lydi aWegma n Bruc e Buckhei t To mCurra n Gre g Foot e Caro l Holme s Mar k Kataok a Denni s Crumple r Da n DeRoec k Lyn n Hutchinso n Pa t Rahe r Joh n Holme s U S EPA , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s U S EPA , Offic e o f

Enforcemen t

an d Complianc e Assuranc e U S EPA , Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s U S EPA , Offic e o f

Genera l Counse l U S EPA , Offic e o f

Enforcemen t

an d Complianc e Assuranc e U S EPA , Offic e o f

Genera l Counse l U S EPA , Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s U S EPA , Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s U S EPA , Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s Hoga n & Hartso n Consultan t

for Hoga n & Hartso n Thi s conferenc e call wa s convened as afollow-u p t o alunch-tim

e meetin g on Decembe r 16 , 1997 i n Ne

w Orleans , Louisiana , regarding overlapping issue s of EPA' s evolving ne w sourc e review rule s fo

r transitio n area s unde

r th e ne w Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s fo

r ozone an d PM 25 i an d th e NS RRefor

mrevision s tha

t wer e propose d in th e Federa

l Register , July 23 , 199 6 . Th e followin g item s wer

e discussed : Severa l variant s of

th e actual-to-future-actual-emission s applicabilit y tes t tha t i s currentl yP. 3

allowed fo r existin g utilitie s an

d th e propose d extensio n o f th e tes t t o othe r industrie s i

n th e notic e fo

r th e NS RReform . Th

e grou p agreed tha

t enforceable limit s o n future

actual-emission s wa s no t

ver y differen t tha n th e existin g system , an

d s o woul d probabl

y not enjo y wid e sprea d acceptanc e a s abette

r system . M r Rahe r suggeste d tha

t man y industr y constituent s woul d prefe

r moving ahea

d wit h Refor mto adoptin g new rule s fo

r NS Rpermittin g syste

mfo r th e transitio n area s unde

r th e ne w NAAQ S tha

t wa s describe d in aOctobe

r 31,199 7 concept

paper . Mr . Rahe

r an d Mr . Holme s identified the mos t favore d Reform s according t

o industr y constituent s the

y represent . Mr . Rahe

r state d tha t th e propose d Clas s I provisions , would need t o b e revise d in orde

r fo r industr y t o b e willin g t

o accept them . Everyone agreed tha

t ameetin g wit

h thi s grou p NRD C an

d the Federa

l Lan d Manager s wa s necessar

y t o begi n working ou

t aresolutio n of

theXlas s I issues .
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 362 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 362

 To designate March 20 through 26, 1995, as ``National Long-Term Care 
                         Administrators Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1994

  Mr. Pete Geren of Texas (for himself and Mr. Cramer) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post 
                        Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To designate March 20 through 26, 1995, as ``National Long-Term Care 
                         Administrators Week''.

Whereas long-term care administrators manage the day-to-day operations of over 
        20,000 nursing homes in the United States; and
Whereas over 1,800,000 elderly and chronically ill individuals place their well-
        being in the hands of the administrators and the staff they supervise: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That March 20 through 26, 
1995, is designated as ``National Long-Term Care Administrators Week'', 
and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to 
observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
#### ANDERSON v. STATE.

No. 21534.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 2, 1941.

E. T. Brooks, of Abilene, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

. BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This prosecution originated in the justice court where a fine of $5 was assessed against appellant for *malicious*mischief. Upon appeal to the county court the jury assessed a penalty of $50, from which appellant attempts to bring the case to this court on appeal.

This court has no jurisdiction under the record as presented, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Proposed Recommendation from FACI to FIO from the Availability Subcommittee 

Study Impact of Systemic Racism and Inherent Bias in Insurance Markets 

September 29, 2020 

Recommendation: FACI recommends that the Federal Insurance Office conduct analyses of the 

presence of disparate impact or proxy discrimination against protected classes in the sale of 

private passenger auto and residential property to consumers and business owners insurance to 

small businesses. 

Discussion: 

The United States of America is grappling with the legacy of structural racism and systemic bias 

and the recognition that their effects are persistent and widespread in contemporary America. 

Such structural racism has sweeping impacts on communities of color including on health, 

welfare, and quality of life. 

Proxy discrimination or disparate impact refers to facially neutral practices in employment, 

housing, lending, insurance, and other areas that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of 

a protected class characteristic. 

Insurance companies use a variety of data sources, including personal consumer and business 

information and information about the natural and built environment, in algorithms for every 

aspect of insurer operations, including marketing, sales, claim settlement and antifraud. These 

data sources and the related algorithms are the gatekeepers for access to insurance and insurance 

claims, impacting the availability and cost of the essential financial and economic development 

insurance tools. 

The types of personal consumer information used includes occupation, level of education, 

marital status, homeownership status, credit history, and prior coverage and these, as well as 

other data and consumer characteristics may result in a disparate impact on consumers and small 

business owners according to race and ethnicity. Such disparate impact harms those customers 

by decreasing the availability of affordable insurance products and may be avoided or 

minimized. 

The Federal Insurance Office is charged with monitoring the extent to which traditionally 

underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable non-health insurance 

products. It would be consistent with FIO’s mandate as well as with concerns raised numerous 

stakeholders about insurers’ use of big data analytics for FIO to conduct analyses of the presence 

of disparate impact or proxy discrimination against protected classes in the sale of private 

passenger auto and residential property to consumers and business owners insurance to small 

businesses.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3848

___________

Leigh-Davis Glass, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Scottrade, Inc., a SIPC Insured *

Brokerage Firm, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Scottrade Brokerage, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 6, 2009

Filed: December 10, 2009

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

California prisoner Leigh-Davis Glass appeals the District Court’s order

denying her motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking

to reopen her case, which the court dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a partial filing fee was not paid within

thirty days as ordered. Following careful review, we conclude that the District Court

abused its discretion in declining to reopen the case because Glass explained that she

acted promptly to attempt to comply with the Court’s order and that the $3.47

payment was late for reasons beyond her control. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable
-2-

Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866–68 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of

review; factors which must be taken into account include (1) danger of prejudice to

non-moving party; (2) length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings;

(3) whether movant acted in good faith; and (4) reason for delay, including whether

it was within movant’s reasonable control). It appears that Glass acted in good faith

and that the delay was neither lengthy nor prejudicial.

 In addition, we reject Glass's argument on appeal that the filing-fee provisions

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) do not apply to her action. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (addressing in forma pauperis procedures for the "commencement, prosecution

or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein"). The

filing-fee provisions of the PLRA apply to civil actions and are not limited solely to

prisoner-civil-rights actions. United States v. Jones, 215 F.3d 467, 469 (4th Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1053 (2001). Accordingly, Glass is not entitled to a

waiver or refund of any filing fees. 

We reverse the District Court’s order denying Rule 60(b) relief, and we remand

for further proceedings.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BERTHEL GROWTH & INCOME TRUST
I AS OF SEPTEMBER 39, 1997 AND THE UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE
TRUST FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,188
<SECURITIES>                                 7,478,495
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,500,686
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,573,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          821,223
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,751,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,573,097
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               409,824
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               293,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                116,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            116,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   116,093
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.80
        

</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cr-00301-Y Document 59 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 120
Case 4:22-cr-00301-Y Document 59 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 121
**Exhibit32.1**

## CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SureWest Communications (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: October 30, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Oldham    |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Steven C. Oldham,       |
|                   |   | President and           |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to SureWest Communications and will be retained by SureWestCommunications and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed aspart of the Form 10-Q.

----
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1063

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and

Records Commission for fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1999.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. SHARP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Operations

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission for fiscal year 1994

through fiscal year 1999.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of section 2504 of

5 title 44, United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking out ‘‘and’’

7 after the semicolon;

8 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking out the pe9 riod and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
2

•HR 1063 IH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraphs:

3 ‘‘(D) $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal

4 years 1994 and 1995;

5 ‘‘(E) $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal

6 years 1996 and 1997; and

7 ‘‘(F) $18,000,000 for each of the fiscal

8 years 1998 and 1999.’’.

9 SEC. 2. SEPARATE APPROPRIATION REQUIREMENT.

10 Subsection (f) of section 2504 of title 44, United

11 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow12 ing new paragraph:

13 ‘‘(3) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under

14 this subsection shall be appropriated separately from

15 amounts appropriated for the National Archives and

16 Records Administration.’’.

Æ