alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

CASUAL PAYMENT CENTER

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE BOISE, ID 83705-5354

PHONE: 877-471-2262 FAX: 208-433-6405

EMAIL: CASUALPAY@BLM.GOV

 

ECI REQUEST FORM

Please provide or create ECIs for the following individuals: 

Hired At Casual Name (First, Middle, Last) ECI (CPC Use Only) SSN

Please note: ECIs may be different in length. Although the ECI field allows up to 10-digits, they each have leading zeroes which are not required. 

Please indicate the piece of the ECI indicated above only when submitting OF-288s for casuals.

Requestor: 

☐Email to: 

Approving Official Signature: 

Privacy Act Statement: Information on this form is collected under the authority of the Administratively Determined (AD) Pay Plan. Information collected via this form is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and Privacy Act 

System of Records Notice DOI-85. The primary use of this information is to start, stop, or change entitlements and to process any voluntary or involuntary deductions on pay and leave issues. The information you furnish will 

be used to identify records properly associated with you, to obtain additional information to update your record, if necessary, and to determine any present or future entitlement. Disclosure may be made only to authorized 

persons according to Title 5 USC 552a and for uses described in System of Records Notices DOI-85. Submission of the information in this form is voluntary; however, requests will not be completed without the information 

needed to process the request

Revised 01/2024.
#### Norris *v.*Mineral Point Tunnel and others.

*(Circuit*Court, *S. D. New York.*

April 23, 1881.)

1. Removal—Mistake in Petition.

A case is removable, under the act of 1875, when the petition sets forth the necessary facts, although the removal is erroneously prayed for under section 639 of the Revised Statutes.

2. Same—Act op 1875.

The act of 1875 is not repealed by the marginal reference to the same in section 639 of the second edition of the Revised Statutes.— [Ed.

Motion to Remand.

*E. B. Mead,*for plaintiff.

*J. F. Harrison,*for defendants;

Blatchford, C. J.

The only objection to the jurisdiction of this court herein is that the petition for removal made by the plaintiff states that he desires to remove the suit into this court in pursuance of section 639, subd. 3, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and that he did not file in the state court an affidavit as to prejudice or local influence, as required by that subdivision. The prayer of the petition is that the suit may be removed “pursuant to the aforesaid act.” The petition states facts which make out a case for removal under the first. clause of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470.) The plaintiff was, at the time the suit was brought, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and the defendants were then—some of them— citizens of New York, and the rest citizens of Massachusetts. The mistake in the petition, by referring to the wrong statute, is unimportant, when the facts set forth in it make a case for removal under the act of 1875.*

The defendants contend that there is no existing statute, but section 639 of the Revised Statutes, under which a removal of a suit can take place; that in the second edition of the Revised Statutes, published in 1878, under authority of the act of March 2, 1877, (19 St. at Large, 268,) there is in the margin, opposite section 639, a reference to the act of *273March 3, 1875; that the effect of this is to repeal the act of 1875, and that section 639 is left thus to be the only existing law. This point was overruled by this court in *McLean*v. *St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co.*17 Blatchf. 363. The reference in the margin is made under the provision of the act of 1877, that the commissioner shall make marginal reference to statutes passed by congress since December 1, 1873, which may, in his opinion, in any manner affect or modify any of the provisions of the Revised Statutes, but which are not expressly therein declared to be amendments of the Revised Statutes; hence the marginal reference. It has been held that subdivision 1 of section 639 is superseded by the act of 1875.

The motion to remand the cause is denied. The petition for removal was filed, and the bond was filed and approved, March 17th. The answer served after that was served after the state court had lost its jurisdiction. The defendants may have 20 days to file and serve their answer.

*

See upon this point *Ruckman*v. *Ruckman,*1 Fed. Rep. 587.
-  Home 
        -  Research & Funding 
        -  Current Funding Opportunities 
        -  Multidisciplinary Studies of HIV/AIDS and Aging (R21 Clinical Trial Optional) 

View Current Funding Opportunities

# Multidisciplinary Studies of HIV/AIDS and Aging (R21 Clinical Trial Optional)

This NOFO invites applications at the intersection of HIV and aging by proposing research that aims to meet the following objectives:1) Improve the understanding of biological, clinical, and socio-behavioral aspects of aging through the lens of HIV infection and its treatment; and2) Improve approaches for testing, preventing, and treating HIV infection, and managing HIV-related comorbidities, co-infections, and complications in different populations and cultural settings by applying current aging science approaches.Proposed research must be consistent with the HIV/AIDS Research Priorities outlined by NIHs Office of AIDS Research (OAR), as described inNOT-OD-20-018.

### Funding Opportunity Details

Full Announcement:PAR-24-092Related Notices or Announcements:                None            

Program Contact:Peter J Perrin, Ph.D.

R21 - Exploratory/Developmental Grant

NOTE: The NIDDK does not co-sponsor the NIH Exploratory Developmental Research Grant Program (Parent R21). The NIDDK will continue to accept R21 applications submitted in response to targeted NIDDK solicitations.

### Key Dates

Open Date:            5/16/2024        

Letter of Intent Due Date:            Not Applicable
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2618 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Hydroxypropylmethlycellulose. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2- 

Hydroxypropylmethlycellulose. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-HYDROXYPROPYLMETHLYCELLULOSE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2618 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2- 

Hydroxypropylmethlycellulose 

containing a hydroxypropyl 

content between 7–17 percent 

by weight, a methoxyl content 

between 28–30 percent by 

weight, and viscosity of 30– 

70 cps (CAS No. 9004–65–3) 

(provided for in subheading 

3912.39.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet found on page 3 and consolidated statement
of operations found on page 5 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the
year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  1,349,608
<SECURITIES>                            8,887,500
<RECEIVABLES>                             771,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                               151,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,349,287
<PP&E>                                  8,293,037
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,434,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         16,436,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   3,781,324
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                              8,697,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           16,436,897
<SALES>                                 3,590,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,590,121
<CGS>                                   2,061,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,061,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,022,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (405,457)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (849,808)
<INCOME-TAX>                               38,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (888,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (888,058)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.29)


</TABLE>
-  Home 
        -  News 
        -  Media Library 
        -  Media Asset Details 

Return to Media Library Search Results

# C5 Proteins Helping the Immune System Fight Infection

View full-sized image
                Download Media **Please credit each image as: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

## Description

                    C5 proteins helping the immune system fight an infection.                

## Alternate Text

C5 proteins helping the immune system fight an infection.

## File Size

37 KB | 375 x 375

## File Type

JPEG

## Related Keywords

English labels

Share this page
FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2531

   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
  women's footwear, valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, with a 
                  coated or laminated textile fabric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
  women's footwear, valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, with a 
                  coated or laminated textile fabric.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR, VALUED OVER $23/PAIR, COVERING THE 
              ANKLE, WITH A COATED OR LAMINATED TEXTILE FABRIC.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.75 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain women's footwear, 
valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, with a coated or laminated 
textile fabric) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$20/pair'' and inserting ``$23/pair''; 
        and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective column period and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Downloads

Attention *Do What's Right* participants and facilitators:Downloadable zip files for the *Do What's Right* video series are available on this page.

Download All Section A Videos (928.6 MB) **

Download All Section B Videos (1.2 GB) **

Download All Section C Videos (5.1 GB) **

Download All Section D Videos (484.8 MB) **

Download All Section E Videos (376.6 MB) **

Download All Section F Videos (538.1 MB) **

Download All Section G Videos (1.4 GB) **

Download All Section H Videos (84.7 MB) **
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6981

WILLIAM ELWOOD WELLER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-241)

Submitted: November 10, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Daniel Stowe, RANDOLPH D. STOWE, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellant. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. To the extent that Weller challenges

the exclusion on due process grounds of evidence allegedly tending

to show the guilt of other individuals, we note that, even though

Weller failed to present the claim in this form before the Virginia

Court of Appeals, because the Virginia Supreme Court did not rely

on this procedural bar in its decision, Weller is not barred from

asserting this claim in a federal habeas petition. See Coleman v.

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). However, much of this evidence was

hearsay, and the remainder was irrelevant.

To the extent that Weller challenges on federal due process

grounds the state court’s refusal to permit the defense to call a

witness as adverse and the state court’s exclusion of certain

testimony, Weller failed to properly exhaust these claims, see

Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997), and would be

procedurally barred from raising the claims now in a second state

habeas petition. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(2) (Michie 1992 &

Supp. 1998); Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 936-37 (4th Cir.

1991). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district

court. See Weller v. Angelone, No. CA-97-241 (E.D. Va. June 4,
3

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cenex Harvest States
Cooperatives (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, John D. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ JOHN D. JOHNSON
-------------------------------------
John D. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 4, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alicia Lewie, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997 and Consolidated Statement
of Operations for the nine months ended June 30, 1997, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (59)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,963
<PP&E>                                          24,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,065
<BONDS>                                         22,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              222
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,639
<SALES>                                          6,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,352
<CGS>                                            5,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,508)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,628)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.25)
        

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2574 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Ethyl [4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-[[[[methyl(1- 

methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]amino]carbonyl]phenyl] carbamate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. BOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Ethyl [4-chloro-2-fluoro5-[[[[methyl(1- 

methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]amino]carbonyl]phenyl] carbamate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHYL [4-CHLORO-2-FLUORO-5-[[[[METHYL(1- 

4 METHYLETHYL)AMINO] 

5 SULFONYL]AMINO]CARBONYL]PHENYL] CAR6 BAMATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2574 IS

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ethyl [4-chloro-2-fluoro-5- 

[[[[methyl(1- 

methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl] 

amino]carbonyl]phenyl] carbamate (CAS No. 874909– 

61–2) (provided for in subheading 2929.90.15) ............. 5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
[948 NE2d 1290, 925 NYS2d 6]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Melendez, Appellant.

Argued March 22, 2011;

decided May 3, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Office of the Appellate Defender,*New York City *(Lisa*A. *Packard*and *Richard M. Greenberg*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney,*Bronx *(Rafael Curbelo, Jennifer Marinaccio*and *Joseph N. Ferdenzi*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in not unequivocally conveying to the jury that the People were required to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Victor,*62 NY2d 374 [1984]) is unpreserved.

During the charge conference, defense counsel asked the court to deliver an alibi charge, arguing that the People must disprove *870alibi beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed to give the charge, noting that the pattern Criminal Jury Instruction had been amended to provide that the People could meet that burden by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime. The following day, the court showed the parties its proposed alibi charge, and again pointed out that the charge had recently been modified. Defense counsel neither objected to the court’s proposed charge nor voiced an objection to the charge after it was given to the jury, thereby failing to alert the trial court to his current claim that the amended charge did not adequately instruct the jury that the People bear the burden of disproving a defendant’s alibi defense *(see People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 279-280 [1983]).

Likewise unpreserved are defendant’s contentions that the alibi charge and certain of the prosecutor’s comments during summation shifted the burden of proof to defendant *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.