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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         33,923
<SECURITIES>                                   23,050
<RECEIVABLES>                                 146,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,995
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              159,521
<PP&E>                                         45,840
<DEPRECIATION>                                 35,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                260,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         101,515
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           20
<OTHER-SE>                                    118,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  260,144
<SALES>                                       197,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              197,097
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  34,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              150,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                20,994
<INCOME-TAX>                                    7,525
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,469
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,469
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.67
        


</TABLE>
#### Edward La Montagne, Jr., et al., Appellants, *v.*The Bank of New York National Banking Association, Respondent.

*La Montagne*v. *Bank of New York Nat. Banking Assn.,*141 App. Div. 250, affirmed.

(Argued May 15, 1912;

decided June 4, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 9,1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover an alleged balance of a deposit and check account.

*August O. Brown*for appellants.

*William, B. Hornblower*and *Perry D. Trafford*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Werner3 Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
|  | footer>**Contacting EPP | EPP HomeOPPT Home | EPA Home | Search | Comments
Last Revised:  November 5, 1998URL:  http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/epp-home.html** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: ecol0106@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Important message from AAUW

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:35:49 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sincerely,

Edith Coleman
From: Marty Kennelly

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I join with the League of Women Voters in supporting this!

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 8:10:16 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would

provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an

ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health

providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt

from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

February 15,2011 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Meeting with American Iron and Steel Institute and 

American Coke and Coal Chemical Institute 

Mary JOhnso��vironmental Engineer 

OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058 

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0019 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

EPA met with representatives of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AIS!) and 

American Coke and Coal Chemical Institute (ACCCI) on October 28,2010, to discuss their 

concerns regarding the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules. The meeting attendees list and 

presentation materials provided by AISII ACCCI are attached. 

Attachment 

Internet Address (URL) • http://ww.epa.gov 

RecycledIRecyclable • Printed wHh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Ward Paxton, Chief Executive Officerof the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| March 26, 2004 | /s/ G. Ward Paxton      |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | G. Ward Paxton          |
|           | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Cornelius Van Sickle v. Mexican Telegraph Company.

Order sustaining demurrer affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Title of Each Class of | Maximum Aggregate | Amount of |   |
|   | Securities Offered | Offering Price(1) | Registration Fee(2) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 1.750% PowerNotes®  Due June 15, 2019 | $1,489,000 | $170.64 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | TOTAL |   | $170.64 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |

|     |                                    |
|-----|------------------------------------|
| (1) | Excludes accrued interest, if any. |

|     |                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Calculated in accordance with Rule 457(r) under the Securities Act of 1933. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | CUSIP | Aggregate |   | Selling | Gross |   | Net | Coupon | Coupon |   | Coupon |   | Maturity |   | 1st Coupon | 1st | Survivor's | Product |   |
|   | Number | Principal |   | Price | Concession |   | Proceeds | Type | Rate |   | Frequency |   | Date |   | Date | Coupon | Option | Ranking |   |
|   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 14912HPY0 | $1,489,000.00 |   | 100% | 1.45% |   | $1,467,409.50 | Fixed | 1.75% |   | Semi- |   | 6/15/2019 |   | 12/15/2012 | $8.80 | Yes | Senior Unsecured |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Annual |   |   |   |   |   |   | Notes |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
EXHIBIT 32.2

    STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                          2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Michael C. Anderson, is the Chief Financial Officer of
Wayne Savings Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

November 14, 2003                       /s/ Michael C. Anderson
------------------------------------    -----------------------------------
Dated                                   Michael C. Anderson
From: Susan Engberg

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 10:54:05 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Susan Engberg

1286 Karth Lake Circle

Arden Hills, MN 55112
From: mrbenefield@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:42:27 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Benefield

Montgomery, TX 77316
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983
Incentive Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc. and the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,
No. 333-60928) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-57948) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as
amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-34484) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-90408)
pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8,
No. 33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-80898)
pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan of Intrusion Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-53813) pertaining to the Essential Communication
Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Intrusion Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

LOGO

Dallas,
Texas
March 5, 2003

---

QuickLinks
From: Sally & Ray Hollemon

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Oppose religious employer exemptions for contraceptives

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:53:26 PM

Please accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law and reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” A religious

employer, such as a religious book store, a hospital, or a charity, should not be able to limit the medical

services covered under the health insurance it offers its employees, who may or may not agree with the

employer's religious views.

Sally Hollemon

Salem, Oregon
#### Dykman Odell, Respondent, v. Isaac Buckhout, Executor, etc., Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
From: Marta Johnson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive health care for all in new health care law

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:45:49 PM

I am a Holistic Health focused RN with 38 years experience in pediatric, maternal health and Case

Management. Every day I encounter people who need and want access to preventive care. I join with

the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the recommendations of

the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and

to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of

the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you for being open to hearing the voices of those who care about women and children.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) ANHAM FZCO, LLC ) ) Under ContractNo. SPM300-12-D-35l 7 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61876

Richard P. Rector, Esq. Dawn E. Stem, Esq.

DLA Piper LLP Washington, DC Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

DLA ChiefTrial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Board docketed this appeal on November 13, 2018. By letter dated November 19, 2018, prior to appellant filing its complaint, appellant stated that it withdraws its appeal. The government does not object. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed from the Board's docket without prejudice. 

### See TTF, L.L.C., ASBCA No. 58494, 13 BCA, 35,343 at 173,464. Dated: December 7, 2018

ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61876, Appeal ofANHAM FZCO, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
From: Dougggg@AOL.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:42 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Douglas Carnahan

Lees Summit, MO 64086
From: G STEWART GONZALEZ

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommendations

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:01:03 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Gail Stewart-Iles, Ph. D.

1 Sweet Street

Rockledge, FL 32955