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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  496,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,100
<INVENTORY>                                    379,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,291,000
<PP&E>                                         607,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,170,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          863,400
<BONDS>                                      2,074,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,022,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,170,500
<SALES>                                      1,688,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,688,800
<CGS>                                          585,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  585,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (58,700)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (109,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
No. 271, Misc.

#### Burks *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
Devt Z G/ ff Page 1 of 1

BLMSEU 10

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION Abb id 3 ver & @ 245i

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

As of: September 02, 2011

(Received: August 19, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
[Tracking No. 80¢eeSec9

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0149
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Onknown
Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to

opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work,

Religion should not be used to disenfranchise women. Regardless of
employers’ "beliefs" women deserved the basic right of
health, including birth control.

Please use science based methods, not theocratic religious ones.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Commissioners of Public Parks relative to Rider avenue.

Order affirmed on opinion of Lawrence, J., at Special Term.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-18-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                       1
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order 2013-7-19

Served: July 24, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 24th of July, 2013

Essential Air Service at

KAMUELA, HAWAII

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-1997-2833

Order Extending Service Obligation

Summary

By this Order, the Department extends the Essential Air Service (EAS) obligation of 

Pacific Wings, LLC, at Kamuela, Hawaii, for an additional 30 days, through 

September 10, 2013. 

Background

On March 14, 2013, Pacific Wings filed a 90-day notice of intent to suspend its subsidyfree EAS at Kamuela, Hawaii. Order 2013-4-17, April 25, 2013, prohibited Pacific 

Wings from suspending service through July 12, 2013, consisting of twelve nonstop 

round trips per week to Kahului (OGG), with 9-seat Cessna Caravan aircraft, and 

requested proposals for replacement service. By Order 2013-7-3, July 2, 2013, we 

selected Mokulele Flight Services, Inc., d/b/a Mokulele Airlines, to provide EAS to 

Kamuela. Pacific Wings is currently held in at Kamuela through August 11, 2013, by 

Order 2013-6-7. Mokulele has informally indicated that it would inaugurate service on 

September 21, 2013, which would require us to issue one more 30-day hold in Order. 

Therefore, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 41734(c), we must extend Pacific Wings’s 

service obligation for an additional 30 days, thru September 10, 2013, or until 

replacement service actually begins, whichever occurs first. 

This Order is issued under authority assigned in 14 CFR Part 385.12(k)(5).

Accordingly, 

1. We require Pacific Wings, LLC., to maintain the level of Essential Air Service it was 

required to provide by Order 2013-4-17, the same level it was providing when it filed notice,

thru September 10, 2013;
2. This docket will remain open until further Order of the Department; and

3. We will serve a copy of this Order on the State of Hawaii, and the civic officials of 

Kamuela, Hawaii, and on Pacific Wings, LLC.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this Order under the 

Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.31(a) must file such petitions within seven 

(7) days after the date of service of this Order.

This Order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By: 

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas A. Lindgren, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Excelsior Private
Equity Fund II, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
     annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date: June 14, 2004


/s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
--------------------------------------------
Douglas A. Lindgren, Chief Executive Officer
#### Matter of Probate of Will of Margaret E. Johnson, Deceased.

Decree of surrogate reversed and will ordered to be admitted to probate. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
#### Mary McLean Ludlow, Respondent, *v.*The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. John’s Church in the Town of Islip, Appellant.

*Ludlow*v. *Rector, etc., St. John's Church,*144 App. Div. 207, reversed.

(Argued January 14, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 7, 1911, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action to determine title to real property.

*Augustus Van Wyck, Timothy M. Griffing*and *Joseph Wood*for appellant.

*Joseph M. Belford*and *Robert J. Fox*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Without entering upon a discussion of the other questions presented on this appeal, we reach the conclusion that the order appealed from must be reversed and the judgment of the Special Term affirmed for the following reason:

In order to maintain this action it was incumbent on the plaintiff to establish that she had been in possession of the real property involved in the "action for at least a year before the commencement of her action. Her allegation in the complaint to this effect was denied by the defendant, and the court at Special Term refused to find as requested by her that she had thus been in possession. Under the *690provisions of the Code, as it existed at the time, it must be assumed that the reversal by the Appellate Division was upon questions of law and not of fact. Especially, in view of the peculiar nature of the property involved in this action, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises as required by the Code, and, therefore, under the refusal of the trial court to find as requested, she has failed to establish this fact essential to her recovery.

The. order and judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in both courts.

Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DALE M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 446 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Docket: EBSA-2010-0018 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of 

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services 

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment 

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0073 

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684 

Submitter Information 

Address: 

Clovis, CA, 

General Comment 

I am concerned about the new HHS guidelines! Under these guidelines, most health insurance 

plans in the United States will have to provide the full range of birth control drugs by August 1, 

2012. No co-pay can be required. From a fiscal perspective, it is impossible to see how this will 

bring down health care costs because birth control drugs are extremely expensive. And more 

importantly, this regulation will completely eliminate the right of employers to follow their 

conscience and refuse to offer birth control drugs to their employees in company-funded health 

care plans. Many employers object to using their company resources to pay for birth control, and 

many more strongly object to using company resources to pay for abortion-inducing drugs like 

“Ella” and the “morning after pill,” which have been shown to harm women, and actually kill the 

developing baby by starving it of nutrients. 

I have grave concerns with the narrow religious exemption in these new guidelines to the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. I believe that the religious exemption should be broadened to 

not only include houses of worship, but also religious organizations, religious colleges, and 

employer-funded private health insurance plans if the employer has a conscientious objection to 

using corporate funds to pay for birth control or abortion-inducing drugs. 

The United States WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGIOUS AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS BUT 

THESE GUIDELINES OBLITERATE THOSE FREEDOMS!!!!!

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: September 02, 2011 

Received: September 01, 2011 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80f0e252 

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 9/2/2011
Page | of 1

SEP 1 vii QEC-120S41-10
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: September 01, 2011

BRANCH Received: August 16, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80ce1b93

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0098
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Kendehl Corley
Address: WA

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan
when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to space their
pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies
can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
No. 559, Misc.

#### Gobie *v.*Wainwright, Corrections Director.

Supreme Court of Florida. Certiorari denied.
From: deblynnnn@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:59:26 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,

Deborah Carr

Apopka, FL 32712
REV HOLDINGSLLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC(the ‘‘Company’’) for the period endedSeptember  30,  2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Ronald O. Perelman, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.

/s/ Ronald O. Perelman Ronald O.PerelmanChief Executive OfficerNovember 9,2006

----