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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES
F-2 AND F-3 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          20,345
<SECURITIES>                                    17,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                       919
<INVENTORY>                                      8,359
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,276
<PP&E>                                          15,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,762
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,414
<SALES>                                         23,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,210
<CGS>                                           19,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,999
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (974)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,211
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13


</TABLE>
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:16 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,

Roger Devaney

Spokane, WA 99208
Exhibit 10.1

[PNC Bank Letterhead]



inTEST Corporation et al.
7 Esterbrook Lane
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Attention: Hugh T. Regan, Jr.Re:	Extension of Expiration Date for Committed Line of Credit
Dear Mr. Regan:
We are writing to inform you that your committed line of credit has been temporarily extended pending further credit review and approval. The Expiration Date, as set forth in that certain Letter Agreement dated November 16, 2000, and in the Second Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note executed and delivered pursuant to that Letter Agreement, has been extended from June 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001, effective on July 1, 2001. All other terms and conditions of the Second Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note and the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect.
It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.
Very truly yours,
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Denise Viola Monahan       Denise Viola Monahan
       Vice President
Jan. 26: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq
 
  January 26, 2016
Release # 20160126-01
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA —** On Jan. 25, coalition military forces
continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, coalition
military forces conducted three strikes using attack and remotely piloted
aircraft. Separately in Iraq, coalition military forces conducted 15 strikes
coordinated with and in support of the Government of Iraq using attack,
fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL targets. 
The following is a summary of the strikes conducted against ISIL since the last
press release:**Syria**
* Near Al Hawl, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
* Near Ar Raqqah, one strike destroyed two ISIL cranes.
* Near Mar'a, one strike struck an ISIL headquarters building.**Iraq**
* Near Al Huwayjah, one strike suppressed an ISIL mortar position. 
* Near Habbaniyah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five
ISIL mortar systems. 
* Near Kisik, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL
fighting position.
* Near Mosul, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL weapons
storage facility and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL weapons
cache. 
* Near Ramadi, nine strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL
staging area, two ISIL tactical vehicles, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL armored
bulldozer, an ISIL fuel tanker, and denied ISIL access to terrain. 
* Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL
fighting position.
Strike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base
safely.
A strike, as defined in the CJTF releases, means one or more kinetic events
that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single,
sometimes cumulative effect for that location. So having a single aircraft
deliver a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is
multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of buildings and
vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative
effect of making that facility (or facilities) harder or impossible to use.
Accordingly, CJTF-OIR does not report the number or type of aircraft employed
in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of
individual munition impact points against a target.
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation
to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria,
and the wider international community.
The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the group's
ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have
conducted strikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,
Jordan, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Coalition
nations which have conducted strikes in Syria include Australia, Bahrain,
Canada, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

JOHN EDWARD KIRK, SR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0652-06-3 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 8, 2006 

SOUTHERN AIR, INC. AND 

 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Charles R. Allen, Jr., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Rachel L. Arnold; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees. 

 John Edward Kirk (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that he failed to prove (1) his right foot problems were causally related to 

his compensable July 6, 2004 injury by accident; and (2) he was entitled to a change in treating 

physicians. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal 

is without merit.1

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Kirk v. Southern Air, Inc., VWC File No. 219-89-42 (Feb. 17, 2006). We dispense 

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 In light of our summary affirmance with respect to the first two questions presented by 

claimant on appeal, we need not address the third question presented.
From: rwhitbeck@netzero.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24:19 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,

Robert Whitbeck

Omaha, NE 68164
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Standard Bill Posting Company, Respondent, *v.*T. James Hastings, as Building Inspector of the City of Newburgh, Appellant.

*People ex rel. Standard Bill Posting Co.*v. Hastings, 153 App. Div. 920, affirmed.

(Argued February 25, 1913;

decided March 11, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 19, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendant to examine and approve plans for a proposed billboard.

*Graham Witschief*for appellant.

*Henry Hirschberg*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Charles F.  Finn,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Michael  C.  Anderson,  Chief
Financial Officer of Wayne Savings Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") each certify
in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the  quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended  December 31, 2001 and that to the
best of his knowledge:

(1)  the report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.



   October 1, 2002                        /s/Charles F. Finn
----------------------------              --------------------------------
Date                                      Charles F. Finn,
                                          Chief Executive Officer


   October 1, 2002                        /s/Michael C. Anderson
----------------------------              --------------------------------
Date                                      Michael C. Anderson,
                                          Chief Financial Officer
From: jude25images@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:53:21 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,

Kim Bumgardaner

Watertown, WI 53098
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No. 333-35460

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (2)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 071				Trade Date: 04/26/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

September 8, 2000)						Issue Date: 05/01/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement April 26, 2001
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

or	Stated				 Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		 Price to	 Discounts & Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2) Commissions Frequency	 Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QCY5 5%	05/15/04	100%	 1.0% MONTHLY 	 YES	 NO	

 

 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____ Yes	 X No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount. Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998 for May Limited  Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000735552
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         157
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311
<PP&E>                                         1,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,118
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,118
<SALES>                                        754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               763
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  99
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                465
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            465
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  23.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  23.40
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1015

JOHN E. PASKOSKI,

Petitioner,

versus

CERES CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(99-0197)

Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 10, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald F. Gay, ARNOLD & GAY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Lawrence P. Postol, SEAFORTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John E. Paskoski seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of longshore benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1994

& Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the administrative law judge properly weighed all relevant evidence upon

remand and that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the Board. See Paskoski v. Ceres Corp., BRB No.

99-0197 (B.R.B. Nov. 2, 1999). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: paulp442@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:35 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,

Paul Pearson

Boynton Beach, FL 33426