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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     (This  schedule   contains   financial   information   extracted  from  the
     consolidated  financial statements of Community First Banking Comapny as of
     or for the three  months  ended  March  31,  2000 and is  qualified  in its
     entirety by reference to such  financial  statements  (dollars in thousands
     except per share data).
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035903
<NAME>                        Community First Banking Company
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                               7,701
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 354
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       760
<TRADING-ASSETS>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         62,484
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 180
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   180
<LOANS>                            308,858
<ALLOWANCE>                          3,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     396,368
<DEPOSITS>                         304,789
<SHORT-TERM>                        49,229
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                  2,842
<LONG-TERM>                         12,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              1
<COMMON>                                33
<OTHER-SE>                          26,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>     396,368
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      6,856
<INTEREST-INVEST>                    1,126
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        32
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     8,014
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   3,113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   4,030
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                3,984
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          234
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      (7)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                      2,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,819
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>           1,819
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         1,234
<EPS-BASIC>                            .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           0
<LOANS-NON>                            629
<LOANS-PAST>                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        181
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                     3,379
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          191
<RECOVERIES>                            64
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                    3,486
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                 3,486
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                  0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001036148
<NAME> CYBERTEL, COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          273634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    56353
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                329987
<PP&E>                                           93612
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  423920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            45540
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3409
<OTHER-SE>                                      372396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    423920
<SALES>                                        1602333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1602333
<CGS>                                          1556536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1556536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                814185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (762783)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (762783)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (762783)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Each of the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This 10th day ofMay, 2004.

 

 
| /s/ Douglas K. Freeman                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Steven F. Herbert                 |   |
| Chief  Financial Executive            |

 

----
From: scottschemmel@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:51 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. 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,

Scott Schemmel

Norcross, GA 30092
No. 261.

#### Southern Farms, Inc., *v.*Goldberg, Secretary of Labor.

*Land-man Teller*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Charles Donahue, Jacob I. Karro*and *Caruthers Gholson Berger*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 471.

#### Smith *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*William R. Spofford*and *Charles I. Thompson, Jr.*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Wayne G. Barnett*for respondent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
No. 346.

#### Santa Maria Shipowning & Trading Co., S. A., et al. *v.*Panteloglou et al.

*Robert C. Thomson, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Edward B. Joachim*for respondents.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 384.

#### Johnson, Administrator, *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Melva M. Graney*for respondent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.33


 


 











Supplemental Agreement to the Property
Lease Agreement


 


 


 


Party A: China Southern Air Holding
Company (中国南方航空集团公司)


 


Party B:
China Southern Airlines Company Limited (中国南方航空股份有限公司)


 


 


 


Whereas: China Southern Air Holding Company
and China Southern Airlines Company Limited entered into the Property Lease Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Master
Agreement”) in 2014. Both parties hereby enter into this supplemental agreement with respect to the increase of leased area: 


 


 


		1.	Party A agrees to increase the lease area by an additional 130 square meters on the first floor
of Hongshan Hotel to Party B, so as to expand the operating area of its ticket office. The lease term shall commence from 1 May
2015 and end on 31 December 2016.



 


		2.	Both parties agree that the rental rate specified in the Master Agreement shall apply to this additional
lease, with the rental for 2015 and 2016 fixed at RMB156,000 and RMB234,000 respectively.



 


		3.	Party A agrees to deliver, from the effective date of this supplemental agreement, such leased
premise to Party B for its occupancy and management, which shall be governed with reference to the Master Agreement.



 


		4.	The other provisions of the Master Agreement shall remain
unchanged.



 


This supplemental agreement is made in
six counterparts, with three copies held by each party. This supplemental agreement shall take effect from the date of execution
by both parties with official seal of each party affixed thereto. 


 


 


 


 


Party A:


 


Signed by:


 


Date:


 


 


 


Party B:


 


Signed by:


 


Date:
From: Leslie Burg

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject any exemptions for "religious employees"

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:23:29 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.

We need to return to the doctrine of separation of church and state clearly

articulated in our Constitution by our founding fathers. It has become too easy

today, to blur those lines and when it is allowed, it works to the detriment 

of the country.

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.
From: Parkerdragovich@me.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:45 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,

Parker Dragovich

Englewood, CO 80112
From: patrick.suess@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:09 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,

Patrick Suess

Woodbridge, VA 22192
EXHIBIT 99.1

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT

Board ofDirectors Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2003, and the related consolidatedstatements of cash flows for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002. These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance withauditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United Statesof America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2003, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated April 17, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on thoseconsolidated financial statements.

/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.

Wheeling, West Virginia  July 31, 2003
From: reedl@cfu.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:34 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,

Lawrence Reed

Cedar Falls, IA 50613
United States
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.   20549

Form 12b-25

Notification of Late Filing

(Check one):
___ Form 10-K __ Form 20-F __ Form 11-K  ___ Form 10-Q    X  Form N-SAR

For the Period Ended:            12/31/03

Part I - Registrant Information

Full Name of Registrant

Scudder RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.

Former Name if Applicable



Address of Principal Executive Office (Street & Number)

One South Street
Baltimore, MD 21202

Part II - Rules 12b-25(b) and (c)

If the subject report could not be filed without unreasonable effort or
expense and the registrant seeks relief pursuant to Rule 12b-25(b), the
following should be completed.

(a) the reasons  described in  reasonable  detail in Part III of this
form could not be eliminated without unreasonable effort or expense.

(b) The subject annual report, semi-annual report, transition
report on Form 10-K,  Form 20-F,  11-K,  Form N-SAR, or portion
thereof, will be filed on or before the  fifteenth calendar day
following the  prescribed  due date; or the subject quarterly report
transition report on form 10-Q, or portion thereof will be filed on or
before the fifth calendar day following the prescribed due date

(c)     The accountant's statement or other exhibit required by Rule
12b-25(c)has been attached if applicable

Part III - Narrative

State below in reasonable detail the reasons why the Form 10-K, 11-
K, 10-Q, N-SAR, or the transition report or portion thereof, could
not be filed within the prescribed time period.

The registrant requests additional time to file form NSAR so that it
can compile the necessary information to file a complete and accurate
document.

Part IV - Other Information

(1)     Name and telephone number of person to contact in regard to
this notification

        Charles Rizzo, Vice President
        (410) 295-3488

(2)     Have all other periodic reports required under Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 30 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 during the preceding 12 months been
filed?

                Yes

(3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of
operations from the  corresponding  period for the last  fiscal  year
will be reflected  by the earnings statements to be included in the
subject report or portion thereof?

        No

(Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)    Scudder RREEF Real
Estate Fund II, Inc.

has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Date:   3/1/04	                            By:     Brendan Concannon
                                              /s/:    Brendan Concannon