alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management (Details 3) - USD ($) $ in Millions** | Sep. 30, 2015 | Dec. 31, 2014 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Derivative**                                                                               |          |          |
| Derivative instruments, notional amount                                                      | $ 3,790       | $ 5,250       |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate notional amount specified by the derivative(s). Expressed as an absolute value.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Article 12 -Section 13 -Sentence Column B
+ Details**Name:**invest_DerivativeNotionalAmount**Namespace Prefix:**invest_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Line items represent financial concepts included in a table. These concepts are used to disclose reportable information associated with domain members defined in one or many axes to the table.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_DerivativeLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<PAGE>   1

                        [LETTERHEAD OF SHLOMO ZIV & CO.]

                                                                  March 25, 1999

Arthur Andersen & Co.
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10105
U.S.A.
------

Gentlemen,

Re: Paradise Industries Ltd.
    Consent of independent public accountants
    -----------------------------------------

AS independent public accountants of Paradise Industries Ltd., we hereby consent
to the incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the
company's previously filed Registration Statement File No. 33-51023, and No.
55137.

                                                          Sincerely,

                                                     /s/ Shlomo Ziv & Co.

                                                       Shlomo Ziv & Co.
                                             Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
No. 418.

#### Nichols & Company *v.*United States.

*Frank J. Delany*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Morton Hollander*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                  AS ADOPTED TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,  Daniel  Hunter,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on  10-QSB  of  Forge,  Inc.  for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material aspects the financial condition
and  results  of  operation  of  Forge,  Inc.






          By:


                         /s/ Daniel  Hunter
                         ________________________
          Name:          Daniel  Hunter
          Title:         Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief
                         Financial  Officer

          Date:          May  16,  2003
From: rreber@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:49 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 Reber

Brentwood, CA 94513
From: BAT4U@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:28 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,

Brian Andrews

Arlington, TX 76012
No. 173, Misc.

#### Foreman *v.*Texas et al.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JAMES M. FRANCIS,

Respondent

v.

LCP NORTH THIRD, LLC,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 193 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

JAMES M. FRANCIS,

Respondent

v.

LCP NORTH THIRD, LLC,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 194 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20498]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #18179 and #18180; Vermont Disaster Number VT-
00049]


Administrative Disaster Declaration of a Rural Area for the State 
of Vermont

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of 
a rural area for the State of Vermont dated 09/14/2023.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 07/07/2023 through 07/17/2023.

DATES: Issued on 09/14/2023.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/13/2023.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/14/2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Addison.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.000
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.500
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      8.000
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.375
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.375
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.375
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18179 6 
and for economic injury is 18180 0.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-20498 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 07 1- CR Kurtis Eug ene RU P ER T , Appellant
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw, No. 7 , Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 256962 Honora ble Dick Alc ala , J udg e Presiding PER CU RI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 13, 2009 DI SMI SSED Pursuant to a plea- barg ain ag ree ment, Kurtis Eug ene Rupe rt pled nolo contende re to the offe nse of a ssault with bodily injury and wa s sentence d to eleven m o n t h s , t en d ay s in the Be x ar County Adult Dete n t i o n C en t er in a ccor dance with the terms of his plea- barg ain ag ree ment. On Dec ember

19, 2008, the t rial cour

t signe d a ce rtification of de fenda nt’s rig ht to appeal statingthat this “is a plea- barg ain ca se, an d t h e d ef endant has NO rig ht of appe al.” SeeT EX . R. A PP . P.04
- 09
- 00 07 1- CR

- 2- 25.2(a) (2). Af

ter Kur tis Euge ne Rupert f

iled a notice of

appea l, the trial court cler k sent copies of the ce rtification and notice of appe al to this court. Se e id . 25.2(e) . The c lerk’s r ecor d, which includes the trial cour

t’s Rule 25.2(a) (2) c ertification, has been f iled. See id . 25.2(d). “In a plea barg ain ca se ... a de fenda nt ma y appea l only : ( A) those matters that wer e raised by
wr itt e n mo tio n f

ile d a nd ru le d o n b e for e tr ial , or (B ) a ft e r g e tti ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s pe rm iss ion to appea l.” Id . 25.2(a) (2). The cler k’s record establishes the puni shment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment r ecommende d by the prosec utor and a g ree d to by the def endant. Se e id . The
c le rk ’s re c or d d oe s n ot i nc lud e a wr itt e n mo tio n f

ile d a nd ru le d upo n be fo re tr ia l; nor do e s it ind ic a te t hat the trial c ourt g ave K urtis Eug ene Rupe rt permission to appea l. Se e id
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt’s
c e rt if ic a tio n, the re fo re , a

pp e ars to a c c ur a te ly re fl e c t th a t th is i s a ple a -b arg a in c a se and

that K ur tis Eug ene Rupe rt does not have a rig ht to appeal. We must dismis s an appeal “i f a certific ation that shows the def

endant ha s the rig ht of appe al has not bee n made pa rt of the r ecor d.” Id . 25.2(d). We, theref

ore, w arne d Kurtis Eug ene Rupert that this appeal would be dismiss ed pursua nt to Texas Rul e of A

ppellate Proc edure 25.2(d), unless a n amende d trial court c ertification showing that Kurtis Eug ene Rupert had the rig ht to appea l was made part of the appellate re cord. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2 (d ), 37 .1 ; Da nie ls v . S tate , 110 S.W .3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order)
. No such amended t

r ia l c ourt ce rtification has be en filed. This a ppeal is, there fore , dismiss ed pursua nt to Rule 25.2(d). PER CU RI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 14 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to curtail the growth 

of Government programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

curtail the growth of Government programs. 

Whereas Congress must be committed to slowing the growth 

of Government spending, reforming inefficient Government programs, and removing burdensome Government 

regulations in order to lower the Federal budget deficit; 

Whereas Congress must pledge to hold the line on spending 

and the growth of Government for the remainder of this 

fiscal year and beyond; 

Whereas Congress needs to demonstrate to the people of the 

United States that it will not return to the failed fiscal 

policies of the past by attempting to solve budgetary 

problems by raising taxes to pay for new programs and 

more spending; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 14 IH 

Whereas a real solution to the Federal budget deficit must 

consist of the curtailment of unnecessary Federal programs, which are currently costing taxpayers billions of 

dollars; 

Whereas it is time to reduce the Federal budget deficit by 

demonstrating a strong commitment to reforming and 

eliminating inefficient and wasteful Government programs; 

Whereas to reduce the Federal budget deficit, Congress must 

do a better job of establishing priorities for Federal programs and spending; and 

Whereas to limit the growth of Government, Congress should 

only enact a new Federal program if Congress considers 

the program to be a higher priority than one or more 

current Federal programs of equal or greater cost: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘Limitation on bills establishing new programs 

5 ‘‘7. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 

6 resolution, amendment, or conference report containing a 

7 provision that establishes a new program, unless the bill, 

8 resolution, amendment, or conference report contains a 

9 provision that eliminates one or more existing programs 

10 of equal or greater total cost. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 14 IH 

1 ‘‘(b) In this clause, the term ‘provision that estab2 lishes a new program’ includes a provision that modifies 

3 an existing program by adding a new function. 

4 ‘‘(c) For purposes of this clause, the cost of a pro5 gram shall be the amount authorized to be appropriated 

6 for the program, or, if the amount authorized to be appro7 priated is not specified, an estimate of the cost of the pro8 gram. 

9 ‘‘(d) This clause does not apply to a provision that 

10 establishes a new defense, homeland security, or emer11 gency program.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
From: pastordennis@olympus.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:43:31 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,

Dennis LaMance

Port Ludlow, WA 98365
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40080

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE JAIME

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-714-ALL

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Jaime presents

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty,

264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge

to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
June 27, 1957

No. 60986.

Suit 4880.

#### United States *v.*General Shipping & Trading Co. and Felix Lorenzoni.

C. D. 1769 affirmed May 7, 1957. C. A. D. 656.
BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION,

January 17, 1967

No. P67/19.

#### Consolidated Imports and United Import Sales, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/22964 and 61/22977 (Los Angeles).

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin International, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.