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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000737296
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          1,036,053

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                277,922

<PP&E>                          2,018,521

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,332,496

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           866,078

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      2,466,418

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,332,496

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0<F1>

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-BASIC>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

<FN>
<F1>Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
operations subsequent to October 1, 1996. See Note A to the
financial statetments for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1514 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 283
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1514

                          [Report No. 110-897]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2008

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 28, 2008, or 
September 29, 2008.
                                                 House Calendar No. 283

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1514

                          [Report No. 110-897]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 27, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001036500
<NAME>                     WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND VI, L.P., Series 5 and 6
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           2,158,837
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,158,837
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,079,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,839,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,079,535
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       129
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Case No. 14,155.

#### TREADWELL v. CLEAVELAND.

[3 McLean, 283.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct. Term, 1843.

Practice in Equity — Process—Appearance—Irregular Decree — Pleading—Special Interrogatories — Rules.

1. The process on the defendant in chancery must be served twenty days before the defendant is bound to appear. And a rule for answer, where the process has not been so served, is irregular.

2. A decree pro confesso, for want of an answer, under such a rule, is also irregular. And if a final decree'be entered, in virtue of the above proceedings, the court, on motion, will set the whole aside.

3. Under the 40th rule, the defendant - is not bound to answer, unless special interrogatories be put in the bill. Such a bill is clearly demurrable.

In equity.

Baker, Harris & Milliard, for complainants.

Douglass & Walker, for defendants.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is a motion to set aside the following proceedings for irregularity. The bill of complaint was filed the 11th of July, 1842. On the 1st Monday of September, a rule for answer was taken, and on the first Monday of October following, a decree pro confesso was entered, which, being referred to a master on the 21st of the same month, and the master’s report being made on the same day. a final decree was entered by the court. These proceedings were wholly irregular, and must be set aside. By the 12th rule in chancery, on filing the bill, the clerk is required to issue the process of subpoena, returnable into the office on the next rule day, or the next but one, at the election of the plaintiff, “occurring twenty days from the issuing thereof,” to the return. As the month of August came in on Monday, the subpoena was necessarily returnable on the first Monday of September. And the 17th rule declares that the appearance day of the defendant shall be the rule day to which the subpoena is made returnable, “provided he has been served with process twenty days before that day.” otherwise his appearance day shall be the next rule day when the process is returnable.

The process in this case has not been returned. but it could not have been served so as to make it returnable before the first Monday in October, and the defendant could have been under no default for want of an answer before the first Monday in November. But the decree pro confesso was entered, and also the final decree, in October. On this ground the proceedings must be set aside.

It may not be improper to remark, that independently of the above, the bill in its form is radically defective. By the 40th rule, it is declared, “that a defendant shall not be bound to answer any statement or charge in the bill, unless specially and particularly interrogated thereto.” The above bill contains no such interrogatory. And it is very questionable whether the defendant can be in default for not answering a bill which, under the above rule, he is not bound to answer. The bill is clearly demurrable on this .ground.
From: mjnjones@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:38 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,

Juanita Jones

Chocowinity, NC 27817
From: vgroves@twcny.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:02:03 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,

Vern Groves

De Ruyter, NY 13052
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., certify that: 

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of inTEST Corporation; 

          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 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)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

        (c)  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 

        (d)  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 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: 

        (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: August 13, 2004/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
No. 653, Misc.

#### Henderson *v.*Beto, Corrections Director.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of WWA Group, Inc. (Registrant) for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (Report), I, Digamber Naswa, chief financial officer
, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

|(1) | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered
          by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by
          this Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for
the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This
certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written
statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 63752.

protests 59/8180 and 59/8593 (New York).

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: tomvh300@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:12 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,

tom vanderheyden

Dyer, IN 46311
From: deb@debphillips.com

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. 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 Phillips

Lewisville, NC 27023