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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         116,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,942,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,570,586
<INVENTORY>                                 22,181,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,561,423
<PP&E>                                      36,997,879
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,114,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             170,840,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       77,788,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,223
<OTHER-SE>                                  77,553,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               170,840,337
<SALES>                                     73,871,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            73,871,478
<CGS>                                       49,856,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,856,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,132,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,500,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,075,191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,425,255
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,425,255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter L. Sessions, Respondent, v. Simeon B. Manly, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed
No. 63275.

protest 58/3749 (New York).

#### Pam Import *v.*United States,

*311Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At tbe trial, plaintiff testified that tbe articles in question are used to ornament ashtrays, earrings, cuff links, pill boxes, and perfume containers and that she has never used them on lipstick cases. It was held that “when tbe classification of tbe collector is challenged, tbe dual burden of proving that such classification is incorrect and that its own claimed classification is correct, rests upon tbe importer” *(Yardley & Co., Ltd., et al.*v. *United States,*41 C.C.P.A. 85, C.A.D. 533). On the basis of the record presented, tbe protest was overruled, tbe court bolding that tbe plaintiff failed to meet tbe required burden of proof under tbe cited authority.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David J. Foster, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of diaDexus, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 7, 2011 |  | /s/ David J. Foster                                            
|                   |  | David J. Foster                                                
|                   |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
***EXHIBIT 32(b)***

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of WWA Group, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,I, Digamber Naswa, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: November 15, 2010

                       

 

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

** **

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-1999             JUL-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1998             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-1999             JAN-29-1999
<CASH>                                             898                     898
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,351                  21,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (874)                   (874)
<INVENTORY>                                     38,388                  38,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,547                  62,547
<PP&E>                                          28,771                  28,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,188)                (12,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,655                 116,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,822                  34,822
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        78,391                  78,391
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,204)                (16,204)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,655                 116,655
<SALES>                                         22,449                  44,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,449                  44,621
<CGS>                                           16,965                  33,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,965                  33,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,335                  10,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 801                   1,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,863)                 (2,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (373)                   (500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,490)                 (1,998)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                   (166)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,490)                 (2,164)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)                  (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)                  (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
From: kadoyle@nc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:53 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,

Karen Doyle

Fayetteville, NC 28304
#### Paulica W. Kellogg, Appellant, v. D. Kellogg Leitch, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed,with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
From: ruthjanelove@netscape.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:17 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,

perry connally sr

Winston Salem, NC 27105
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1448 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 17, 2008.
    Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire whether the 
House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
    Sec. 2.  The Committee on the Judiciary or any subcommittee or task force 
designated by the Committee may, in connection with the inquiry under this 
resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant 
of the Committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena.
    Sec. 3.  There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House 
such sums as may be necessary to assist the Committee on the Judiciary in 
conducting the inquiry under this resolution, any of which may be used for the 
procurement of staff or consultant services.
    Sec. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry under this resolution, the 
Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to require by subpoena or otherwise--
            (1) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a 
        taking of a deposition by counsel or consultant of the Committee); and
            (2) the production of such things;
as it deems necessary to such inquiry.
    (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, after consultation with 
the Ranking Member, may exercise the authority of the Committee under subsection 
(a).
    (c) The Committee on the Judiciary may adopt a rule regulating the taking of 
depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the Committee, including 
pursuant to subpoena.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0910 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM151AD

A84 -57 - 19, RC --- 8/20/08 A84 -57 - 19, RB --- 3/6/08 A84 -57 - 19, RA --- 2/6/08 A84 -57 - 19 --- 2/1/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
From: saintjoie@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:33:54 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,

Shirley Labbe

, 49601-9011
From: toddbe@ameritech.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:38:32 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,

Todd Berends

Holland, MI 49423
* 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

June 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41789

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL KARL SPARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CR-148-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Karl Sparks appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

seven counts of receiving computer images containing child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252. Sparks argues that

the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations

in violation of former FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(e)(1). Because the

district court’s statements were limited to its rejection of the

plea agreement and its reasons for rejecting the plea agreement,

the district court did not improperly participate in plea
No. 02-41789

-2-

negotiations. See United States v. Jeter, 315 F.3d 445, 449 (5th

Cir. 2002). Sparks has shown no error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.
No. 64490.

#### U.S. Divers Co. and Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/23173 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diving masks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63864, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: tsmuller@hormel.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:08:04 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,

Tony Muller

Austin, MN 55912