alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1)  the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2)  the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                               |   |                                |   |
| Date:       November 13, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Toni      M. Perazzo       |   |
|                               |   | Name:      Toni M. Perazzo          |   |
|                               |   | Title:      Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                               |   |                                |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,934)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,007
<PP&E>                                          18,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,906
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,558
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,466
<CGS>                                           26,347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (369)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,707)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,071)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 186 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 27, 2007.
Whereas coastal areas produce 85 percent of all United States tourism dollars 
        and are the leading tourism destination in America;
Whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that over 50 
        percent of the population of the United States lives in coastal 
        counties;
Whereas according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
        beaches in these coastal counties provide recreational opportunities for 
        numerous Americans and their families who, together with international 
        tourists, make almost 2 billion trips to the beach each year to fish, 
        sunbathe, boat, swim, surf, and bird-watch;
Whereas according to the Army Corps of Engineers, United States beaches are a 
        critical driver of the American economy and its competitiveness in the 
        global economy;
Whereas beaches represent a critical part of our natural heritage and a 
        beautiful part of the American landscape;
Whereas beaches are sensitive ecosystems, susceptible to degradation and 
        alteration from pollution, sea level rise, natural forces, untreated 
        sewage, and improper use;
Whereas members of the government, the private sector, and nongovernmental 
        organizations, along with citizen volunteers, have worked diligently to 
        clean up and protect our beaches over the years;
Whereas according to the United States Geological Survey, great strides have 
        been made in understanding the science of watersheds and the connections 
        between inland areas and coastal waters, and science-based policy should 
        be developed that is commensurate with this knowledge; and
Whereas a 7-day week commencing in June, and including July 5, will be observed 
        each year as National Clean Beaches Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Clean Beaches Week;
            (2) recognizes the value of beaches to the American way of life and 
        the important contributions of beaches to the economy, recreation, and 
        natural environment of the United States;
            (3) encourages all Americans to work to keep beaches, which are a 
        critical part of the natural heritage of the United States, safe and 
        clean for the continued enjoyment of the public;
            (4) expresses a renewed appreciation for the beaches of the United 
        States and an invigorated effort to protect them with updated, 
        integrated policy; and
            (5) encourages individuals to engage in activities during National 
        Clean Beaches Week to encourage stewardship and volunteerism along our 
        coastlines.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 23.1
 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
 Nos. 33-35863 and 33-42261 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement
 Nos. 33-4636, 33-24199, 33-36554, 33-41406, 33-49882 and 33-62097 on
 Form S-8, of our report dated July 13, 1998, except for the last two
 sentences of the fourth paragraph of Note 5 as to which the date is 
 July 31, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
 Immucor, Inc. in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).


 Ernst & Young LLP

 Atlanta, Georgia
 August 11, 1998
From: dadajmae@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:55:36 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jane Burgner

Erwin, TN 37650
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1061 PLATE 7
Rogers
Peak

EXPLANATION

“Drift border

Approximate length of front two facets of block
about 13 miles. Relief features shown are not
to exact scale and are suggestive only. View
looking east-southeast from a point above
Thousand Lake Mountain

BLOCK DIAGRAM OF BOULDER MOUNTAIN, WAYNE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH

461212 © ~58 (In Pocket)
From: dcarr@hemocleanse.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:33:38 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,

David Carr

Lafayette, IN 47904
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION 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-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI L.P., Series 6 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2008, September 30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2008 and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: December 12, 2011
EPA responses to the second set of OMB detailed comments 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 03/12/2011 01:09 PM 

 

Cortney -- 

Attached are our responses to this set of comments. 

Thank you. 

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft EGU MACT under EO 12866 Interagency Review - 3-

9-11 - Response_031211.doc 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
Exhibit 32.1

Statement





Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



(1)

the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)

the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November 10, 2004





/s/ John A. Slatky

John A. Slatky

Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.  This statement accompanies the periodic report to which it relates and shall not be deemed as filed as part of the report or otherwise for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Before the Third Division,

September 25, 1962

No. 67069.

protest 60/15299 (New York).

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 68892.

#### Amity Fabrics, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/3439(A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Amity Fabrics, Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jrgjbusroad@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:07 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). If some believe such things should be funded, look to private donors who

agree with the practice. DO NOT USE PUBLIC FUNDS/MY TAX DOLLARS!

I also ask you include in your definition of religious employer an authentic conscience protection for any

organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing any 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 will be used to take the life of early unborn children. No free citizen should

be forced by the federal government through taxation and law creation to essentially subsidize services

they object to based upon their moral compass. 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,

Rhonda Bosworth

Theresa, NY 13691
Case No. 13,485.

#### STONE v. MASON.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 431.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct Term, 1823.

Officer — Public Use — Personal Responsibility.

A public officer who buys a bill of exchange for public use, and agrees to pay for it when it *158should be duly honored, is not personally responsible.

Assumpsit [by John Stone against John Mason] for money had and received. The defendant, as commissary general of prisoners, received $140 for a draft on Bermuda. Edward Stone put the draft into the defendant’s hands, and requested him to pay the money, when it should be received, to the plaintiff, of Baltimore. When the money was received at the defendant’s office, his clerk enclosed it in a letter to the plaintiff, directed to him at Baltimore, but it never came to bis hands.

On a case stated,

THE COURT

(THRUS-TON, Circuit Judge, absent)

rendered judg-

ment for the defendant, on the ground of his being a public officer; and it being a public contract to buy a bill for public use.
#### Jeffrey Michael STEINGOLD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-1387.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Jeffrey Michael Steingold, Petitioner pro se. Richard Farber, Paula Marie Junghans, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, United States Department of Justice, Stuart L. Brown, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Michael Steingold appeals from the tax court’s order determining a deficiency and penalty with respect to his 1994 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. *Steingold v. Commissioner,*No. 98-19841 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 15, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case No. 14,778.

#### UNITED STATES v. CHAMBERLAIN.

[12 Blatchf. 390.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 22, 1874.

Criminal Law—Evidence—Handwriting—Other Writings—Comparisons—Expert Testimony.

1. Ou the trial of an indictment for depositing scurrilous postal cards in the mail, the cards put in evidence displayed characteristic instances of misspelling, and it was *held*to be competent to-prove other writings of the defendant’s, containing identical errors in spelling, for the purpose of connecting the defendant with the cards which formed the -abject of the charge.

2. It was, also, *held*to be incompetent to test the knowledge of an expert in handwriting, by placing before him irrelevant papers, for the mere purpose of contradicting his testimony as to the handwriting thereof.

[Cited in Springer v. Hall, 83 Mo. 698.]

3. It was, also, *held,*to be competent for the-jury to compare the handwriting of documents properly in evidence, and proved to have been written by the defendant, with the handwriting of the cards in dispute, for the purpose of ascertaining the origin of the cards.

4. It was, also, *held,*that, standard specimens-of the defendant’s handwriting being in evidence, an expert might point out to the jury features in the writing of ,uch specimens, identical with those displayed by the cards in question.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford, District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

This was an indictment [against Moses Chamberlain] tried before BENEDICT, District Judge, for depositing scurrilous postaL cards in the mail.

The cards put in evidence displayed characteristic instances of misspelling, and it was held to be competent to prove other writings-of the defendant’s, containing identical errors in spelling, foi the purpose of connecting the defendant with the cards which formed the subject of the charge.

It was, also, held to be incompetent to test the knowledge of an expert in handwriting, by placing before him irrelevant papers, for the mere purpose of contradicting his testimony as to the handwriting thereof.

It was, also, held to be competent for the jury to compare the handwriting of documents properly in evidence, and proved to have been written by the defendant, with the handwriting of the cards in dispute, for the purpose of ascertaining the origin of the cards.

It was, also, held, that, standard specimens of the defendant’s handwriting being in evidence, an expert might point out to the jury features in the writing of such specimens, identical with those displayed by the cards in question.

There were cited, as authorities,'Brookes v. Tichhorae, 2 Eng. Law & Eq.' Rep. 374; *395Doe v. Newton, 5 Adol. & E. 514; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. [79 U S.] 317; Van Wyck v. McIntosh, 14 N. Y. 439; Griffits v. Ivery, 11 Adol. & E. 322.