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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                           17,020
<SECURITIES>                                     3,469
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      226,676
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 272,714
<PP&E>                                           93,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   405,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            157,083
<BONDS>                                          143,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         122
<OTHER-SE>                                       84,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     405,288
<SALES>                                          857,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 857,329
<CGS>                                            692,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    692,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,402
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.28
        

</TABLE>
From: blumx7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:16:58 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,

bonnie Mitchell

Tallassee, TN 37878
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-025 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
f8k011013ex10ii_biologix.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







  





  











  






 







	Witness	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
/s/ Tom David 

	 
	 	 	 	Tom David (Landlord)	 
	
 

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	 	 	
CRANIUM TECHNOLOGIES LTD.:


 

	 
	 	 	 	/s/ Daniel Hunter	 
	 	 	 	Authorized Signing Officer (Tenant)	 
	 	 	 	Name, Title & address of Officer, printer:	 
	 	 	 	Daniel Hunter, SGY + Director
From: melanconguitars@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:56 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,

Gerard Melancon

Thibodaux, LA 70301
No. 66483.

#### General Chain & Belt Co. *v.*United States,

protests 276951-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of conveyor chains, or parts thereof, the same as those the subject of *General Chain & Belt Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 115, C.D. 2074), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 321 

Honoring Dick Brown: New York’s greatest ambassador to Washington. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Dick Brown: New York’s greatest ambassador to 

Washington. 

Whereas Richard Arthur Brown, known to his friends as 

Dick Brown, was one of the greatest ambassadors the 

city of New York has ever had in Washington, DC; 

Whereas he passed away on February 13, 2004, at the age 

of 85; 

Whereas he was a native New Yorker, raised in Manhattan, 

educated at City College of the City University of New 

York and New York University; 

Whereas among the considerable talents he applied in advancing his passion for politics were the arts of journalism and publicity, including a weekly column which 

appeared in the New York Post; 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 321 IH 

Whereas his first love was his beloved wife Vivian and his 

family, and after them the great city of New York and 

the world of politics; 

Whereas, after returning home from service in the U.S. Army 

in Panama, he became entrenched in New York City politics where, in 1949, he founded the Lexington Democratic Club and became a leader of the Reform Movement 

in Democratic politics; 

Whereas in that capacity he worked closely with Eleanor Roosevelt, Governor Lehman, and New York Post publisher 

Dorothy Schiff in spreading the message of political reform around the city; 

Whereas I first met Dick Brown when I was serving as an 

Assemblyman in the New York State Legislature and invited him to work with us on the mayoral ticket headed 

by Jim Scheur; 

Whereas Dick later served as Scheur’s chief of staff in Washington when he was elected to Congress; 

Whereas Dick Brown’s move to Washington was one of the 

best things that ever happened to spread the gospel in 

the Nation’s capital about all the good things that were 

available in the great city of New York; 

Whereas Dick Brown mastered the role as New York’s impresario to Washington; as the executive director of the New 

York Festival which I helped to found in the 1970s, Dick 

Brown showcased New York in ways no one had ever 

seen before; all of its best foods, wines, culture, theater 

and the arts took center stage on one glorious night each 

year; 

Whereas those days will never be forgotten, when the strains 

of Frank Sinatra’s anthem to our city, ‘‘New York, New 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 321 IH 

York’’, rang over the Nation’s capital; for that we will 

forever owe Dick Brown our gratitude; and 

Whereas Dick Brown is survived by his wife, Vivian, daughter and son-in-law Jennifer and Leonard Greenberger, his 

grandchildren Brandon and Rachel and his sister Roselyn 

Freeman: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Dick Brown will forever be remem2 bered as a great American political reformer and as one 

3 of New York’s greatest ambassadors. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00326

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.J. , C.H.J., J.H.J., and P.H.J., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 00096

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant i n relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.

SIGNED January 2, 2020

.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0335**
From: Joseph Stolle <joseph@shellengr.com>

To: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: sstotts@stinson.com

Date: 06/22/2011 04:40 PM Subject: Re: Main stack height in Shell Modeling

330' is the GEP height, 550' is the actual height for the main stack. Thanks for
the info on EP58.

Joe Joseph A. Stolle, PE Shell Engineering (913)898-3000 Cell (816)377-2470

On 6/22/2011 3:19 PM, Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov wrote: Hi Joseph,

I've noticed that in your source parameters that you submitted in your comments you
modeled the main stack height at 100.75 meters. This is about 330 feet whereas I was under the impression that the main stack height was 550 feet (as found in your MO EIQ).

Is 330 feet an accurate number? If it's not the actual stack height, why was it used in the model run you submitted in your public comments?

Also, just as an FYI, the 2008 and 2009 EIQ also lists the release height of EP 058 (dross transfer/storage) as 530'. One of the comments you submitted on the modeling we performed for the proposed rule stated that the actual release height is around 25' and that 530' was
incorrect. If this is the case, you may want to fix this error in your next EIQ.

Nathan Topham Environmental Engineer US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG Page 1Phone - (919)541-0483

Page 2
From: Dave Rogers

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Plea to Expand Overly-Narrow Conscience Exemption

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:07:41 PM

Dear HHS:

The current definition of "religious employer", as contained in the recent mandate

issued by the US Government that all medical insurance and health care plans

include coverage for sterilization and contraception, including potential abortifacients,

does not provide true conscience protection for those committed to preserving life.

Health care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions

of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care system.

Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to health

care and religious freedom of conscience.

Thank you,

David M. Rogers

Dallas, Texas
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 303 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 303

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day ought 
 to be established to bring awareness to the issue of missing persons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 2007

Mrs. Gillibrand submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day ought 
 to be established to bring awareness to the issue of missing persons.

Whereas each year tens of thousands of people go missing in the United States;
Whereas, on any given day, there are as many as 100,000 active missing persons 
        cases in the United States;
Whereas the Missing Persons File of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 
        was implemented in 1975;
Whereas, in 2005, 109,531 persons were reported missing to law enforcement 
        agencies nationwide, of whom 11,868 were between the ages of 18 and 20;
Whereas section 204 of the PROTECT Act, known as Suzanne's Law and passed by 
        Congress on April 10, 2003, modifies section 3701(a) of the Crime 
        Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5779(a)), so that agencies must enter 
        records into the NCIC database for all missing persons under the age of 
        21;
Whereas Kristen's Act (42 U.S.C. 14665), passed in 1999, has established grants 
        for organizations to, among other things, track missing persons and 
        provide informational services to families and the public;
Whereas, according to the NCIC, 48,639 missing persons were located in 2005, an 
        improvement of 4.2 percent from the previous year;
Whereas many persons reported missing may be victims of Alzheimer's disease or 
        other health-related issues, or may be victims of foul play;
Whereas, regardless of age or circumstances, all missing persons have families 
        who need support and guidance to endure the days, months, or years they 
        may spend searching for their missing loved ones; and
Whereas it is important to applaud the committed efforts of families, law 
        enforcement agencies, and concerned citizens who work to locate missing 
        persons and to prevent all forms of victimization: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) a day ought to be established to bring awareness to the 
        issue of missing persons; and
            (2) the people of the United States should be encouraged 
        to--
                    (A) observe the day with appropriate programs and 
                activities; and
                    (B) support worthy initiatives and increased 
                efforts to locate missing persons.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

August 26, 1959

No. 63313.

protest 58/2648 (New York).

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of enlargers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Filed 12/6/18 by Clerk of Supreme Co urt IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 249

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Joel Mejia, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20180178
Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.
AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Wade G. Enget , Mountrail County State’s Attorney, Stanley, ND, for plaintiff and appellee. Caitlyn A. Pierson , Minot, ND, for defendant and appellant.State v. Mejia No. 20180178

Per Curiam . [ ¶1] Joel Mejia appeals f rom a crim inal judgm ent e ntered af ter he was f

ound guilty of sim ple assault f

ollowing a bench t rial. Mejia a r gues there w as insuf f icient evidence to s ustain his conviction f or sim ple assa u l t a n d t h a t t he district c ourt was required to m ake a f

inding on his claim of self -def e n se. W e s um m a rily af

f irm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) , concl u d i n g t here w as suf f icient evidence t o support the guilty verdict. W e also af f irm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) , concluding i n a case tried w ithout a jury , the court need only f ind the def

e n dant guilty or not guilty

. State v. Berger , 235 N.W .2d 254, 263 (N.D. 1975). [ ¶2] Gerald W . VandeW alle, C.J. Jon J. Jensen Jerod E. Tuf

te Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers

1
EXHIBIT 11

                     CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
                      OUTSTANDING FOR NET INCOME PER SHARE



                                                  For the three months ending
                                                          March 31
                                                   2003                2002
Net Loss ........................................$ (687,264)       $(1,346,064)
                                                  ==========        ===========

SHARES:

Weighted Average Number of Common Shares

   Outstanding..................................  14,960,377       10,392,550
                                                  ----------       ----------

Average Common Shares Outstanding
  and Equivalents ..............................        n/a               n/a
                                                  ==========        ===========


Basic and diluted net income (Loss)
  per share .................................... $     (0.05)        $  (0.13)
                                                  ==========        ===========
No. 68101.

#### Union Oil Co. of California and Guy B. Barham Company *v.*United States,

protests 205568-K and 207641-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seamless steel casing similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 32, C.D. 1577), the items marked “A” were held dutiable at the rate of 10 percent and the items marked “B” at the rate of 7% percent, as claimed.
#### Archie STURGILL, Petitioner, v. KERMIT COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 01-1109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 13, 2001.

Archie Sturgill, petitioner pro se. Douglas Allan Smoot, Jackson *&*Kelly, Charleston, WV; Patricia May Nece, Edward Waldman, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Archie Sturgill seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.**See Sturgill v. Kermit Coal Company,*No. 99-0676 BLA (B.R.B. Dec. 20, 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.*

*

 We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, *see*Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.