alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                        |  |  |
|                     North Carolina |                 000-13823 |                    56-1456589 |

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |  |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification Number) |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |  |
| [ | ] | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
| [ | ] | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
| [ | ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
| [ | ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

----

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |
| Exhibit No. | Description |
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated April 29, 2016, announcing CommunityOne Bancorp’s financial results for the first quarter of 2016. |

----

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |  |
| April 29, 2016 |   | COMMUNITYONE BANCORP |
| (Date)         |   | (Registrant) |
|           |   |   |
|           |   | /s/ David L. Nielsen |
|           |   | David L. Nielsen |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer |

----

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |
| Exhibit No. | Description |
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated April 29, 2016, announcing CommunityOne Bancorp’s financial results for the first quarter of 2016. |
From: becky@classiccabinetry.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:08:55 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,

Rebecca Worley

Chattanooga, TN 37421
Exhibit 4.1





Certificate Number Number of Shares


[                                 ] [                               ]














THE FIRST BANCORP (logo)


Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Maine








One Cent Par Value CUSIP 31866P102





This certifies that [                                           ] is the owner of


[                                   ] shares of the Common Stock of





THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.





Transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder thereof in person or by Attorney, upon


Surrender of this Certificate when properly endorsed. In Witness whereof, the said Corporation has caused


this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed below.








This [              ] day of [                 ] A.D. [              ]





_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________


President Treasurer or Clerk








This certificate is transferable at the office of the Company, Damariscotta, Maine


No. [               ]











THE FIRST BANCORP (logo)


Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Maine








CERTIFICATE


FOR








[                    ]








ISSUED TO








[                                      ]





DATED





[                                      ]
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 Annual Report of
Dong Fang Minerals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date here of (the "report"), I, Jian Hong Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully 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 presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated this 30th day of April,
2009.





JIAN HONG LIUJian
      Hong Liu, President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
      Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and
  Treasurer.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EILEEN VEY,

Petitioner

v.

JERRY TYSKIEWIEZ, DIRECTOR OF

SERVICES, DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 123 WM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of January , 201 7

, the “King’s Bench Matter” is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 304 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 304

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 17, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Judiciary: Ms. Baldwin (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Sherman).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 63805.

protests 58/24943, etc. (New York).

#### Pez-Haas, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic candy dispensers in chief value of polystyrene, not articles in chief value of cellulose acetate, the .claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: stephen849@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38:44 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,

Stephen Litzen

Canastota, NY 13032
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00480-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Javier J. TREVINO

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022PB6000079L2

Honorable Victor Villarreal, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Each party 

shall bear its own costs of appeal.

SIGNED December 6, 2023.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 16, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1484

Lower Tribunal No. 11-13229A

________________

Antonio Vestor Fountain,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. De La O, Judge.

Antonio Vestor Fountain, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Case No. 6,472.

#### HIGGS et ux. v. HEUGH.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 142.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1827.

Trial — Continuance—Absence or Witness.

In an affidavit for continuance of a cause on account of the absence of a witness, it is not necessary to state the particular circumstances of diligence used by the party to obtain the testimony of such witness. They may be proved ore tenus.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiffs,

moved for a continuance of the cause, on affidavit of the plaintiff, Higgs, which stated, “that a witness in behalf of the plaintiffs in said suit, to wit,' Turbett R. Belton, whose ■ testimony is material, competent, and proper in the said suit, is really wanting from West Florida, and that the plaintiffs have used their proper and reasonable endeavors, to procure the testimony of the said witness, and this deponent verily believes that the said cause cannot be tried with justice to the plaintiffs, without such testimony, and he has a reasonable expectation and belief, that the testimony of the said witness can be procured at the next regular session of this court.” The affidavit then stated the particular facts which it was expected the witness would prove.

Mr. Key, for defendant,

objected that it did not appear, by the affidavit, what particular endeavors the plaintiffs had made to obtain the testimony of the witness.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) said, that the practice of the court has not been to require the particular circumstances of diligence to be stated in the affidavit, but to examine the party, or his counsel either upon oath or otherwise to the satisfaction of the court as to the particular endeavors to obtain the testimony; and, in the present case, being satisfied by Mr. Jones’s verbal statement, that reasonable diligence had been used, they continued the cause.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF
RIDDELL'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,175
<INVENTORY>                                     41,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,665
<PP&E>                                          19,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,188
<BONDS>                                        159,209
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,565
<SALES>                                         88,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,299
<CGS>                                           49,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (278)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)



</TABLE>
From: kbmerriken@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:03 PM

To HHS:

 I honorably served a four year tour in the US Navy. I strongly believe I served to uphold the US

Constitution and the rights of all people to worship whatever way they wish. But it has come to my

attention that there is being put forth the possiblity that my taxes might be used to pay for

contraceptives and sterilization services (including those with abortifacient mechanisms of action) free of

charge. Well, I repect property rights. If a woman was using my taxes to get rid of a foreign object or

property from her body, then I would have no objection. But the Bible says that since Adam knew Eve

and she conceived, we begin our lives at conception (Genesis 4:1 KJV) It seems that abortifacients are

going to be distributed using my taxes. abortifacient is a substance that induces abortion.

(Wikipedia)Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not end with live

birth. (Wikipedia)

Pregnancy is The condition or period of being pregnant. (Merriam-Webster). Therefore my taxes might

be used by a woman to end pregnancy and thus terminate the life of an innocent person. That is first

degree murder. Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder" NIV. I oppose first degree murder of innocent

inhabitants of the womb. They are not the property of their parents. End this sin in the name of the

Messiah, the Lord God Jesus Christ, who inhabited the womb of the Virgin Mary. (Matthew chapter 1).

Sincerely in Christ, Kenny Merriken 1428 S. Marion Ave apt 202, Lake City, Fl, 32025 ph.386-344-7339

service number 220-52-0349 

Sincerely,

Kenny Merriken

Lake City, FL 32025
From: skrause6@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:46:41 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,

Shawn Krause

Ninilchik, AK 99639
From: chris.stephanoff@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:38 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,

Christopher Stephanoff

North Charleston, SC 29420
### Thermal Profiles for Selected River Reaches in the Yakima River Basin, Washington

By: J. J. VaccaroM. E. KeysR. J. JulichW.B. Welch

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds342

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
Before the Second Division,

February 13, 1957

No. 60490.

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

protest 288356-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boxes of paper, covered with paper which has a coated surface, but not covered or lined with cotton or other vegetable fiber, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: stevemowery@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:57:24 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,

Steve Mowery

Abilene, TX 79603