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


<ARTICLE>                                              7
<CIK>                                         0001037559
<NAME>                    American Public Holdings, Inc.

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                   0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                         33,956,169
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                           33,833,557
<EQUITIES>                                             0
<MORTGAGE>                                       640,530
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    633,477
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                36,541,896
<CASH>                                          (527,424)
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                     0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         8,934,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                49,229,798
<POLICY-LOSSES>                               32,399,637
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              756,617
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 1,334,273
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            419,891
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          52,347
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,179,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  49,229,798
<PREMIUMS>                                    22,295,785
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            1,869,716
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 6,744
<OTHER-INCOME>                                    13,326
<BENEFITS>                                    18,633,583
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    2,004,158
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           5,833,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,285,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      18,042
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,303,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,303,997)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                         0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                    0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                       0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                        0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                0






</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


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 Universal Solar Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  WeileiLv, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:August 6, 2014
 
 /s/ WeileiLvWeileiLv, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
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 BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended November 3, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Herbert J Zarkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: December 4, 2007 |  | /s/ HERBERT J ZARKIN   
|                        |  | Herbert J Zarkin       
|                        |  | Chairman of the Board  
|                        |  | President              
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
From: sonlight2@myfairpoint.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:58 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,

William Plenge

Franklin, NH 03235
### 2

NESE



### offense was non-violent; most of the prior felony convictions relied upon for habitual criminal treatment were relatively old; and the prior convictions were of disparate natures, which Spoto asserts, "denotes a lack of specified habitual criminality." The district court has broad discretion to dismiss a count of habitual criminality. See NRS 207.010(2); O'Neill v. State, 123 Nev. 9, 12, 153 P.3d 38, 40 (2007). Our review of the record reveals that the district court understood its sentencing authority and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the count. See Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 333, 996 P.2d 890, 893 (2000); see also Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 (1992) ("NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent crimes or the remoteness of convictions.").

Lastly, Spoto asserts that his sentence of 5-18 years in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the underlying offense and his criminal history. We disagree. Spoto does not allege that the habitual criminal punishment statute is unconstitutional, his sentence is within the parameters of that statute, and we are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and Spoto's criminal history as to shock the conscience. Therefore we conclude that the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see NRS 207.010(1)(a); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A , zirtCp
1:11Vopinion); 

### Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996), and

we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1

Hardesty

J. Cherry

cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge Eichhorn & Hoo LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1 Spoto's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not contain 1-inch margins on all four sides. We caution Spoto's counsel that future failure to comply with applicable rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
From: darrella@unitedelevator.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:41 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,

Darrell Atkins

Knoxville, TN 37901
Before the First Division,

December 2, 1964

No. 68909.

#### Vandegrift Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/4480 and 64/4481 (New York).

*319Opinion by

Nichols, J.

Since the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation, they were dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
From: Shirley May Byrnes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of Preventive Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:50:43 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Contraceptive services are an important preventative to

unwanted pregnancies and, in some cases, provide an important health benefit such as relief from

severe menstrual problems.

Some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals

with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ

people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Shirley
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, John S. Chidester, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Town and Country Appraisal Service, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Town and Country Appraisal Service, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I, as the certifying officer have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 8, 2009 By:  /s/ John S. Chidester John S. Chidester Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
December 1, 1964

No. 68918.

Appeal 5170.

#### United States *v.*Air Express International Agency, Inc., a/c Hyland Laboratories.

Abstract 68288, Appeal dismissed September 28, 1964.
From: jdnservices@ckswireless.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:57:53 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,

Dale Fuller

Jacksonville, TX 75766
From: brendy@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:09:40 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,

Brendan O'Connell

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: crdj72@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:47:44 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,

Clarence Dalrymple

Westlake, LA 70669