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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,882,915
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         130,122
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,417,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,670,990
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     57,645,216
<ALLOWANCE>                                    703,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,234,631
<DEPOSITS>                                  71,256,270
<SHORT-TERM>                                   255,815
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,280,210
<LONG-TERM>                                    619,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,083
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,777,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              82,234,631
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,347,699
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              219,464
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                35,716
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,602,879
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             755,525
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             769,759
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          833,120
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   37,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                696,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                405,093
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     405,093
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   281,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.43
<LOANS-NON>                                    238,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               677,101
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   18,201
<RECOVERIES>                                     7,375
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              703,775
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            53,500
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        650,275
        

</TABLE>
From: sarubbi@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:43 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,

John Sarubbi

West Harrison, NY 10604
EXHIBIT 11
                                       Calculation of Weighted Average Shares
                                     Outstanding for Net Income (Loss) Per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                      Six Months Ended
                                                                                           June 30,
                                                                                    1999               2000
                                                                                -------------    ---------------
<S>                                                                             <C>              <C>
Earnings:
Net Income (Loss)..........................................................     $   (605,618)    $      362,394
                                                                                =============    ==============

Shares:
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares
   Outstanding.............................................................         5,980,621         8,019,260
                                                                                -------------    --------------
Average Common Shares Outstanding and Equivalents..........................         5,980,621         8,457,021
                                                                                =============    ==============

Net Income (Loss) Per Share-Basic..........................................     $      (0.10)    $         0.05
                                                                                =============    ==============
Net Income (Loss) Per Share-Diluted........................................     $          --    $         0.05
                                                                                =============    ==============
</TABLE>

* -- Calculation would be antidilutive for 1998.
From: stewartz@clearwire.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Karen Stewart

Meridian, ID 83646
No. 63766.

protests 58/13423, etc. (New York).

#### Empire Liquor Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the-claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: carsonmoseley123@netzero.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:18:20 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,

Carson Moseley

Taylorsville, NC 28681
From: godslove4us@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:39 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,

Cindy McCabe

Corona, CA 92882
From: rtllblack@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:01:33 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,

Linda Black

Jacksboro, TX 76458
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEAVON PIERCE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16523 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01083-LJO-SAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Seavon Pierce appeals pro se from the district 

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing 

fee, after denying Pierce’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the 

basis that Pierce has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 28 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16523 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s 

Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. 

The district court properly denied Pierce’s motion to proceed IFP because at 

the time Pierce filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as 

strikes, and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing 

the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). 

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. 

See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts 

not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). 

Pierce’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief and Docket 

Entry Nos. 8 and 17, are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0033.html[8/29/2011 1:19:01 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 18, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80ee50ce

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0033

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Bill Francis

Address:

16252 70th Rd SE

Faucett, MO, 64448

Email: francis@diocesekcsj.org

Phone: 816-756-1850

Organization: Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph

General Comment

As a concerned citizen I call for the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reject

the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations - Clinical Preventive Services: Closing the Gap. These

recommendations effectively identify pregnancy as a disease and are an affront to the consciences of

those forced to implement these recommendations and to myself who would be forced by lawful

payment of taxes to subsidize practices I find morally reprehensible to the dignity of the human

person. 

While proposing noteworthy services such as screening for gestational diabetes and support for

breastfeeding, these recommendations demonstrate a disregard for the gift of human life and

promote risky sexual behavior through contraceptive education. The increase of contraceptive

education and distribution of contraceptives will do nothing to address the sexual promiscuity that is

the source of many clinical concerns. Moreover, contraceptives have not increased the dignity and

value of the woman but have instead made her an object of use and have directly contributed to the

destruction of the fundamental family cell in our society. Direct governmental support of

contraception and sterilization must be rejected. 

Additionally, the narrow religious exemption proposed by the HHS communicates a desire of the HHS

to remove the Catholic Church from her mission of employing and serving the needs of those who

are not of the same faith. How narrow would the service of Church be if she was limited, by our

government, to inculcation of the faith and to hiring and serving only her own. In addition, the

expense to the government and to the American citizens would be far greater than any “savings”

found under the “preventive” services proposed by IOM and accepted by HHS. 
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0033.html[8/29/2011 1:19:01 PM]

This new threat to conscience makes it especially critical for Congress to pass the “Respect for Rights

of Conscience Act” (HR 1179).
From: dianadulle@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:24:18 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,

Diana Dulle

Loveland, OH 45140