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

       <ARTICLE>           9
       <CIK>               0001037249
       <NAME>              People's Community Capital Corporation

  <S>                            <C>
       <PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
       <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
       <PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
       <PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
       <CASH>                              1,615,538
       <INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>              42,032,799
       <FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                    6,900,000
       <TRADING-ASSETS>                    0
       <INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         10,212,423
       <INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>              0
       <INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                0
       <LOANS>                             39,315,690
       <ALLOWANCE>                         520,000
       <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      60,439,293
       <DEPOSITS>                          49,731,817
       <SHORT-TERM>                        694,711
       <LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 363,871
       <LONG-TERM>                         0
       <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
       <PREFERRED>                         0
       <COMMON>                            9,983
       <OTHER-SE>                          9,638,911
       <TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      60,439,293
       <INTEREST-LOAN>                     2,655,808
       <INTEREST-INVEST>                   507,139
       <INTEREST-OTHER>                    157,438
       <INTEREST-TOTAL>                    3,320,385
       <INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                  1,283,849
       <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,306,072
       <INTEREST-INCOME-NET>               2,014,313
       <LOAN-LOSSES>                       150,834
       <SECURITIES-GAINS>                  0
       <EXPENSE-OTHER>                     1,476,270
       <INCOME-PRETAX>                     651,332
       <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>          651,332
       <EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
       <CHANGES>                           0
       <NET-INCOME>                        403,207
       <EPS-BASIC>                         0.41
       <EPS-DILUTED>                       0.41
       <YIELD-ACTUAL>                      5.17
       <LOANS-NON>                         25,394
       <LOANS-PAST>                        0
       <LOANS-TROUBLED>                    0
       <LOANS-PROBLEM>                     25,394
       <ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                    410,000
       <CHARGE-OFFS>                       40,950
       <RECOVERIES>                        116
       <ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                   520,000
       <ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                0
       <ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                 0
       <ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>             520,000


</TABLE>
From: stchtime@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:48 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,

tony bonacci

Allendale, MI 49401
Before the Third Division,

February 15, 1960

No. 63811.

protest 182403-K (Baltimore).

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. *v.*United States,

*344Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of. counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61245, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
 
 
 
 My name is Rizalyn Cabrillas and I am the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer of Eaglecrest Resources, Inc. (the “Company”).
 
 I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
 
 (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Eaglecrest Resources, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.
 
 RIZALYN CABRILLAS
 Rizalyn Cabrillas
 Chief Financial Officer and
 Secretary Treasurer
  Date: April 29, 2011




-1-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended October 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874993
<NAME>                        IDF INTERNATIONAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Oct-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                Aug-01-1998         
<PERIOD-END>                                  Oct-31-1998        
<CASH>                                              12,318        
<SECURITIES>                                             0        
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,231,334        
<ALLOWANCES>                                       450,000        
<INVENTORY>                                              0        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,522,431        
<PP&E>                                             834,483        
<DEPRECIATION>                                     514,402        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,882,136        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,870,397        
<BONDS>                                            746,900        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                9,928        
<PREFERRED>                                              0        
<COMMON>                                         4,160,000        
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,905,089)       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,882,136        
<SALES>                                          3,058,233        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,058,233        
<CGS>                                            1,630,957        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,630,957        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,471,849        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   110,000        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 253,511        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (273,832)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (273,832)       
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0        
<CHANGES>                                                0        
<NET-INCOME>                                      (273,832)       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.03)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.03)
                                                           
                                               

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

March 21, 1963

No. 67524.

#### Rex-Spanall, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/4625, 61/18956, and 62/8883 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of form supports similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Builders Supply Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 99, C.D. 2319), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: llugenereece@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:26:41 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,

Linda Reece

Boise, ID 83705
From: ruthfulton@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:41:48 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,

Ruth Fulton

Fort Collins, CO 80525
From: joneswl2@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:52 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,

Larry Jones

Pompano Beach, FL 33067
April 15, 1965

No. 69246.

#### Vanderlaan Tile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/1795, 62/17548, and 61/21594.

Protests abandoned March 26, 1965.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 163 

Urging the collective judgment of both Congress and the President regarding 

the use of military force by the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007 

Ms. DELAURO (for herself, Mr. OLVER, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mrs. 

MALONEY of New York, and Mr. FATTAH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the collective judgment of both Congress and the 

President regarding the use of military force by the 

United States. 

Whereas the United States has the best trained, most effective military in the world; 

Whereas the United States military consists of an all volunteer force of dedicated, patriotic men and women; 

Whereas the men and women of the Armed Forces are a reflection of the best values and spirit of our Nation; 

Whereas Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the 

members of the Armed Forces are provided for to the 

fullest extent possible; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 163 IH 

Whereas Congress has a responsibility to make certain that 

the lives of the members of the Armed Forces are never 

put at risk without careful consideration; 

Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power to declare war; 

Whereas the use of military force by the United States must 

not proceed without careful preparation; 

Whereas Congress enacted legislation permitting the President of the United States to use military force against 

Afghanistan (Public Law 107–40) and against Iraq 

(Public Law 107–243) only after 17 hours of debate; and 

Whereas the use of military force by the United States must 

not be undertaken without a full debate over whether it 

is in the best interests of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) it is the sense of the House of Representa3 tives that the Constitution of the United States pro4 vides that the President, in an emergency, may act 

5 to defend the country, but reserved the matter of of6 fensive war to Congress as the representatives of the 

7 people; and 

8 (2) the House of Representatives affirms the 

9 requirement under the Constitution that the Presi10 dent seek and obtain the approval of Congress be11 fore the United States undertakes offensive military 

12 action against any other nation. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
From: awf26@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:05:54 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,

Anita Fritze

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
From: kathy.savini@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:31:09 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,

Kathy Savini

Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234