alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Property Resources, Inc.

777 Mariners Island Boulevard
San Mateo, California 94404



December 31, 1996



Filed Via EDGAR (CIK #0000765195)
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:  Property Resources Equity Trust
       Form 8-K


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Regulation S-T, submitted for filing via the EDGAR system please
find a Current Report on Form 8-K on behalf of Property Resources Equity Trust.




Very truly yours,




/s/ David P. Goss
David P. Goss
President





                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, DC 20549


                                   FORM 8-K


                                CURRENT REPORT


                    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) DECEMBER 16, 1996

                        Property Resources Equity Trust

            (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)





California                         0-15880                      94-3959770


State or other              Commission File Number             IRS Employer
jurisdiction of                                               Identification
incorporation                                                     Number


                    1800 Gateway Drive, San Mateo, CA 94404

             (Address of Principal Executive Offices)  (Zip Code)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (415)312-3000



ITEM 5:     OTHER MATERIAL EVENTS

Graham Court Business Park
5963-5981 Graham Court
Livermore, California

On Monday, December 16, 1996, the Company entered into an Agreement of
Purchase and Sale (the "Agreement") with the intent of selling the Graham
Court Business Park (the "Property").  The buyer is an unaffiliated third
party.  The contractual purchase price is $2,200,000.  If the Property is
sold under the current terms of the Agreement, the Company will net
approximately $2,100,000 after real estate commissions and closing costs.
Certain contractual contingencies remain and there can be no assurances that
the sale will be completed at this price or at all.



Dated:      December 31, 1996    PROPERTY RESOURCES EQUITY TRUST



                                  BY /S/ DAVID P. GOSS
                                         David P. Goss
                                         President
Exhibit 21.0

Subsidiaries



|                                           |  |                     |   |  |                                      
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------- | - |  | -------------------------------------
|Registrant                                 |  | PercentageOwnership |   |  | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation
|                                           |  |                    
|First Savings Financial Group, Inc.        |  |                     |   |  | Indiana                              
|                                           |  |                    
|Subsidiaries                               |  |                     |   |  |                                      
|                                           |  |                    
|First Savings Bank, F.S.B.                 |  | 100                 | % |  | United States                        
|                                           |  |                    
|Southern Indiana Financial Corporation (1) |  | 100                 | % |  | Indiana                              
|                                           |  |                    
|FFCC, Inc. (1)                             |  | 100                 | % |  | Indiana                              
|                                           |  |                    
|First Savings Investments, Inc. (1)        |  | 100                 | % |  | Nevada                               



|(1) | Wholly owned subsidiary of First Savings Bank, F.S.B.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------
From: Sandyb16@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:25:45 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,

Sandra Bryant

Indianapolis, IN 46231
Before the First Division,

February 26, 1962

No. 66493.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/15145 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 454.

#### Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., et al. *v.*Wall Street Traders, Inc., et al.

*Robert Eikel, George W. Renaudin*and *L. J. Benckenstein*for petitioners.

*Richard Gyory*and *Herman E. Cooper*for respondents.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 60504.

#### Hurricane Import Company and Perryman, Mojonier Company *v.*United States,

protest 245669-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs the same in all material respects as those involved in *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58222.

protests 222150-K and 222962-K (New York).

#### Jersey National Liquor Co. and Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that one case of cognac from the entry involved in protest 222150-K and three cases of vermuth from the entry involved in protest 222962-K, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. *301In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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








Uziel
Leibowitz, the President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director of
Fenario, Inc., certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations
of the Company.





(1) The
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 operations of the
Registrant.








FENARIO,
      INC.Date:
      June 25, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Uziel LeibowitzName:
      Uziel LeibowitzTitle:
      President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director (Principal
      Executive, Financial, and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



nd




---



##### 



Early Retirement Ages:
    
    Applicable Percentage:62
    
    25%63
    
    50%64
    
    75%




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



©




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



/s/Mary Ann Elmore
    
    By:Gary C. Smith/s/Denise M. Harmych
    
    Title: President & CEO




---



##### 



LNB BANCORP, INC./s/Mary Ann Elmore
    
    By:Gary C. Smith/s/Denise M. Harmych
    
    Title:President & CEOEmployer/s/Mary Ann Elmore
    
    /s/Thomas P. RyanThomas P. Ryan, Executive Vice Presidentand Secretary/Treasurer/s/Denise M. HarmychExecutive
No. P67/80.

#### W. Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 66/16289, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF BRADY MATERIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RAJINDER JOHAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-334RSL

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF BRADY MATERIAL

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Johal’s Motion for Pretrial Disclosure

of Brady Material” (Dkt. # 132). The Court has considered this motion and the government’s

response, and it is clear that the government has already complied and recognizes its continuing

obligation in this area. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In light of this agreement,

defendant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 153 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1
From: fenzxq@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:09:46 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,

Gregory Maloney

Portland, OR 97223
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1015
JOHN E. PASKOSKI, Petitioner, versus CERES CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-0197) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 10, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Gerald F. Gay, ARNOLD & GAY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Lawrence P. Postol, SEAFORTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John E. Paskoski seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of longshore benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1994& Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the administrative law judge properly weighed all relevant evidence uponremand and that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Paskoski v. Ceres Corp. , BRB No. 99-0197 (B.R.B. Nov. 2, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 67537.

#### Corrigan Dispatch Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/24766 (Laredo).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that only specified percentages of the merchandise have a staple of 1% inches or more in length, subject to the additional duty. As to the remainder of the merchandise, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Report on progress ofinvestigations of mineral resources of Alaska in ... [electronic resource].**
 
1904|1905|1906
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:M 66/

Item Number: 0620 (online)

CGP systemNumber:000954499
August 13, 2018
From: newlin.elaine3@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:31:57 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,

Elaine Newlin

Hortonville, WI 54944
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

April 9, 2014

Memorandum

Subject: Basis for Expedited Approval of TECTA EC/TC for the determination of total coliforms and E. 

coli under the Total Coliform Rule, Revised Total Coliform Rule and Ground Water Rule

From: James L. Sinclair, Microbiologist

To: The Record

Approved drinking water methods for total coliforms are listed at 40 CFR 141.21(f)(3) under the Total 

Coliform Rule (TCR) and 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5) under the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). Methods 

approved for E. coli in drinking water are listed at 40 CFR 141.21(f)(6) under the TCR, at 40 CFR 

141.402(c)(2) under the Ground Water Rule (GWR), and at 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5) under the RTCR.

TECTA EC/TC was evaluated through the Alternative Test Procedures(ATP) program for the analysis of 

total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water. TECTA EC/TC was developed by Veolia Water Solutions 

and Technologies, Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, 

Canada, K7L 3N6. The ATP evaluation compared TECTA EC/TC to Standard Methods 9221 B for total 

coliforms, and Standard Methods 9221 F for E. coli. This evaluation determined that TECTA EC/TC was 

equally effective as compared to the reference methods for the detection of total coliforms and E. coli. 

Since TECTA EC/TC has been found to be equally effective compared to Standard Methods 9221 B and 

Standard Methods 9221 F, which are approved under the TCR RTCR and GWR, TECTA EC/TC would give

equivalent results for total coliforms and E. coli determination under the TCR, RTCR and GWR.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3110

___________________________ Jeffrey Charles Rodd lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. K. Crandall, HS Asst.; Dr. Benjamin Rice; PA Ashley Peterson; C. Nickrenz;

Captain J. Feda; United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: February 9, 2022 Filed: February 14, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Former federal inmate Jeffrey Rodd brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Torts Claims Act against prison staff, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to injuries he suffered when he fell out of his wheelchair in November 2014.The district court 1 granted summary judgment dismissing Rodd’s Bivens claims

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as he did not attempt to file formal grievances. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). His alleged blindness did not excuse failure to exhaust because Bureau of Prisons regulations provide for assistance in obtaining administrative remedies, and Rodd did not allege that prison officials prevented him from seeking assistance. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.16(a). The court dismissed Rodd’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims because this action was not filed within six months after the Bureau of Prisons denied the claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); and Rodd was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish that anything prevented him from timely filing suit, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court’s analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
From: salmon_rising@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:57:59 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,

Ajay Clifton

Austin, TX 78726