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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc.'s Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended 
November 3, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-05-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-03-1996
<CASH>                                       6,006,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,044,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 22,684,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,584,243
<PP&E>                                      44,219,082
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,649,422)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,442,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,351,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,600
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,636,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,442,766
<SALES>                                     43,247,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,247,154
<CGS>                                       28,959,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,837,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (89,862)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,540,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,801,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,739,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,739,078
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.33
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

MAC Electric Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62558, 62559, 62792

)

Under Contract No. W9124R-11-D-0214 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Gunjan R. Talati, Esq.

 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

1LT Bryan R. Williamson, JA

MAJ Aaron McCartney, JA

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 23, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62558, 62559, 62792, Appeals of 

MAC Electric Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 23, 2022

DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67323-67324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21308]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; TRND 2 TOXICOLOGY STUDIES AND 
RELATED SERVICES FOR PRECLINICAL DRUG DEVELOPMENT.
    Date: October 31-November 1, 2023.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Center for 
Advancing Translational Sciences, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Rahat (Rani) Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of

[[Page 67324]]

Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1078, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 594-7319, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a61626b6478384a69797824646362246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="375c5f565945057754444519595e5f19505841">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21308 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[114th Congress Public Law 157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 393]]

Public Law 114-157
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Local Public 
Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976 to modernize terms 
     relating to minorities. <<NOTE: May 20, 2016 -  [H.R. 4238]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODERNIZATION OF TERMS RELATING TO MINORITIES.

    (a) Office of Minority Economic Impact.--Section 211(f)(1) of the 
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7141(f)(1)) is amended 
by striking ``a Negro, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, 
or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish descent'' and 
inserting ``Asian American, Native Hawaiian, a Pacific Islander, African 
American, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, Native American, or an Alaska 
Native''.
    (b) Minority Business Enterprises.--Section 106(f)(2) of the Local 
Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 
6705(f)(2)) is amended by striking ``Negroes, Spanish-speaking, 
Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts'' and inserting ``Asian 
American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders, African American, 
Hispanic, Native American, or Alaska Natives''.

    Approved May 20, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4238:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Feb. 29, considered and passed House.
            May 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DARYL KEITH SILLS, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-JBF-JEB-3)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl Keith Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daryl Keith Sills appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Sills , No. 2:03-cr00148-JBF (E.D. Va. filed June 10, 2008; entered June 13, 2008; filed July 11, 2008; entered July 17, 2008). 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. 68137.

#### Alfred Dronge Music Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/14631, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
September 10, 2015

Mr. Cameron Stotz

1625 Snyder Street

Waukee, IA 50263

Dear Mr. Stotz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

part 21, subpart H; part 61 and §§ 91.103(b)(2), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 

91.405, 91.407, 91.409, and 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 3, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2605, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
From: peggy@heirsofsalvation.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:07 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,

Peggy Ewbank

Azusa, CA 91702
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 421 

Honoring the trailblazing accomplishments of the ‘‘Mercury 13’’ women, 

whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the capabilities of American women to undertake the human exploration of space. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Mr. KAGEN (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. KIND, and Mr. GORDON

of Tennessee) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Science and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the trailblazing accomplishments of the ‘‘Mercury 

13’’ women, whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the capabilities of American women to undertake the human exploration of space. 

Whereas all of the Mercury 13 women were accomplished pilots with commercial ratings or better and at least 2,000 

hours of flying time; 

Whereas the Mercury 13 women passed the same rigorous 

physical and psychological tests that the original Mercury 

7 astronauts had to undergo; 

Whereas the Mercury 13 women successfully completed their 

testing at the Lovelace Clinic, in Albuquerque, New Mexico by the end of 1961; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 421 IH 

Whereas the Mercury 13 women were prepared to continue 

their contributions to America’s space program at the 

Naval School of Aviation Medicine in Pensacola, Florida, 

by undergoing advanced aeromedical examinations using 

jet aircraft and military equipment, until they were informed that their testing program was canceled; 

Whereas the Soviet Union flew the first woman in space in 

1963; 

Whereas the United States flew the first American woman in 

space, Dr. Sally Ride, in 1983; 

Whereas the United States flew the first woman to pilot the 

Space Shuttle, Lt. Col. Eileen Collins, in 1995; 

Whereas the Mercury 13 women served as pathfinders for 

NASA’s female astronauts; and 

Whereas the careers of accomplishment of the Mercury 13 

women can serve as an inspiration for other young 

women who are considering pursuing a career in aviation, 

astronautics, science, or engineering: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes and honors the contributions of 

3 Myrtle Cagle, Geraldyn ‘‘Jerrie’’ Cobb, Jan Dietrich, 

4 Marion Dietrich, Mary Wallace ‘‘Wally’’ Funk, Jane 

5 Briggs Hart, Jean Hixson, Gene Nora Stumbough 

6 Jessen, Irene Leverton, Sarah Lee Gorelick Ratley, 

7 Bernice Trimble Steadman, Geraldine ‘‘Jerri’’ Sloan 

8 Truhill, and Rhea Hurrle Allison Woltman; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HRES 421 IH 

1 (2) encourages young women to follow in the 

2 footsteps of the Mercury 13 women and pursue ca3 reers of excellence in aviation and astronautics, as 

4 well as in engineering and science. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
DETENTION ORDER- 1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KIP JOHN WHELPLEY, 

 

 Defendant 

Case No. CR05-407 RSM 

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged: 

 Conspiracy to Import Marijuana; 

 Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana; 

 Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. 

Date of Detention Hearing: June 5, 2008 

 The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), 

and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, 

finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the defendant can meet will 

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person 

and the community. 

Case 2:05-cr-00407-RSM Document 23 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 2
DETENTION ORDER- 2 

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

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant was arrested in Canada and was extradited back to this district for 

these proceedings. Defendant declined to be interviewed by U.S. Pretrial 

Services. 

(2) At the detention hearing, defendant stipulated to detention. 

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the 

Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility separate, to the extent 

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being held in custody 

pending appeal; 

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with 

counsel; 

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in which Defendant 

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose 

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and 

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to 

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshall, and to the United States 

Pretrial Services Officer. 

DATED this 5th day of June, 2008. 

 ___/s/Brian A. Tsuchida________ 

 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00407-RSM Document 23 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2
From: stephiek1984@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Kilbourn

Garland, TX 75044
November 8, 2011 

Ms. Andrea R. Fraser 

Deputy County Attorney 

Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

P.O. Box 398 

Fort Myers, FL 33902-0398 

Dear Ms. Fraser: 

This is in response to your July 25, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0813) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Lee County Board of County 

Commissioners (Lee County) for an exemption from § 119.69(a)(1) and (2) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Lee County to 

combine the management positions of Chief Pilot and Director of Operations required by 

§ 119.69 into one position. 

After review of Lee County’s operations specifications, the FAA finds that a grant of 

exemption is not appropriate. A deviation has been granted in Operations Specification 

A005(c) that substantiates combining both management positions in accordance with 

14 CFR. 

Because the relief you seek is covered under deviation authority, we will take no further 

action on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
No. 58672.

petition 7125-R (Pittsburgh).

#### Ideal Shirt Company *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This case arises by petition for remission of additional duties filed under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Petitioner imported a quantity of palm-leaf hats from Ecuador, which were entered at a value lower than the appraised value. Therefore, additional duties were assessed. The importer, the petitioner herein, testified that he ordered the merchandise in August 1952, and it was not entered until January 1953. He entered at the purchase price. During the intervening time, the price had advanced, but he was unaware of that fact. The witness testified that he turned over to the Government officials all the information he had as to these hats and showed his records of payments. He further testified that, in entering as he did, he had no intention of misrepresenting the value of the hats and did not intend to deceive the appraiser or defraud the Government.

Government counsel stated that this petition had been investigated by a customs agent who reported:

> In view of the foregoing it does not appear that there was any intent on the part of the petitioner to defraud the United States of its lawful revenue or to withhold or misrepresent the facts to the Appraiser.

On this state of the record, we find and so hold that the petition should be and the same is granted. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.