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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REMINGTON
OIL AND GAS CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874992
<NAME> REMINGTON OIL AND GAS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,262
<PP&E>                                         290,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,602
<BONDS>                                          5,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,527
<SALES>                                         15,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,442
<CGS>                                            7,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,784
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the nine months ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sebastian Perez, Chief
Operating Officer and acting President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Sebastian F. Perez                                                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sebastian F. Perez, Chief Operating Officer and acting
 President and Chief Executive Officer

| | Date:   August 11, 2005
| | -----------------------
No. 68930.

#### Amity Fabrics, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/2845(A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Amity Fabrics, Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Real Value Estates, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

Dated: July 28, 2009
                                          /s/ Marina Karpilovski
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Marina Karpilovski
                                          President, Principal Executive Officer
From: ptoad2002@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:51:37 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,

Judy Stroud

, 64633-1421
From: rneuland10@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04:28 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,

Richard Neuland

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
From: dkgrimes7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:19:19 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Government needs to get out of private business!

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,

Dennis Grimes

Noblesville, IN 46060
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HARPAL SINGH SANGHA,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-499 M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count I: Smuggling Aliens for Gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Count II: Transporting Illegal Aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Date of Detention Hearing: Initial Appearance, 10/18/2005.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 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 defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required. 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant appears to have no substantial ties to the community or to the Western

District of Washington.

(2) The defendant has stipulated to detention due to the detainer placed on defendant

by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but reserves the right to the possibility

Case 2:05-mj-00499-JPD Document 7 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

of a subsequent motion for release if there is a change of circumstances. 

(3) No conditions or combination of conditions are apparent that will reasonably

assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

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

of the Attorney General for confinement in a correction 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 corrections 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 Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00499-JPD Document 7 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
From: Michaelwwww@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:46:33 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,

Michael Warren

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Thyroid Cancer and other 
Malignancies in Belarus, November 9, 2023, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 
National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 
7W608, Rockville, Maryland 20850 which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 30, 2023, FR Doc. 2023-18703, 88 FR 59930.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting title from 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Thyroid Cancer and 
other Malignancies in Belarus to National Cancer Institute Special 
Emphasis Panel Cancer and Other Health Effects Following Chernobyl 
Accident. The meeting location, date and time will stay the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20866 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: tmcdonough68@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:42 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,

Thomas McDonough

Saint Charles, MO 63304
From: erickwallman@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:24:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients. If not possible, 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).

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,

Erick Wallman

Apo, AP 96278
From: Heather Colburn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:56:17 PM

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

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

the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for "religious employers." These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing

for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so Catholic hospitals would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and

ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

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

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.