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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            6668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2990
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      39305
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           16623
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             16723
<LOANS>                                         140300
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  213048
<DEPOSITS>                                      169490
<SHORT-TERM>                                       900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1342
<LONG-TERM>                                      18351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           629
<OTHER-SE>                                       22336
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  213048
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5971
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1727
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   101
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  7799
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3021
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3564
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             4235
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      112
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1417
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1417
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.60
<LOANS-NON>                                        142
<LOANS-PAST>                                       789
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2026
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1371
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       52
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1442
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1442
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            748
        

</TABLE>
Case No. 14,882.

#### UNITED STATES v. COCKRIN.

[Cited in Case of Pea Patch Island. Case No. 10,872. Nowhere reported; no opinion delivered.]
From: juneehartley@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:06 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,

June Hartley

West Columbia, SC 29169
From: jmshop@cwi-va.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:31 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,

Lawrence Heatwole

Harrisonburg, VA 22801
From: dgfarris@winkinc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:01 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,

Daniel Farris

Baton Rouge, LA 70817
BEFORE the Third DIVISION,

March 22, 1967

No. P67/73.

#### B. Westergaard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 66/5875 (New York).

Eichardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of potato starch similar in all material respects to that the subject of *R. U. Delapenha <& Go., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Oust. Ct. 267, Abstract 68309), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

September 5,1961

No. 66029.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States,

protests 286984-K, etc. (New York).

*299Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of drawing instrument cases similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the merchandise entered prior to June 6, 1951, was held dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1405, as modified by T.D. 51802, and the items entered subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 2% cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under said paragraph 1405, as modified by T.D. 52739.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

          - [NARA-2023-044]

# AGENCY:

Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

We are announcing an upcoming National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) meeting in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations.

# DATES:

The meeting will be on November 15, 2023, from 10am-1pm EST.

# ADDRESSES:

This meeting will be a virtual meeting. See supplementary procedures below.

      ( print page 67373)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Heather Harris Pagán, ISOO Program Analyst, by telephone at 202.357.5351 or by email at                         *ISOO@nara.gov.*                         Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov*                         and the NISPPAC at                         *NISPPAC@nara.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3. The Committee will discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.

*Procedures:*                     Members of the public must register in advance for the virtual meeting through the Event Services link                     *https://ems8.intellor.com?​do=​register&​t=​1&​p=​848621*                     if they wish to attend. NISPPAC members, ISOO employees, and speakers should send an email to                     *NISPPAC@nara.gov*                     for the appropriate registration information instead of registering with the above link.                

Tasha Ford,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-21371 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYRA A. SUNIGA,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5449; CR05-5649

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, THOMAS CAMPBELL.

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge KAREN L. STROMBOM.

Date of hearing: JANUARY 26, 2006

Time of hearing: 3:00 P.M.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

( X ) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

January 20, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05649-KLS Document 16 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 66022.

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States,

protests 60/5290 and 60/6606 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is a product chiefly used as an assistant in preparing or finishing textiles and is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 64647, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: tdwyer123@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:00:41 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,

Thomas Dwyer

Rowland Heights, CA 91748
EX-10.12.1



 Exhibit 10.12.1 

Confidential 
 SPECIFIC TERMS IN THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN
REDACTED BECAUSE CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT FOR THOSE TERMS HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THE REDACTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND THE TERMS HAVE BEEN MARKED AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE WITH THREE ASTERISKS
[***]. 
 Amendment No. 2 

to the 
 DEVELOPMENT AND
MANUFACTURING SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 Dated 6th September 2017 

Between 
 LONZA SALES AG 

and 
 DENALI THERAPEUTICS lNC.

 Appendix A2 – Project Plan 

  
 Confidential 








 Confidential 

THIS Amendment is made the 18th day of January, 2018 

BETWEEN 
 LONZA SALES AG, of Muenchensteinerstrasse 38, Ch-4002 Basel, Switzerland (herein after referred to as “Lonza”) and 
 DENALI THERAPEUTICS INC., of 151 Oyster
Point Blvd, 2nd Floor, South San Francisco, CA 94080, U.S.A (hereinafter referred to as “Customer”) 
 WHEREAS 

 

	A.	Customer and Lonza are Parties to a development and manufacturing services agreement dated 6th September 2017, as amended (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Lonza is required to perform Services for Customer
relating to the Cell Line and Product described (all terms as defined in the Agreement); and 

  

	B.	The Parties now wish to amend and supplement the terms of the Agreement. 

 NOW THEREFORE in consideration of
the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and between the Parties to amend the Agreement as follows: 

 

	1.	The Project Plan attached to this Amendment No. 2 shall be inserted as Appendix A2 to the Agreement. 

  

	2.	All capitalised terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. 

  

	3.	Save as herein provided all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEROF the Parties have caused this Amendment No.2 to be executed by their representatives thereunto duly authorised as of the day and year first
written. 
  

							
	Signed for and on behalf of	 		 	 /s/ Cordula Altekrüger
	 	
	LONZA SALES AG	 		 	Cordula Altekrüger	 	
		 		 	Senior Legal Counsel	 	 TITLE

				
	Signed for and on behalf of	 		 	 /s/ Bart A. M. van Aarnhem
	 	
	LONZA SALES AG	 		 	Bart A. M. van Aarnhem	 	
		 		 	Senior Legal Counsel	 	 TITLE

				
	Signed for and on behalf of	 		 	 /s/ Ryan Watts
	 	
	DENALI THERAPEUTICS INC.	 		 	Ryan Watts, CEO	 	


  
 2 

Confidential 








 Confidential 

Appendix A2 

Project Plan 
 [***] 

Confidential 
  

	***	Certain information in this agreement has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. [***] indicates that text has been omitted and is the subject of a confidential treatment request.
#### Myrtle MOORE and Dicie Charles, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1384.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: June 26, 2001.

ON MOTION

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Myrtle Moore and Dicie Charles (Moore) move for reconsideration of the *912court’s May 25, 2001 order dismissing their appeal for failure to file an opening brief. Moore moves out of time and without opposition for a 61-day extension of time, until July 11, 2001 to file her brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Moore’s motion for reconsideration is granted. The dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.

(2) Moore’s motion for an extension of time is granted. Moore’s opening brief is due July 11, 2001. No further extensions.
No. 64556.

#### V. Casazza & Bro., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 32826-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Unites States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67508.

#### J. M. Altieri *v.*United States,

protest 60/19757 (San Juan).

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.
No. 61522.

#### D. & A. Sclafani et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160402-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of condimento similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Paolo Alonge, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Oust. Ct. 351, C. D. 1886), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.