alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, James D. Palm, Chief Executive Officer of Gulfport Energy Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: November 5, 2010



/s/ James D. PalmJames D. PalmChief Executive 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.
From: lfennern@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:59:33 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,

LaDean Fennern

New Ulm, MN 56073
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM MEDIWARE'S
QUARTERLY REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              1679
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       6368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         580
<INVENTORY>                                          238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    8127
<PP&E>                                              5471
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     28059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              10610
<BONDS>                                             1253
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             714
<OTHER-SE>                                         15482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       28059
<SALES>                                             6124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    6124
<CGS>                                               2113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       6660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (207)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (310)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.04)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of FormationPure Earth Materials, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaPure Earth Environmental, Inc.
    
    ConnecticutCasie Ecology Oil Salvage, Inc.
    
    New JerseyMidAtlantic Recycling Technologies, Inc.
    
    New JerseyRezultz, Incorporated
    
    New JerseyBio Methods LLC
    
    DelawareGeo Methods, LLC
    
    DelawarePEI Disposal Group, Inc.
    
    DelawareNew Nycon, Inc.
    
    DelawareJuda Construction, Ltd.
    
    New YorkPure Earth Transportation & Disposal, Inc.
    
    DelawarePure Earth Materials (NJ) Inc.
    
    DelawareEcho Lake Brownfield, LLC
    
    ConnecticutPure Earth Energy Resources, Inc.
    
    DelawareHFH Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareAdvanced Catalyst Recycling, LLC*
    
    Delaware
 
 *
    
    50%-owned joint venture. All
other subsidiaries are wholly owned either directly or indirectly by
the registrant.
Before the Third Division,

February 26, 1959

No. 62780.

#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1073 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 68946.

#### S. F. Pellas Co. and P. W. Bellingall, Inc. v. United States,

protests 62/8622, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soluble or instant coffee (containing no admixture of sugar, cereal, or other additive), a product of Nicaragua, entered or withdrawn from warehouse prior to August 31, 1963, the effective date of the Tariff Schedules of the United States; that the protests were pending for decision by this court on June 30, 1964, the date of enactment of Public Law 88-337; and that within 120 days after the date of enactment a request was filed with the collector of customs for reliquidation and classification of the merchandise free of duty under said Public Law, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: debraannew7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:52:00 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,

Greg Williams

Memphis, TN 38133
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                              SCHERING CORPORATION

2000 GALLOPING HILL ROAD                                 KENILWORTH, N.J. 07033

                                                              July 27, 2000

Mr. Vaughn M. Kailian, CEO
COR Therapeutics, Inc.
256 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080

Dear Vaughn:

This is with regard to the Collaboration Agreement, dated April 10, 1995, by and
among COR Therapeutics, Inc. ("COR"), and Schering Corporation and
Schering-Plough Ltd. (collectively "Schering"), as amended, (the "Agreement").

In the Second Amendment to the Agreement, dated November 5, 1999, Cor and
Schering agreed to make certain elements of the Second Amendment conditional on
the conduct of a Phase III clinical trial for acute myocardial infarction
("AMI") and have made provision in the Second Amendment for modification of the
Second Amendment based upon the status of such trial as or pre-established
dates, and the Parties desire to modify those dates.

The parties are currently negotiating a Third Amendment to the Agreement to
address this and other issues relating to the Agreement. However, Section X.A of
the Second Amendment provides for the termination of certain provisions of the
Second Amendment in the event that "as of June 30, 2000, the JSC has not voted
to conduct the Phase III Study". Therefore, it is hereby agreed that the
deadline for the decision of the JSC with respect to the conduct of the Phase
III Study is extended until August 31, 2000.

Please indicate COR's acceptance and agreement to the provisions set forth in
this letter by signing below on behalf of COR and returning one signed original
to Schering.


Very truly yours,


Schering Corporation                       Schering-Plough Ltd.

/s/ David Poorvin                         /s/ David Poorvin
-------------------------                -------------------------
David Poorvin                            David Poorvin
Vice President                           Prokurist

Acknowledged and Agreed to:

COR Therapeutics, Inc.

By: /s/ Vaughn M. Kailian
   -----------------------------
        Vaughn M. Kailian
        Chief Executive Officer


 Dated:  7/28/00
       -------------------------
No. 66028.

#### H. W. Robinson Air Freight Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29257 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14-5 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 34 of 34
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE - 1 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA, INC. P.S. 

600 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 433 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 464-4142

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 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS A. CAMERON, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR 05–382 RSL 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE 

The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Continue Pretrial Motions Deadline 

and Trial Date, and the government’s response to the motion, finds that, pursuant to Title 18, 

United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B), the ends of justice served by granting the 

requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, for 

the reasons outlined in defendant’s motion. Specifically, it appears to the Court that the failure to 

grant a trial continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice, that it would be unreasonable to 

expect adequate preparation within the time limits provided by the Speedy Trial Act, and that 

failing to continue the trial would effectively deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary 

for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

Case 2:05-cr-00382-RSL Document 32 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

DEADLINE & TRIAL DATE - 2 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA, INC. P.S. 

600 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 433 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 464-4142

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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date of Monday, July 24, 2006 is continued 

to Tuesday, September 12, 2006, and the motions deadline is extended to August 7, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from Monday, July 24, 2006 

toTuesday, September 12, 2006, is excludable time pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 3161(h)(8)(A), for the purpose of computing the time limitations imposed by the Speedy 

Trial Act, Title 18 United States Code, Sections 3161 through 3174. 

ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

Submitted by: 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA

Stephan R. Illa 

WSBA No. 15793 

Attorney for Defendant Thomas A. Cameron 

Case 2:05-cr-00382-RSL Document 32 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Oglesby, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 988]

—Appeal by the de*781fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered July 19,1993, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hernandez,*127 AD2d 790; *People v Reding,*167 AD2d 716). In any event, any error was harmless *(see, People v Hernandez, supra; People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the court’s charge to the jury, and the alleged admission of hearsay testimony, are also unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245; *People v Bonaparte,*78 NY2d 26; *People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836; *People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947; *People v Williams,*70 NY2d 946) and, in any event, without merit. Altman, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
From: gloria318@tds.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:21:49 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,

Gloria Corbett

Battle Ground, WA 98604
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER, now known

as ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL CLARK, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1812-RSL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, all papers and exhibits

in support and in opposition to that petition, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge

Theiler.

DATED this 20th day of November, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 94 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION 

OF GREGORY S. COMO, BAR NO. 

11089. 

No. 70198 

ALE 

MAY 09 2016 

DEP:rCLERK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 11 

BY 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and 

attorney Gregory S. Como for his resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not 

actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if 

certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state 

bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client 

security fund matters are pending against Como; and that he is current on 

all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to 

his practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Como acknowledges that his resignation 

is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with 

respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. 

See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Como has submitted an affidavit of 

compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

(0) )947A em 
J. 

J. 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Gregory S. Como's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

ot_ C

.J. 

Parraguirre 

J. 

Hardesty 

Saitta 

gek. J. 

Pickering 

cc: Greg S. Como 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A de