alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Muhammad Abd Saleem EURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWARDS; R. Moran; Nurse Sadler; D.E. Wilmouth, in individual and official capacity; W. Barnes, in individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6773.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, pro se.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. The court dismissed Eury’s complaint because he failed to comply with an order directing him to submit an adequate number of copies of the complaint. Because Eury may proceed with this action by supplying an adequate number of copies of the complaint, the order in question is not a final, appealable order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit No.
32.1


Form
10-K


HPC
Acquisitions, Inc.


File
No.  000-53248








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 HPC Acquisitions, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig S.
Laughlin, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.










Date:
      March 4, 2009
                  
                  By:
      /s/ Craig S.
  LaughlinCraig
      S. LaughlinChief
      Executive andChief
      Financial Officer








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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 396 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 396

Congratulating Qatar on the occasion of Qatari-American Friendship Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

  Mrs. Maloney of New York (for herself and Mr. Rahall) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating Qatar on the occasion of Qatari-American Friendship Day.

Whereas the United States Embassy in Doha, Qatar, will observe Monday, May 14, 
        2007, as ``Qatari-American Friendship Day'';
Whereas Qatar is a major defense ally of the United States in the Middle East, 
        with the Qatari and American forces benefitting from close cooperation;
Whereas democracy, under the leadership of His Highness the Emir, Sheikh Hamad 
        bin Khalifa Al-Thani, is developing in Qatar, which has successfully 
        completed elections for its third Municipal Council, and Qatari women 
        have always enjoyed the same political rights as men;
Whereas Qatar's constitution has created a legislative body, of which 30 will be 
        elected and 15 will be appointed, and those elections are expected in 
        2008;
Whereas Qatar is a major exporter of energy resources and, with Exxon Mobil and 
        Conoco Phillips, plans to begin supplying the United States with natural 
        gas in 2009, some of which would be delivered through a new facility, 
        Golden Pass, in southeast Texas;
Whereas Qatar, through its wholly-owned company Qatar Petroleum, has been a 
        dependable partner for American energy companies, also including 
        Anadarko and Occidental Petroleum; and
Whereas Qatar, under the direction of His Highness, the Emir, and Her Highness 
        Sheikha Moza Nasser Al-Misnad, has embarked on an ambitious program of 
        social development and change, particularly in the education sector, and 
        at the visionary Education City Qatar hosts five major American 
        universities, including Virginia Commonwealth University School of the 
        Arts in Qatar (VCUQ), Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (WCMC-Q), 
        Texas A&M University at Qatar (TAMUQ), Carnegie Mellon University in 
        Qatar (CMU-Q), and, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in 
        Qatar (SFS-Qatar): Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates Qatar on the occasion of Qatari-American 
        Friendship Day;
            (2) commends Qatar's progressive vision for the future;
            (3) wishes the Qatari people continued happiness and 
        prosperity; and
            (4) renews America's commitment to Qatar as a partner in 
        freedom.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months          Three Months           Nine Months           Nine Months
                                                   Ended                 Ended                 Ended                 Ended
                                             December 31, 1996     December 31, 1995     December 31, 1996     December 31, 1995
                                             -----------------     -----------------     -----------------     -----------------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>                  <C>                    <C>         
Net loss                                        ($4,236,691)         ($2,771,815)         ($13,970,066)          ($8,201,149)
                                                ============         ============         =============          ============

Calculation of shares outstanding:

     Weighted average common shares 
        outstanding used in calculating net 
        loss per share in accordance with
        generally accepted accounting
        principles                               18,479,498           15,852,081            18,076,420            14,387,290
                                                 ----------           ----------            ----------            ----------


        Total                                    18,479,498           15,852,081            18,076,420            14,387,290
                                                 ==========           ==========            ==========            ==========
 
Net loss per share                                   ($0.23)              ($0.17)               ($0.77)               ($0.57)
                                                    =======               ======                ======                ======
</TABLE>
From: monicam@accudatatech.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: My OWN comment on RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:41:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to support mandatory coverage of contraceptives and sterilization by health insurance.

These are vital services that save taxpayers millions of dollars in the log term.

This coverage empowers individuals to decide if they wish to use those services. If the religious

organizations have convinced the individual that such services are wrong, then the individual will not

use them.

Any restrictions on providing these services imposes someone else's religious beliefs on other

individuals.

I oppose the wars, capital punishment, and some other policies of the government, but still pay my

taxes. So, having the majority of people pay for these services through health insurance is no different,

as far as I'm concerned.

Please do not cave in to religious group pressures on this matter.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Monica Martino

Mckinney, TX 75070
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           9,412
<SECURITIES>                                       286
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,203
<INVENTORY>                                      7,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,141
<PP&E>                                          24,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,498
<BONDS>                                         98,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,628)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,181
<SALES>                                         37,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,840
<CGS>                                           15,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,790
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,454
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
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

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN A. ALDERSON,

 Defendant.

 CASE NO. CR05-339 JLR

 SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S.

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

 OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on April

25, 2007. The United States was represented by Kathryn Warma. The defendant was

represented by Robert Gombiner. 

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

Defendant had been convicted of Distribution of Methamphetamine on or about

November 16, 1999. The Hon. Robert H. Whaley of the Eastern District of Washington

sentenced Defendant to 60 months of confinement, followed by five years of supervised

release. While on probation, the defendant was transferred to the jurisdiction of the

Western District of Washington in September 2005. The defendant’s supervised released

was revoked on January 9, 2006 and he was sentenced to 24 months of supervised released

with credit for time served. The conditions of supervised release included requirements

Case 2:05-cr-00339-JLR Document 23 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 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

27

28

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -2- 

that defendant comply with the standard 13 conditions.

DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION

U.S. Probation officer Jennifer Tien alleged that Defendant violated the conditions

of supervised release by:

(1) Failing to comply with the home confinement program since March 15, 2007,

in violation of the special condition requiring he participate in the home

confinement program with electronic monitoring, as directed by the probation

officer, for a period of 60 days.

I advised the defendant of these charges and of his constitutional rights. At today’s hearing

Defendant admitted the violation, waived any hearing as to whether it occurred, and

consented to having the matter set for a disposition hearing. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that Defendant has violated the

conditions of his supervised release as alleged and set the matter for a disposition hearing.

Defendant has been released on continued supervision pending a final determination

by the Court.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Sentencing Judge : Hon. James L. Robart Assistant U.S. Attorney : Kathryn Warma

Defense Attorney : Robert Gombiner

U. S. Probation Officer : Jennifer Tien

Case 2:05-cr-00339-JLR Document 23 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2
Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

Harvest Land Base

Legend

Land Use Allocations
National Land Conservation System

Administratively Withdrawn

EUGENE DISTRICT

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate
Data revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is
made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the
accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data
for individual or aggregate use with other data.

5 10 15 20 25 Miles

i} 5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

DOUGLAS

MAP 7
Western Oregon Plan Revisions
Eugene and Medford Districts
Alternative 2

Land Use Allocations
ee LINN CO pp
— LANE CO

Planning

EUGENE DISTRICT
MAP AREA

MEDFORD)DISTRICT
MAP AREA

OREGON

Late-Successional Management Area

Riparian Management Area
Timber Management Area
BLM Office
BLM Administrative Boundary
Cc) ___—iWild and Scenic River
Cc ___ Eligible Wild and Scenic River

Bi

‘
CURRY CO *

CMe en

+ JOSEPHINE CO

Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

Harvest Land Base

Vv
Impact Statement

—-—

fany :
_y>—> JACKSON ie?) ;

QO
Oo
Zz
ie)
Q
x
1S)
<
s

JOSEPHINE CO

OREGON
CALIFORNIA

OO HLVAVT

MO06-12-02
From: bobandjoannigeria@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:40 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,

JOAN DIXON

Indianapolis, IN 46239
From: littetrick@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:51:48 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,

Keith & Karin Wright

Garland, TX 75044
(R.D. 11436)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 26, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Eclwm L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the *819appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

. 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL ALVARADO-MARTINEZ, STACEY

COMER, and BRANDON SCOTT

TRAVER,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-5747 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon a Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial

Date [Dkt. #39]. 

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Defendants Alvarado-Martinez and Comer were originally indicted together on October 12, 2005 in

a one-count Indictment charging them with Retaliating Against a Witness in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1513(b)(2) and 2. They were arraigned on that Indictment on October 21, 2005, and their trial was set for

December 5, 2005. On October 26, 2005 a Superseding Indictment was returned which continued to charge

Mr. Alvarado-Martinez and Mr. Comer with one count of Retaliating Against a Witness and additionally

charged defendant Traver in that same single count. Mr. Traver was arraigned on that charge on November

16, 2005 and his trial was set for January 9, 2006. Because the defendants’ trials have not been severed, Mr.

Alvarado-Martinez and Mr. Comer’s speedy trial clock attaches to Mr. Traver’s for the purpose of setting 

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 52 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

the date for trial. See, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) and (7). The trial date for all three defendants is thus January

9, 2006.

In addition, counsel for Mr. Comer has moved to withdraw and there is presently set on December 7,

2005 an ex-parte hearing on that motion. After that hearing, if counsel is or is not permitted to withdraw, all

the defendants and the government may wish to request a continuance of the January 9, 2006 trial date.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial Date [Dkt. #39] is DENIED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 1st day of December, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 52 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2