alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*[PWC Logo]***PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**350 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles CA 90071 Telephone (213) 356 6000 Facsimile (813) 637 4444 www.pwc.com **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Board of Directors Newport Management Corporation: We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Newport Management Corporation (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(xi) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the pools of loans which Aurora Loan Services, LLC acted  as the servicer pursuant to the applicable transaction agreements, underlying publicly and/or privately-issued residential mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006, on which escrow payments were disbursed in 2008 (the Platform), as of December 31, 2008 and for the year  then ended. The Company has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31,  2008. Schedule A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period  covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008  for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP February 26, 2009
From: jmj_notredame@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:39 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,

Mary Obringer

Englewood, OH 45322
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO MANUEL AMANICO RAMOS,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CR07-041-RSL

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged: Failure to Appear

Date of Detention Hearing: November 26, 2010

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 and the safety of other persons and the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant is charged with failing to appear for trial in Case No. CR05-380 RSL.

He was not interviewed by Pretrial Services in connection with the instant case. He does not

Case 2:05-cr-00380-RSL Document 111 Filed 11/26/10 Page 1 of 3 Case 2:07-cr-00041-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/26/10 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER PAGE 2

contest detention.

(2) Defendant poses a risk of danger and a risk of nonappearance due to the lack of

verified background information and the pending charges.

(3) There does not appear to be any condition or combination of conditions that will

reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings while addressing the

danger to other persons or the community.

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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cr-00380-RSL Document 111 Filed 11/26/10 Page 2 of 3 Case 2:07-cr-00041-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/26/10 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER PAGE 3

(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 26th day of November, 2010.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00380-RSL Document 111 Filed 11/26/10 Page 3 of 3 Case 2:07-cr-00041-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/26/10 Page 3 of 3
From: mshearer33@pa.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:58:05 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,

Michelle Shearer

Thompsontown, PA 17094
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than October 12, 2023.

                    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant Vice President, 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri, 64198,                     *KCapplicationcomments@kc.frb.org*:                

                    1.                     *Jeffrey Alan Svajgr, Omaha, Nebraska;*                     to join the Olson/Svajgr Family Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Midwest Banco Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Waypoint Bank, both of Cozad, Nebraska.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Erin Cayce,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-21075 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Hock E. Tan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended; 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/    HOCK E. TAN     
|                       
|Hock E. Tan            
|Chief Executive Officer



May 11, 2004
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONNA ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1576JLR

ORDER

Before the court is a notice of bankruptcy filing by Defendant Donna Anderson in

this matter (Dkt. # 30). See also January 23, 2007 Minute Order (Dkt. # 31 (applying

automatic stay provisions to Defendant The Opportunity Council)). Pursuant to 11

U.S.C. § 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, this matter is automatically stayed. 

The court therefore ORDERS that the clerk remove this action from the court’s active

caseload. The action shall remain on inactive status until the court, on its own motion or

on a motion from the parties, reopens the matter. Nothing in this order shall prejudice

any party to the action. 

Dated this 5th day of April, 2007. A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01576-JLR Document 32 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,891,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                   454,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,326,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,075,445
<PP&E>                                      14,516,895
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,432,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,222,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,739,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        48,386
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,979,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,222,142
<SALES>                                     33,356,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,356,489
<CGS>                                       22,574,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,681,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,667,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,592,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,067
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,595,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,595,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALAN BOYD DONTA BARNETT, a/k/a Big Al , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00188

- FDW

- DSC

- 2 ; 3:17

- cv - 00477

- FDW )

Submitted : February 23, 2021 Decided: March 1 , 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Alan Boyd Donta Barnett , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Alan Boyd Donta Barnett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A cer tificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
H. Res. 462 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office 

of Representative from the Fourth Congressional District of 

Louisiana is dismissed. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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

ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MS05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

PACIFIC COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” of

this Court’s determination that the above-captioned matter should not be permitted to proceed. 

Dkt. # 4. Pursuant to the terms of the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated

April 5, 2005, plaintiff has submitted a signed affidavit verifying that none of the issues raised in

the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff. Dkt. # 3. Upon review of

plaintiff’s affidavit and the record in Scott v. Pacific County, C04-5813RJB, it appears that

plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint in C04-5813RJB effective March 25, 2005, eleven

days before the United States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order

purporting to dismiss the same action with prejudice.

Giving plaintiff every benefit of the ambiguities created by his withdrawal of 

C04-5813L while the Report and Recommendation was pending, the Court finds that the issues

raised in the above-captioned matter have not been finally resolved and may proceed subject to

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 5 Filed 10/25/05 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

ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED -2-

the other requirements imposed by the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation.” 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 5 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1





The First Bancorp Declares Third Quarter Dividend


DAMARISCOTTA, Maine - (BUSINESS WIRE) - September 27, 2018 - The Board of Directors of The First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNLC), the parent company of First National Bank, today declared a quarterly dividend of 29 cents per share.  This third quarter dividend is payable October 31, 2018, to shareholders of record as of October 9, 2018.  Based on the September 26, 2018 closing price of $28.61 per share, the annualized dividend of $1.16 per share translates to a yield of 4.05%.


“The company’s strong performance over the past several years has carried forward into 2018 with record operating results reported for the first and second quarters of the year” noted President & Chief Executive Officer, Tony C. McKim. “The Board of Directors continues to view a generous dividend payout as a key component in the total valuation of our stock, and I am pleased to share our success with our shareholders in this way.”


The First Bancorp, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the holding company for First National Bank. Founded in 1864, the Bank serves Mid-Coast and Down East Maine with 16 offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock, Penobscot and Washington Counties. The Bank provides a full range of consumer and commercial banking products and services. First Advisors, a division of First National Bank, provides investment management and trust services from five offices in Lincoln, Knox, Penobscot and Hancock Counties.


Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and events to differ materially, as discussed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


For more information, please contact Richard M Elder, EVP & Chief Financial Officer of First National Bank, at 207.563.3195 x2087.