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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BJ'S
WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS FILED WITH THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 1, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-1-1998
<CASH>                                           9,361
<SECURITIES>                                        97
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    350,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               410,981
<PP&E>                                         563,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                 158,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 826,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,555
<BONDS>                                         14,643
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           377
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   826,420
<SALES>                                      1,614,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,649,918
<CGS>                                        1,475,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,475,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (220)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (19,326)
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,384
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
# l~!~=~33 5~~~ If 

# oUPONT May 3, 2011 

## I I MAY -t; AM;0: 25 Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) Room 4146 EPA East U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 

### 202-564-4760

Attn:

Re: DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 4417 Lancaster Pike Wilmington, DE 19805 Document Control Office Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East, Room6428 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 202-564-8930 

### EPADocket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and E. 1. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program (November 3, 2005) Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (May 3, 2011) Dear Sir/Madam

: This Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase III - Future Work Plan is submitted in accordance with Section V.F.2 ofthe above-identified MOU. The status report includes a brief description of the implementation status of the Phase III Future Work Plan. In addition, this report includes West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data and granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment monitoring data that were received by DuPont as of April 22, 2011, that are not part of the Phase III MOU monitoring activities, but are provided by DuPont for completeness of study. An index of the specific documents included with this status report is provided as an Attachment to this letter . If you need any additional information or further clarification, please contact me (302-999-6197) or Jenny Liu (302-999-3628) . Very truly yours, Andrew S. Hartten Project Director Attachment : Enclosures: Index ofreport documents (1 page)

l paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase II I - May 3, 2011 1 digital copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase III - May 3, 2011

~ ®~ i~', r

6 ~° '

~. ` .. E.I . du Pont de Nemours and Companyp. 2 Docket No. OPPT-2004-0113 May 3, 2011 EPA-DuPont MOU Index Final Analytical Sampling Results - Ouarterlv MOUStatus Report #1 Phase III Document/Report Title-Paper Copy No. of Pages* 1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 197 pages Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program) Document/Report Title-Electronic Copy No. of Pages CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #1, 195 pages Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase 111050311 .PDF

* Page count does not include blank pages caused by double-sided printing ofthe tables.

Page 2of 2 OPPT-2004-01 13 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
No. P67/92.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 65/20039 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of household utensils (battery-operated mixers) similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 231, Abstract 68674), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cluchesi@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:54:25 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,

Chuck Luchesi

Homosassa, FL 34446
From: frosty601@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:52 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,

Donald Davis

Oak Ridge, TN 37830
From: lindaalcorta@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:22:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Alcorta

San Antonio, TX 78254
No. 58241.

protest 186671-K (St. Albans).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: robertsampieri@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:39:00 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,

Robert Sampieri

Scottsdale, AZ 85262
From: dschwalbe@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:09 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,

Shirley Schwalbe

Avon, MN 56310
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICARDO ZUNIGA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 153

- CR

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20130D04852 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until December 6 , 201 4

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ruben P. Morales

, the Appellant ’ s Attorney

,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 6 , 201 4

.

IT IS SO ORDE RED this 23 rd day of October , 2014

.

PER CURIAM
No. 68931.

#### Andover Imports Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/11900, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: cheryl.a.rooney@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:54:17 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,

Cheryl Rooney

Lincoln, NE 68522
Before the Second Division,

April 12, 1966

No. P66/31.

protests 64/14463, etc. (New York).

#### J. M. Rodgers Co., Inc., and Harris & Sons Steel Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mer-. chandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of steel sheet coil ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. M. Rodgers Co., Inc., and Harris & Sons Steel Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 164, Abstract 67304), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58667.

protests 237682-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto SOLIS-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50529.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western *358District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Alberto Solis-Moreno raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Before the Third Division,

August 30, 1967

No. P67/284.

#### W. Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/78784 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of cups and saucers similar, in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pure Earth, Inc.;      and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:    April      30, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Mark Alsentzer                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             |   | Mark      Alsentzer                        |   |
|                                             |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----