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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         557
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                12217
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (936)
<INVENTORY>                                  16948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             30558
<PP&E>                                       32966
<DEPRECIATION>                              (20451)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               69909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         8417
<BONDS>                                      15383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       101
<OTHER-SE>                                   46998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 69909
<SALES>                                      16729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             16729
<CGS>                                        12103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                12103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              3724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                486
<INCOME-TAX>                                   276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            210
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   210
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .03


</TABLE>
From: stevewibb@pobox.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:23 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,

Stephen Wibberley

Canterbury, CT 06331
Jeffrey M. Harper 

# RECEI\/ D

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98057 T (425) 227·2161 F (425) 227-1007 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

## JUL 2

## 7 2015 HEARING DOC

Inthe Matter of: FAA Case No. 2011NM060072 DMS No. FAA-2012-0869 SkyWest Airlines, Inc. Honorable Richard C. Goodwin



### NOTICE OF APPEAL
In accordance with 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.233(a), Complainant hereby submits Notice ofhis intentto appeal the Initial Decision ofAdministrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin, served July 16,2015. Respectfully submittedthis 

### 22"d day ofJuly, 2015.



### iftM. Harper '1:<AAAttorney

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoingNotice ofAppeal has been served via facsimile, electronic mail and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 F (202) 366-7536 E Richard.goodwin@dot.gov Todd Emerson, Esq. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 444 South River Road St. George, UT 84790 F (435) 634-3505 E temerson@skywest.com
I hereby certify that the foregoingNotice ofAppeal has been served via facsimile, and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 F (202) 267-1293 Datedthis 22nd day ofJuly, 2015.

Notice of Appeal In the Matter of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. /·•' 

# l i<jC.lr':/i ·:_.

# t,·;.--**}J_//~;:.':>/((,.)_/"i)(** .. Dana Stephenson I Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2007

FAA Case No. 2011NM060072, DMS No. FAA-2012-0869 Page 2 of2 Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attorney T (425) 227-2161 F (425) 227-1007
From: llaskin@impulse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:21:55 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 Laskin

Santa Barbara, CA 93111
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

J. ROE BUCKLEY / CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 08-A, L.P. (the Registrant),
hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyName:

J. Roe BuckleyDate:

March 31, 2011
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JESSE MCCUNE, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1511RSL

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on a plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

approval of proposed class action settlement (Dkt. #33). No later than 12:00 p.m. on

April 2, 2007, (1) defendant is directed to file a statement of whether it has complied with

28 U.S.C. § 1715 of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), and (2) plaintiffs are

directed to file an Amended Proposed Notice that (a) spells the Judge’s name correctly

throughout the Notice, (b) includes a hearing date of July 26, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in

courtroom 15106, (c) includes a July 5, 2007 date to file objections and requests for

exclusion, (d) amends paragraph 3 of the “Your Options” section to remove the

requirement that an objecting class member must file proof of membership of the

settlement class. Instead, he or she must include with the objections a signed statement

Case 2:05-cv-01511-RSL Document 39 Filed 03/27/07 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 ORDER - 2

that he or she is the person to whom the Notice was mailed. The objections must bear the

following caption: Jesse McCune, et al. v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, Case No. 05-

1511RSL. 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01511-RSL Document 39 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 2
From: isd3373@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:22:35 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,

Steven Dean

Key Largo, FL 33037
From: naegelemike@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Yuri Naegele

Lees Summit, MO 64063
From: ksemelander@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:46:54 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.

 Karen Emelander

Sincerely,

Karen Emelander

Hudsonville, MI 49426
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Legalsupport to military operations**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.12:1-04/2011
Item Number: 0315-C(online)
CGP systemNumber: 000952872
 
July 16, 2018
Before the Second Division,

October 2, 1962

No. 67099.

protests 62/2480 and 62/2489 (Seattle).

#### Raleigh Industries of America, Inc., and Hercules Division, American Machine & Foundry Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 64568.

#### Herman M. Kleiner Company *v.*United States,

protest 59/30349 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
129 STAT. 432 PUBLIC LAW 114–33—JULY 20, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 891: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

June 15, considered and passed House. 

July 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–33 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Paloma 

Drive in Floresville, Texas, as the ‘‘Floresville Veterans Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FLORESVILLE VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 141 Paloma Drive in Floresville, Texas, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Floresville Veterans Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Floresville Veterans Post Office Building’’. 

Approved July 20, 2015. 

July 20, 2015 

[H.R. 891] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
From: David Cox

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41:00 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

David Cox
Astoria, New York
H. Res. 236

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2007.

Resolved, That Mr. Burton of Indiana is hereby removed 

from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

SEC. 2. The following named Members are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: Mr. Heller of 

Nevada, to rank immediately after Mr. Walberg. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mrs. 

Blackburn. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Marchant. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mrs. Capito, to rank immediately after Mr. Boozman. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. McCarthy of 

California.
2

•HRES 236 EH 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Mr. 

Reichert, to rank immediately after Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Buchanan. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Before the Second Division,

March 13, 1967

No. P67/61.

#### Aimcee Wholesale Corp. and W. *J.*Byrnes *&*Co. of N.Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/2215, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of 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 plaintiffs was sustained.