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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000875459                    
<NAME>                        POWERHOUSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                               7,603
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       42,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,231
<INVENTORY>                                         19,602
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    72,308
<PP&E>                                             194,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                     106,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     197,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               35,317
<BONDS>                                             65,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               107
<OTHER-SE>                                          88,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       197,925
<SALES>                                             16,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    55,340
<CGS>                                                8,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       53,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       262
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                           994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    611
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                              235
<NET-INCOME>                                           376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.04
        


</TABLE>
From: general@joemocerijr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:31 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,

Joe Moceri

Lake In The Hills, IL 60156
No. 66495.

#### Miya Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3124 and 61/3793 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Shoji panels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United Enterprises et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D. 2023), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60475.

#### Accurate Millinery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 261125-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

November 18, 1963

No. 68113.

#### Theo. L. Stern & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 293411-K, etc. (New York).

*257Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: sheilacavalet@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:00 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,

Sheila Cavalet

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322
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

OLUF VEDOY; KURT VEDOY; VEDOY

ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington

corporation; and O.K. FISHERIES, INC., a

Washington corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL MATTSEN and JANE DOE

MATTSEN, his wife and their marital

community,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5566 RBL

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO REMAND

This matter comes before the Court on motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court whence it

came. In the litigation, plaintiffs allege that defendant intentionally interfered with a business expectancy

when, acting as managing member of the entity holding the preferred ship mortgage secured by plaintiffs’

fishing vessel, BLUE FIN, he prevented plaintiffs from selling to third parties fishing rights which

defendant asserts are included within the preferred mortgage.

Plaintiffs contend that the tort of intentional interference with business expectancy is a claim arising

wholly under state law and should therefore be decided in the Superior Court of Kitsap County, where it

was commenced. While plaintiffs’ brief statement of the law may be correct, as far as it goes; in this case,

the viability of plaintiffs’ claim depends on the answer to a question which is uniquely and exclusively

federal: does a preferred ship mortgage encompass fishing and crabbing rights issued by a federal agency? 

See 46 U.S.C. § 31325. If the answer to this question of first impression is affirmative, plaintiffs’ claim

Case 3:05-cv-05566-RBL Document 9 Filed 10/12/05 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

must fall. If the answer is in the negative, then additional issues must be confronted by the Court to

determine plaintiffs’ right to relief. In any event, it is clear to this Court that plaintiffs’ right to relief

depends on resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question. See ARCO Environ. Remediation, LLC

v. Dept. of Health & Env. Quality of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs conceded as

much when, in their “well pleaded complaint,” they articulated as an essential element of their claim that

“defendant Mattsen, personally or through the attorneys acting under his direction for Shaman Fishing,

LLC, either knew or had reason to know by the exercise of reasonable diligence that no lien rights in the

fishing permits and licenses granted to the Vedoys personally in January 2000 were obtained in the

purchase of the preferred ship mortgages from Key Bank.” Para. 3.12 Complaint for Damages [Dkt. #1;

Exh. A3-17]. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Dkt. #5] is hereby DENIED.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:05-cv-05566-RBL Document 9 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2
From: jeffamahn@netscape.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:13:26 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).

In addition, I object to any kind of healthcare being provided "free" to anyone. Every insured healthcare

item should be subject to a co-pay so that the individual has some vested interest in responsibly

managing their healthcare.

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,

Jeffrey Mahn

Albuquerque, NM 87123
From: rdpless@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:52:19 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,

Rhonda Pless

Carrollton, GA 30117
No. 61033.

protests 281603-K, etc. (New York).

#### Arkwright Accessories, Inc., and V. T. Mancusi et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: butkusja@optonline.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,

Jim Butkus

Morristown, NJ 07960
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
      undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
      certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the
      "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




/s/
              Daniel C. DunnDaniel C. Dunn
              Vice President, Chief Financial Officer &
                Secretary




February
      7, 2008
From: rowittig@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:04:20 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 Wittig

, 46033-3732
February 15, 1961

No. 65178.

Suit 5020.

#### United States *v.*Border Brokerage Company.

C.D. 2105 affirmed December 8, 1960. C.A.D. 760.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Brink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statement (No. 333-154967) on Form S-8 of our report dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows ofBrink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, incorporated herein by reference. 

Our audit report dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of Brink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, refers to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, effective January 1, 2007, Statementof Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, *Share-Based Payment*, effective January 1, 2006, and Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, *Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements whenQuantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements*, effective December 31, 2006. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

March 31, 2009