alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE   SHEET,   CONSOLIDATED   STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS   AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD  ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0001037417
<NAME>                             SYSCOMM INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               3,820,543
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       10,132,675
<ALLOWANCES>                           156,251
<INVENTORY>                            596,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    15,213,467
<PP&E>                               4,312,025
<DEPRECIATION>                       1,073,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      18,810,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                5,307,731
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                55,152
<OTHER-SE>                          11,813,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        18,810,571
<SALES>                             55,701,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    55,701,422
<CGS>                               49,723,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       49,723,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     5,416,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        58,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     217,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        344,402
<INCOME-TAX>                           140,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    204,402
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           204,402
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.04



</TABLE>
From: jmorgan4831@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:23 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,

Jeffery Morgan

Macon, GA 31216
From: Elizabeth Hermesch

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:20:55 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,

Elizabeth Hermesch
Osgood, Indiana
From: jmorgan4831@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:37 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,

Jeffery Morgan

Macon, GA 31216
From: jgarchinsky@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12:07 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,

Janet Garchinsky

Lebanon, PA 17042
cbim_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

 


	 
	1

	


	 



 

 


	 
	2

	


	 



 

 


	 
	3

	


	 



 

 


	 
	4

	


	 



 

 


	 
	5

	


	 



 

 


	 
	6

	


	 



 

 


	 
	7

	


	 



 

 


	 
	8

	


	 



 

 


	 
	9

	


	 



 

 

 


	10
Before the Second Division,

July 31, 1958

No. 62240.

#### Aluminum Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 222707-K, etc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum alloys similar in all material respects to those the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 670), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 6,505.

#### HILLIARD v. BREVOORT.

[4 McLean, 24.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1845.

Equity Pleading — Averment op Citizenship— Exceptions. .

1.A want of an averment of citizenship if not made in a bill or declaration, or where it is falsely alleged, should be taken advantage of by pleading.

2. Unless such an averment be contradicted, it need not be proved on the trial or hearing.

3. Where the exception is taken, the court will permit an amendment.

In equity.

Barstow & Lockwood, for plaintiff.

Vandyke & Harrington, for defendant,

OPINION OF THE COURT. This is a bill in chancery, to which a demurrer is filed, on the ground that there is no positive averment in the bill that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Ohio. The averment of citizenship, it is contended, must be clear and positive, as on that depends the jurisdiction of the court. [Thatcher v. Powell] 6 Wheat [19 U. S. 119. If this averment be doubtful, it can not be held sufficient. If the averment be a mere residence, and not a citizenship, it will not be within the law. But this averment need never be proved, unless it be denied in the plea and answer. If the citizenship be improperly or-falsely alleged, the defendant must reply to it if he wish to controvert the fact averred. At one time, it was held by a circuit court of the United States that the fact of citizenship must be proved on the general issue,- but this has long since been overruled,- -and the law is now settled as above stated. The court will permit an amendment, as a matter of course, of a defect of the kind alleged; but in the present bill, we think the averment is certain, and within the law. The demurrer is overruled.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert S. Merritt, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Outback Steakhouse, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

       (1)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for
               the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") which
               this certification accompanies fully complies with the
               requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

       (2)    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and
              results of operations of the Company.



Date:  December 10, 2003                              /s/ Robert S. Merritt
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Robert S. Merritt
                                                     Senior Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
No. P66/29.

protests 321959-K, etc. (New York).

No. P66/30.

protests 60/2843, etc. (New York).

#### J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Elmay Importing Co., Inc., and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered 'by the foregoing protests consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the 'subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

253) lll-A-4 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:03 AM Sheet 253 of 276 
P.2 

1 

SA<F 

\ PRO"t0 

PM 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

December 10, 1991 

NOTE TO WEPCO COMMENTER: 

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register notice on the 

Extension of Public Comment Period for Proposed WEPCO Rulemaking, 

effective December 10, 1991. During the comment period EPA 

received requests to extend the comment period for an additional 

amount of time. At this time, in response to those requests, the 

EPA is extending the comment period until December 17, 1991. 

A ir 

QmAy*SZ4y 

John Calcagni 

Director 

uality Management Division 

Attachment 
12/10/91 17:2 3 

v 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

[40 CFR PARTS 51, 52, AND 60] 

[FRL- ] 

REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS; APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS; STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR 

NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Extension of Public Comment Period for Proposed WEPCO 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On June 14, 1991 (56 FR 27630), EPA proposed regulation 

clarifying the new source review (NSR) requirements of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act as they pertain to electric utility steam 

generating units. The proposed rulemaking also clarifies the 

Agency's policy regarding utility pollution control projects and 

implements changes made by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments regarding clean coal technology and repowering 

projects. 

In the last few weeks, EPA received requests to extend the 

comment period for an additional amount of time. At this time, 

and in response to those requests, EPA is extending the comment 

period until December 17, 1991. 

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rulemaking must be 

received by December 17, 1991. 

ADDRESSEES: Submit comments on the proposed rule (in duplicate, 

if possible) to: EPA Air Docket (LE-131), Environmental 

P.3 

@002 
P.4 

^12/4,0/91 17:24 © 12)003 

- 2 -

Protection Agency, ATTN; Docket A-90-06, 401 M Street, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20460. 

DOCKET: Supporting information used in developing the proposed 

rule is contained in Docket A-90-06. This Docket is available 

for inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 

weekdays, at EPA's Air Docket (LE-131), Room M-1500, 401 M 

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wm. Larry Elmore, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711 (919) 541-5433. 

DEC I 0 1991 

Date .iam G. 

Assistan t Adm 

for Air and 

Rosenberg 

nistrator 

Ridiation
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 516 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 516

    Expressing the serious concern of the House of Representatives 
            regarding the worsening situation in Sri Lanka.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2007

  Mr. Pallone (for himself and Mr. Weller of Illinois) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the serious concern of the House of Representatives 
            regarding the worsening situation in Sri Lanka.

Whereas the Liberation of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have been fighting the Government 
        of Sri Lanka since the 1970s for a separate homeland in Sri Lanka's 
        north and east for minority Tamils;
Whereas thousands of innocent civilians have already been killed and more 
        continue to die in Sri Lanka as a result of the ethnic conflict between 
        the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka;
Whereas families in the north and east of Sri Lanka live in constant fear, 
        anxiously hoping for their safety;
Whereas the LTTE is designated in the United States as a Foreign Terrorist 
        Organization;
Whereas 25 years of terrorism have not improved the lives of the Tamil people in 
        Sri Lanka;
Whereas there is no military solution to the conflict;
Whereas fighting has steadily worsened over the past year despite the fact that 
        a 2002 cease-fire between the rebels and the government is still 
        technically in place;
Whereas peace talks have been stalled since 2003;
Whereas Sri Lanka is Asia's oldest democracy and remains a close friend of the 
        United States;
Whereas the United States remains concerned about the upsurge of violence, 
        including abductions and killings of humanitarian aid workers, over the 
        past year and the deteriorating human rights situation; and
Whereas the United States has a strategic interest in promoting peace in Sri 
        Lanka and throughout South East Asia: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its serious concerns regarding the worsening 
        situation in Sri Lanka;
            (2) strongly urges the LTTE to revoke violence as a means 
        to achieve its political goals;
            (3) strongly supports that all pertinent parties, including 
        the main Tamil political parties, resume peace talks 
        immediately;
            (4) calls upon all parties to negotiate a political 
        settlement that will be fair to all of the ethnic communities 
        living in the country, including Sinhalese, Tamils, and 
        Muslims; and
            (5) recommends the President to further United States 
        involvement to help secure a lasting peace.
                                 <all>
```
No. 61056.

protest 283784-K (New York).

#### Haddad & Sons *v.*United States,

*376Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of pearl ladders and strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 60159, the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 218 (f), as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of silk scarves or squares similar 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), were held dutiable at 32K percent under paragraph 1210, as modified by T. D. 52739.