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>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         473
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                12085
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (903)
<INVENTORY>                                  18389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             32640
<PP&E>                                       33279
<DEPRECIATION>                              (19561)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               73653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         9780
<BONDS>                                      17611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       101
<OTHER-SE>                                   46915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 73653
<SALES>                                      16068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             16068
<CGS>                                       (12041)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               (12041)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (4957)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (28)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (439)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (466)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (904)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-531

In Re: LEVERN HENRY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-3971-O-OBD)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levern Henry, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to

have his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) action transferred to this court

or have default judgment entered in his favor due to the Respondents' delay in filing a response. Petitioner failed to show that

he has a clear right to the relief sought and that no other remedy

is available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988); see Stines v. Martin, 849 F.2d 1323, 1324 (10th

Cir. 1988). While we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we

deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
##### 



Second Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and
Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services
 Community Blood Center, Osteotech,
Inc.
 RECITALS
    1.
    
    Section 1.1.1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add CTS shall provide
Whole Tissue Donors, male up to age ** and female up to age **, to OTI. ****** CTS shall endeavor to provide *** donors in the first **
months of this agreement and a minimum of *** donors annually thereafter. Quantities
are subject to adjustment for an increase in donor base and changes in criteria which
could adversely impact donor supply.2.
    
    Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to add a fee of
$****** for each Whole Tissue Donor provided.3.
    
    Section 1.1.2(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended to remove the donor consent
from the Donor Eligibility documents that CTS provides to Osteotech.4.
    
    Exhibit D, Whole Donor Tissues, is added




---



##### 



*****
    
    
    ***************************************************
    
    
    ************
    
    
    ************
    
    
    *******
    
    
    ********************************
    
    
    *************************
    
    
    **************************
    
    
    ***************
    
    
    ****************
    
    
    *
  ******
    
    
    *****
    
    
    ******
    
    
    ********
    
    
    *
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Osteotech, Inc.
    
    
    
    Community Blood Center
d/b/a Community Tissue ServicesBy:
    
    
    
    /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Julia M. BeldenName:
    
    Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Julia M. BeldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer

    
    








    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 2
From: Dorothy Bollant

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:50 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,

Dorothy Bollant
Madison, Wisconsin
From: fperrini@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:37:52 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,

Kathleen Farrell-Perrini

Rock Hill, SC 29732
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,331
<PP&E>                                          14,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,892
<BONDS>                                          9,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,808
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,753
<SALES>                                         46,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,162
<CGS>                                           24,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,649
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,765
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,884
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,884
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47


</TABLE>
No. P67/282.

No. P67/283.

#### Rettrain Imports, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/23040 and 65/23581 (New York). Rettrain Imports, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 66/36786, 66/50423, and 66/77966 (New York).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR05-315 JLR

)

v. )

)

EDDIE MARTINEZ-SANTANA, ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged: Illegal Re-Entry After Deportation, in violation of Title 8, U.S.C.,

Section 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: August 24, 2005.

The Court, having conducted an uncontested detention hearing pursuant to Title

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for

detention hereafter set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the

defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and

the safety of any other person and the community. The Government was represented by Don

Reno. The defendant was represented by Jennifer Wellman.

The Government filed a Motion for Detention, to which the defendant stipulated.

//

Case 2:05-cr-00315-JLR Document 9 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

 (1) The defendant represents a risk of nonappearance as he is a citizen and

national of Mexico who has previously been deported; his background

and ties to the Western District of Washington are unknown; and the

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has filed a detainer.

(2) The defendant represents a risk of danger due to his extensive criminal

history and unknown background.

(3) The defendant stipulated to detention.

Thus, there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future court appearances.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody

of the Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in

which Defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a

court proceeding; and

//

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cr-00315-JLR Document 9 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -3-

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United

States, to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to

the United States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2005.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00315-JLR Document 9 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Opera Jet International Ltd.
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Martin Hudec
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 13, 2011
No. 61046.

protests 299729-K, 306362-K, and 310463-K (New York).

#### C. P. Stollberg and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk malines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TYRONE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5630RBL

ORDER TO PROVIDE FORMS

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not provided

service documents. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff three service forms.

Plaintiff will fill out the forms and provide three copies of the complaint so the court can

attempt service by mail. The forms and copies must be returned on or before November 18th, 2005

or the court will recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order and the service forms to plaintiff and note

this matter for November 18th, 2005.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05630-RBL Document 5 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Dock HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

*226Dock Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Colette Anderson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dock Hunt, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition under *28*U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STEVEN T MILLER 

Petitioner,

v.

GARY FLEMMING,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5661FDB

ORDER ADOPTING 

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The issues presented are

currently in state court and are therefore unexhausted. 

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, and to the Hon. J.

Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 12th day of April 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05661-FDB Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Draft Proposal CB-26 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Equipment and System Sizing (CB-26) 

Objective:  Clarify intent that the provisions are written to apply to the output capacity of the

equipment that provides heating or cooling functions.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C403.2.2 as follows:  

C403.2.2 Equipment and system sizing. The output capacity of heating and cooling equipment and 

systems shall not exceed the loads calculated in accordance with Section C403.2.1. A single piece of 

equipment providing both heating and cooling shall satisfy this provision for one function with the 

capacity for the other function as small as possible, within available equipment options. 

(Exceptions remain unchanged.)

Reason:  While not defined, there is a distinct difference between systems and equipment.  

The equipment refers to the piece of equipment (or the appliance) that converts delivered energy into

heating and/or cooling capability.  The system is much broader in scope and includes not only the

equipment but the distribution system, controls, etc.  The design loads in Section C403.2.1 will cover the

distribution system loads such that the loads in question and the point of comparison with size occurs at

the output to the equipment.    

Cost Impact:  There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam Owusu-Akyaw, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                        /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Sam Owusu-Akyaw
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        May 10, 2006
No. 68951.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/16230 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles of merchandise, designated on the invoices as “Monla lamps,” are not essential for the operation of a microscope, can be used with items' other than microscopes, and that they are, in fact, lamps in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.