alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
** **

**                                                               **

|   |   | * *

*2451  N. McMullen Booth Road*

*Suite.308*

*Clearwater,  FL 33759*

* *

*855.334.0934  Toll free* |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

** **

** **

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our audit reportdated April 15, 2013 relative to the financial statements of IC Punch Media,Inc., formerly IC Places, Inc., as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for eachof the two years then ended as incorporated by reference in the registrationstatement on Form S-8, filed February 26, 2010.

 

Wealso consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts"in such Registration Statement.

 

On January 1, 2012, the audit firm of Randall N. Drake CPA,P.A. changed its name to Drake & Klein CPAs.  The change was reportedto the PCAOB as a change of name.  This is not a change of auditors forthe Company.

 

On December 17, 2012, the audit firm of Drake & KleinCPAs changed its name to DKM Certified Public Accountants.  The change wasreported to the PCAOB as a change of name.  This is not a change ofauditors for the Company.

 

*/s/ DKM Certified Public Accountant*

 

DKM Certified Public Accountants

f/k/a Drake & Klein CPAs 

f/k/a Randall N Drake CPA PA

Clearwater, Florida

April 15, 2013
No. 63806.

protest 59/8840-10580 (Chicago).

#### Pez-Haas, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic candy dispensers in chief value of polystyrene, not articles in chief value of cellulose acetate, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.-
From: mrsbfriess@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:30 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,

Kate Friess

Lewis Center, OH 43035
From: Skro2nd@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:57:39 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,

Suzette Krone

Livonia, MI 48152
[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: Reporton progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan.**
 
2013: JulNov
2014: AprOct
 
SuDoc Number:D 1.128:
Item Number:0306-A-59 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956601
 
July 18, 2018
*No. 67555*.

#### R. H. Macy Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/17249 and 58/19857 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of men’s orlon outerwear similar in use to wool knit outerwear, valued over $5 per pound, and that the issue is the same as that involved in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: boxers54@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:43:59 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,

Rita Hendrickson

, 92019-3747
Before the Second Division,

March 9, 1956

No. 59758.

#### Dolliff & McGrath *v.*United States,

petition 7171-R. (Boston).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

The record disclosed that the member of the petitioning firm who made entry of the merchandise had recently passed away and, further, that the examiner with whom he had consulted with regard to value had since been transferred to Government service in France. However, the appraiser testified that he recalled consultations with the examiner pertaining to the transac*371tion involved; that he had known the entrant for approximately 30 years; and that he was satisfied that the entrant had cooperated fully in presenting all information desired. Counsel for the Government stated that a special agent’s report had been received by his office, two paragraphs of which were read into evidence. Said report states that the failure of the importer to amend the entry was the result of a misunderstanding occasioned by his illness and subsequent absence from his office. Accordingly, it was recommended that the petition receive favorable consideration. On the record presented, it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
From: waldal21@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:04:52 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,

Joe Cady

Chandler, AZ 85225
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,371
<INVENTORY>                                        457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,810
<PP&E>                                          55,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,796
<BONDS>                                         12,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,153
<SALES>                                        705,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               794,211
<CGS>                                          642,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  705,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,306
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06


</TABLE>
From: dollynotes1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:21:16 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,

Elvera Ruhmann

Middletown, DE 19709
From: wsboylan@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:41:02 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,

susan boylan

Stevens Point, WI 54481
Exhibit 32.1





OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C 1350)








The undersigned Roger A. Parker, the Chief Executive Officer of Recovery Energy, Inc., (the "Corporation"), in connection with the Corporation's Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Corporation.





By: /s/Roger A. Parker


Roger A. Parker


Chief Executive Officer





March 31, 2011
Before the First Division,

July 18, 1967

No. P67/238.

#### Hershey Co. *v.*United States, protest 66/2387 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of certain vinyl articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Zenith Novelty Co. et al.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 215, Abstract 67011), the claim of the plaintiff 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES Q. WILKINSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELDON VAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-5656JKA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

denying their motion to dismiss. The Court, after reviewing the motion for reconsideration, does hereby

find and ORDER:

1. Local Rule CR 7(h)(1) provides, "Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will

ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing

of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence." The local rule further provides that no response to the motion shall be filed unless requested

by the court. Local Rule 7(h)(3).

2. Defendants have not presented any new facts or law which persuade the court to change its

decision. Defendants merely reargue the issue previously presented. 

3. Defendants motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED this Tuesday, April 10, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 110 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1