alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Union      National as of the dates and for the periods presented in the      Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By     | /s/ Mark D. Gainer                                        |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Chairman,      CEO, and President                         |
|   |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)                        |
|   |   | Date:      November 10, 2010                              |
|   |   |                                                      |
|   | By     | /s/ Michael D. Peduzzi                                    |
|   |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial Officer)                        |
|   |   | Date:      November 10, 2010                              |

----
[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: Geologyof the Rangely oil district, Rio Blanco County, Colorado : with a section onthe water supply**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:350
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958163
 
July 27, 2018
Case No. 14,219.

#### TUCKER et al. v. FOWLER et al.

[1 Hayw. & H. 67.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March 31, 1842.

Banks — Assignment—Holder of Notes — Prefer-¿nce — Illegax. Issue of Notes.

A firm of bankers having issued and circulated notes payable to bearer of less denominations than five dollars, and subsequently having made an assignment giving a priority or preference in ayment to the holders of these notes, it was eld that sucia holders were entitled to the preference in the distribution of assets, notwithstanding the act of congress of July 7, 1838 [5 Stat. 309].

[This was a bill in equity by Enoch Tucker and others against Charles S. Fowler and others ahd their assignees Joseph H. Bradley and Charles F. Frary.]

R.-S. Coxe and Walter Lenox, for complainants.

Walter Jones and Joseph H. Bradley, for defendants.

BY THE COURT.

The bill averred that complainants were depositors with the banking-house of the defendants Fowler *&*Co.; that said firm had issued and circulated as currency a number of notes made payable to bearer of various denominations under the value of five dollars; that said defend: ants had made an assignment to the defendants Bradley and Frary, which provided that the said assignees, after deducting, from the proceeds of property assigned which might come into their hands, certain expenses and compensation, should then apply all moneys, proceeds and avails accruing to them, to satisfy and pay the holders of said circulating notes, and the balance remaining, to the payment of the other creditors of the assignors; that by act of congress of July 7, 1838, it was made unlawful for any individual after the 10th of April, 1839. within the District of Columbia, to issue any note or other paper currency of a less denomination than five dollars; that said notes were circulated in said District, and were consequently il*268legal. mill and void, and prayed an injunction to restrain the assignees from giving a priority to the holders of such notes. The notes were drawn by Fowler & Co., dated at Baltimore, Md., and were made payable at their exchange office at Washington, D. C.

The court allowed a preliminary injunction, a motion to dissolve was made by the defendants, which was granted, and the court held that the holders of said notes were entitled to a priority of payment over the other creditors, and that the assignment so far was legal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

         <ARTICLE>                 5
                
         <S>                       <C>
         <PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
         <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-1998
         <PERIOD-END>                       MAY-31-1997
         <CASH>                                  682,224
         <SECURITIES>                                  0
         <RECEIVABLES>                       128,644,427
         <ALLOWANCES>                          4,740,000
         <INVENTORY>                           1,826,235
         <CURRENT-ASSETS>                    116,956,950
         <PP&E>                                1,499,820
         <DEPRECIATION>                          831,720
         <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      129,565,224
         <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                89,329,653
         <BONDS>                                       0
         <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
         <PREFERRED>                                   0
         <COMMON>                             22,045,707
         <OTHER-SE>                           18,189,864
         <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        129,565,224
         <SALES>                              78,339,015
         <TOTAL-REVENUES>                     80,774,528
         <CGS>                                73,953,091
         <TOTAL-COSTS>                        74,692,024
         <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,881,547
         <LOSS-PROVISION>                      1,256,712
         <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      738,933
         <INCOME-PRETAX>                       2,944,245
         <INCOME-TAX>                          1,022,000
         <INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,922,245
         <DISCONTINUED>                                0
         <EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
         <CHANGES>                                     0
         <NET-INCOME>                          1,922,245
         <EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.36
         <EPS-DILUTED>                              0.36
                 



</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ANTHONY W. RUIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner 

of Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-1535-MJP-JPD

ORDER OF REMAND

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, all papers and exhibits in support and

in opposition to the complaint, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. #3) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s decision is

reversed and this action is remanded to the Social Security Administration for

further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge

Donohue.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01535-MJP Document 20 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

October 25, 1962

No. 67144.

protest 58/14098 (San Francisco).

#### The American Import Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
----

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

|   | 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of the Corporation as of and for the period covered by the      Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | March 24, 2010 | By:    | /s/  Aaron L. Groff,      Jr. |
|--------|----------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |           |   | Aaron      L. Groff, Jr.                |
|   |           |   | Chairman      of the Board,             |
|   |           |   | President      and CEO                  |

----
#### Jacob R. EVSEROFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-6331.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 12, 2001.

Roger Bennet Adler, Faith A. Friedman, of counsel, New York, NY, for appellant.

Patricia M. Bowman, Tax Division, Department of Justice; Claire Fallon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney, E.D.N.Y., Jonathan S. Cohen, Tax Division, DOJ, of counsel, Washington, DC, for appellee.

Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the *17judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Jacob R. Evseroff appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on October 18, 2000. *See Evseroff v. Internal Revenue Service,*2000 WL 1728112 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.28, 2000).1 The District Court held that Eversoff failed to establish that any genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether any Internal Revenue Service officer or employee recklessly or intentionally disregarded any provision of the Internal Revenue Code in connection with the collection of federal taxes owed by Evseroff, *see*26 U.S.C. § 74332*See Evseroff,*2000 WL 1728112, at *3-*43

We have considered all of Evseroffs contentions on appeal and find in them no basis for reversal of the District Court’s judgment. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Hurley’s opinion dated September 28, 2000.

1

. Although Evseroff sued the Internal Revenue Service, the District Court correctly noted that the proper defendant was the United States. *See id.*at *2. We have revised the caption accordingly.

2

. As in effect when Evseroff brought this lawsuit, Section 7433 provided, in relevant part: "If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.” This section was subsequently amended to allow a suit based on negligent disregard of the Internal Revenue Code or regulations. *See*Pub.L. No. 105-206, § 3102(a)(1)(A), 112 Stat. 730.

3

. In addition to its grant of summary judgment, the District Court dismissed Evseroff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on sovereign immunity grounds. *See id.*at *1. Evseroff does not appeal this dismissal.
IV 

House Calendar No. 52 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 377 

[Report No. 110–130] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1294) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe— 

Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, 

Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2007 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1294) to extend 

Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, 

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division, the 

Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., 

the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian 

Tribe. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1294) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HRES 377 RH 

1 Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern 

2 Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock 

3 Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the 

4 Nansemond Indian Tribe. All points of order against con5 sideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

6 clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 

7 of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural 

8 Resources now printed in the bill, modified by the amend9 ments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

10 to accompany this resolution, shall be considered as adopt11 ed. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 

12 points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. 

13 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 

14 the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

15 motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 

16 amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

17 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Nat18 ural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

19 without instructions. 

20 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1294 pursuant 

21 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

22 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid23 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

24 the Speaker. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 52 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 377 

[Report No. 110

–130] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1294) 

Tribe. can Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the MonaTribe—Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi hominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian to extend Federal recognition to the ChickaMAY 7, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTheoretical Aeroacoustics: Compiled Mathematical Derivations of Fereidoun 'Feri' FarassatDr. Fereidoun 'Feri' Farassat was a theoretical aero-acoustician at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center. This book contains technical derivations, notes, and classes that Dr. Farassat produced during his professional career. The layout of the book has been carefully crafted so that foundational ideas through advanced theories, which altered the technical discipline of aeroacoustics, build upon one another. The book can be used to understand the theories of acoustics and learn one contemporary aeroacoustic prediction approach made popular by Dr. Farassat. Most importantly, this book gives the general reader insight into how one of NASA's best aeroacoustics theoreticians thought, constructed, and solved problems throughout his career.Document ID20160005899Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMiller, Steven A. E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 6, 2016Publication DateApril 1, 2016Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-23594NASA/TM-2016-219179L-20663Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 110076.02.07.04.30.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160005899.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66859-66860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21233]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Establishment of the Applied Therapeutics for Cancer Integrated 
Review Group

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
announces the establishment of the Applied Therapeutics for Cancer 
Integrated Review Group (IRG) as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(16), 
section 402(b)(16) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
    The Director, NIH, has determined that the Applied Therapeutics for 
Cancer IRG is in the public interest in connection with the performance 
of duties imposed on NIH by law, and that these duties can best be 
performed through the advice and counsel of the committee.
    The committee provides advice and recommendations on funding 
applications and proposals, including but not limited to, the 
scientific and technical merit of applications for grants-in-aid for 
research, research training, or research-related grants and cooperative 
agreements, or contract proposals relating to scientific areas relevant 
to translational and clinical investigations that encompass cancer 
therapeutic development and cancer treatment.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#286b4449415a4d0660495a5a415b68464140064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e0d222f273c2b60062f3c3c273d0e20272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 66860]]


    Dated: September 21, 2023.
Lawrence A. Tabak,
Acting NIH Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-21233 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: wjlowery@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:33:23 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,

William Lowery, Sr.

Warsaw, NY 14569
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

ERIC MICHAEL MILTON,

 Petitioner, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5756 RBL

Case No. CR04-5265 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal

[C05-5756RBL, Dkt. #6].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

Eric Michael Milton has filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Order [C05-5756RBL, Dkt. #3] which

denied his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In order for the appeal to proceed this Court must first determine

whether to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. For the reasons stated in this Court’s Order

[C05-5756 RBL, Dkt. #3] the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the petitioner has

failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 3:05-cv-05756-RBL Document 9 Filed 01/31/06 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

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05756-RBL Document 9 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 2