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

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
THE NOTES THERETO.
 </LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1996 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1 
<CASH>                                                 57,001 
<SECURITIES>                                                0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                           6,203 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0 
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       63,204 
<PP&E>                                                 20,506 
<DEPRECIATION>                                         13,402 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         70,308 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  10,949 
<BONDS>                                                     0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0 
<PREFERRED>                                                 0 
<COMMON>                                                2,000 
<OTHER-SE>                                             53,834 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           70,308 
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       13,867 
<CGS>                                                       0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       42,734 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        582 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (26,741) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (26,741) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0 
<CHANGES>                                                   0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         (26,741) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (1.37) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (1.37) 
        

</TABLE>
From: randkpeitz@myfairpoint.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:31:04 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,

Karen Peitz

Effingham, NH 03882
Before the First Division,

February 20, 1967

No. P67/37.

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear Co. Inc., *v.*United States,

protest 65/14267 (Los Angeles).

Eao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest 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 plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 483 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 483

Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National Park, established 
                           on June 12, 1944.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2007

Mr. Rodriguez submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National Park, established 
                           on June 12, 1944.

Whereas Big Bend National Park is a scenic treasure of southwest Texas 
        encompassing more than 800,000 acres;
Whereas Big Bend National Park manages nearly one quarter of the approximately 
        1000 mile stretch of the Rio Grande River that also serves as the 
        boundary between the United States and Mexico;
Whereas along the boundary of the park, the flow of the Rio Grand River shifts 
        from a southeasterly direction to the northeast, forming the bend after 
        which the park is named;
Whereas Big Bend National Park is unique because it covers a variety of 
        different ecosystems ranging from the Chihuahuan Desert to the Chisos 
        Mountains;
Whereas Native people inhabited the area for thousands of years;
Whereas many people have traversed the Big Bend region in the past 150 years, 
        including Spanish explorers, Comanche Indians, Mexican settlers, and 
        American ranchers;
Whereas in 1933 the Texas Legislature, led by Everett Ewing Townsend, 
        established the Texas Canyons State Park;
Whereas later that year the park was expanded and renamed Big Bend State Park;
Whereas Townsend later became known as the Father of Big Bend National Park;
Whereas between 1934 and 1942 the Civilian Conservation Corps worked diligently 
        to make the park suitable for visitors; and
Whereas 63 years ago Big Bend National Park, ``Texas' Gift to the Nation'', was 
        officially established on June 12, 1944: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 63rd anniversary of the founding of Big 
        Bend National Park; and
            (2) honors the National Park Service for their service to 
        the Big Bend region and Big Bend National Park.
                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProgressive Fracture of Fiber Composite Thin Shell Structures Under Internal Pressure and Axial LoadsGraphite/epoxy composite thin shell structures were simulated to investigate damage and fracture progression due to internal pressure and axial loading. Defective and defect-free structures (thin cylinders) were examined. The three different laminates examined had fiber orientations of (90/0/+/-0)(sub s), where 0 is 45, 60, and 75 deg. CODSTRAN, an integrated computer code that scales up constituent level properties to the structural level and accounts for all possible failure modes, was used to simulate composite degradation under loading. Damage initiation, growth, accumulation, and propagation to fracture were included in the simulation. Burst pressures for defective and defect-free shells were compared to evaluate damage tolerance. The results showed that damage initiation began with matrix failure whereas damage and/or fracture progression occurred as a result of additional matrix failure and fiber fracture. In both thin cylinder cases examined (defective and defect-free), the optimum layup configuration was (90/0/+/-60)(sub s) because it had the best damage tolerance with respect to the burst pressure.Document ID19970001596Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGotsis, Pascal K.*(NASA Moffett Field, CA United States)*Chamis, Christos C.*(NASA Moffett Field, CA United States)*Minnetyan, Levon*(Clarkson Univ. Potsdam, NY United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107234NASA-TM-107234E-10277Accession Number97N11390Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-5BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001596.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
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

MATTHEW G. SILVA, ) No. C05-5731-RJB-KLS

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court under Local General Rule 8(c). On February 14,

2007, plaintiff Matthew G. Silva filed a “Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge” (Dkt. #102). The

Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, declined to recuse herself

voluntarily and the matter was referred to the Chief Judge for review (Dkt. #111). On March 7,

2007, this Court denied plaintiff’s request to remove Judge Strombom (Dkt. #112). Plaintiff

then moved for reconsideration of this order, and the matter was again referred to the Chief

Judge for review. See Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #115); April 2, 2007 docket minute

entry referring the motion to the Chief Judge. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore

ripe for review by this Court. 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district, and 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 [the court’s] attention

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 125 Filed 04/20/07 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met his burden

under this rule because his motion does not present any new facts or legal authority that could

not have been raised in his initial recusal motion. Furthermore, the actions upon which plaintiff

bases his recusal of Judge Strombom stem from adverse rulings in his case, not an extrajudical

source, as plaintiff concedes in his motion: “the conduct complained of did occur within Judge

Strombom’s order (Dkt. 93).” See Motion at 1. A litigant cannot, however, use the recusal

process to remove a judge based on adverse rulings in the pending case: the alleged bias must

result from an extrajudical source. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.

1986). 

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of

Recusing Magistrate Judge Karen Strombom” (Dkt. #115) is DENIED. 

DATED this 20th day of April, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 125 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2
| **Mortgage Servicing Rights (Tables)**      | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Mortgage Servicing Rights [Abstract]**    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Reconciliation of Mortgage Servicing Assets | Mortgage servicing rights are included in other assets and detailed in the following table:As of December 31, 2012  2011 Mortgage servicing rights $6,430,000  $6,099,000 Accumulated amortization  (5,473,000)  (4,837,000)Impairment reserve  (90,000)  (61,000)  $867,000  $1,201,000  |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
A tabular presentation of the net mortgage servicing rights as of the balance sheet date.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fnlc_ReconciliationOfMortgageServicingRightsTableTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**fnlc_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_TransfersAndServicingAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
EPA White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions

Attached are comments from the Permian Basin Petroleum Association concerning EPA’s White Papers on 

Methane and VOC Emissions. Thank you for the opportunity for comments over these White Papers.

Jimmy D. Carlile

HSE and Regulatory Supervisor

CHAIRMAN – Permian Basin Petroleum Association

Regulatory Practices Committee

6101 Holiday Hill Road 

Midland, TX 79707

(432) 687­1777 office

(432) 349­0369 cell

Jimmy Carlile <jimmyc@forl.com>

Mon 6/16/2014 2:42 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

 1 attachment

PBPA EPA white paper comments.doc; 

EPA White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
EXHIBIT 32.2





                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.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  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Michael J.
Jeffries,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.ss.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/Michael J. Jeffries
                                             Michael J. Jeffries
                                             Chief Financial Officer and
                                             Chief Accounting Officer
                                             November 9, 2005
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (372 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (36 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (14 KB PDF)
Flows tables (160 KB PDF)
Level tables (130 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (20 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (30 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical data | AboutCurrent release | 
Screen reader |  
PDF (560 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 6, 2012
No. 62723.

#### F. W. Myers *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 265805-K and 272140-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of protective cream dispensing machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 256, C.D. 1832), 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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

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

THIS MATTER comes on before the above entitled Court upon the Report and Recommendation of

the Honorable J. Kelley Arnold, Chief United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. #40].

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

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation except as to the report’s recommendation that

plaintiff’s claim against Officer Patton as analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, survives summary judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #36] shall be granted in

all respects and plaintiff’s complaint shall be dismissed.

Summary judgment is appropriate on plaintiff’s claim against Officer Patton. Plaintiff admits he

possessed contraband under his clothing. There is no dispute that plaintiff failed to follow the strip search

procedure as set forth in DOC Policy 420.310 (effective date 3/7/01). The policy states that the individual

being searched “spread the buttocks to expose the anus.” It provides that females must “squat.” Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaration of Sara Olson, p. 20 [Dkt. #36]. Plaintiff admits he “squatted”

Case 3:05-cv-05630-RBL Document 44 Filed 02/21/07 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

when searched. Complaint [Dkt. #1]; Deposition of Tyrone Washington, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, Exhibit 2, Declaration of Sara Olson [Dkt. #36]. It is undisputed that the purpose of the strip search

is to search for contraband. It is also undisputed that officers cannot observe the anus when the person being

searched is squatting. Defendant Patton did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights when he required

plaintiff to go through the strip search procedure four times until he complied and allowed his anus to be

exposed. It is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #36] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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

pro se.

Dated this 21st day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05630-RBL Document 44 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2
From: Sara Zapata

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:54:07 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Sara Zapata

617 Victoria Court

San Leandro, CA 94577