alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## EmisAons Defect Informatiok Report (EâIR Number: 2010.02.10.02) 1. Manufacturer: Kia Motors Corporation Description of the defect: Some 2011 model year Sorento's equipped with 2.4 liter engines have experienced a malfunction indicator light (MIL) illumination with a diagnostic trouble code PO441 set, indicating evaporative emission system incorrect purge flow. This is due to improper programming of the PCM threshold for a malfunction. To correct this problem, Kia has reprogrammed the PCM. 3. Description of vehicles potentially affected by the defect:

Maker Model Model Year Test Group Sales Volume 1 Kia Sorento 2.4L 2011 BKMXT02.4CW5 64,435
4. The number of vehicles containing the defect and the means by which the number of involved vehicles was determined:
Number of involved vehicles: All vehicles could be potentially, .affected by this problem. In addition, all unscreened claims of canister purge valve received by January 13, 2011, are listed below for reference. Model Model Year Unscreened Claims Sales Volume Unscreened Claim Rate (%) Sorento 2.4L 2011 24 64,435 0.04
Address of involved assembly plant: Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc., West Point, Georgia, USA 5. Evaluation of the eilission and driveability impact of the defect: As this is a "false MIL" condition, this issue does not affect vehicle emission performance or driveability.
6. Available emission data that relate to the defect: No specific test data is available. 7. Anticipated follow-up by KIA Kia will publish a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) to provide repair information to KIA dealers for this condition, and will reprogram affected power-train control units.

2011402-17 00:09 / This document is the intellectual property of HATO. You may not copy or dish ibute it without written permission. Violation of this rule will subject you 10 criminal and civil liability.
H. Res. 645 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 23, 2008. 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police force consists of 

over 1,600 officers who are dedicated to the protection 

and security of the Capitol Complex and its employees 

and visitors; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police continually sacrifice 

to provide safety and security to the Members, staff, and 

nearly 3 million visitors each year to the Capitol Complex; 

Whereas the officers of the United States Capitol Police face 

the danger of physical and verbal assaults and continue 

to provide courteous, responsible, and diligent services in 

an unbiased and nonpartisan manner; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police face many threats 

to their safety and must remain constantly alert for suspicious actions or for any failure to respond to requests 

and instructions; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police are on the front 

lines of the War on Terrorism and remain on constant 

alert against unauthorized access to Capitol buildings, 

terrorism, and other threats to the Capitol Complex; 
2 

•HRES 645 EH 

Whereas Capitol Police officers stationed throughout the Capitol Complex act in a professional manner and treat 

Members, staff, and visitors with dignity and respect; 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police consistently apply 

security and safety measures to all, including Members of 

Congress; and 

Whereas the United States Capitol Police is one of the best 

trained, most highly respected law enforcement agencies 

in the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the 

professional manner in which the United States Capitol 

Police carry out their diverse missions; 

(2) expresses appreciation for the dedication United 

States Capitol Police officers display in protecting the 

Capitol Complex; and 

(3) commends the United States Capitol Police for 

their continued courage and professionalism in protecting the Capitol Complex and its employees and visitors. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
March 12, 1962

No. 66570. — Suit 5053.

#### United States *v.*Aris Gloves, Inc.

C.D. 2185 reversed July 7, 1961. G.A.D. 777.
**Chang G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.**

**( 2667 CAMINO DEL RIO S. PLAZA B ( SAN DIEGO ( CALIFORNIA 92108-3707(**

**( TELEPHONE (858)722-5953 ( FAX (858) 761-0341 ( FAX (858) 433-2979**

**( E-MAIL****changgpark@gmai[dot]com****(**

 

 

 

April 1, 2010

 

***To Whom It May Concern:***

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Zapnaps, Inc.of our report dated April 1, 2010, with respect to the balance sheets as of January 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of income, cash flows, and shareholders’ deficit for the fiscal years period ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, which appears on Form 10-K of Zapnaps,            Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/Chang G. Park

| ____________________________ |
|------------------------------|

Chang G. Park, CPA

San Diego, CA

 

 

**Member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants**

**Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board**
From: 4thebirds5@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:29:13 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,

LYNNELL SOLLIE

Moorhead, MN 56560
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 70

  Congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara men's 
    soccer team, the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                               Champions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2007

   Mrs. Capps (for herself and Mr. Gallegly) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara men's 
    soccer team, the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                               Champions.

Whereas the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) Gauchos claimed the 
        2006 NCAA Championship, 2-1, over the University of California at Los 
        Angeles Bruins at Robert R. Hermann Stadium at Saint Louis University in 
        St. Louis, Missouri, on December 3, 2006;
Whereas the UCSB Gauchos, in their 2006 season, had an overall record of 18-7-0, 
        and a perfect 6-0 mark in the National Collegiate Athletic Association 
        (NCAA) tournament;
Whereas the UCSB Gauchos won a Division 1 title for the second time ever in 
        school history and first time ever in men's soccer;
Whereas the UCSB Gauchos have reached the NCAA finals twice in the past three 
        years;
Whereas Nick Perera was named the tournament's offensive Most Valuable Player 
        and Andy Iro was named the defensive Most Valuable Player; and
Whereas the 2006 NCAA championship soccer team members are Kyle Reynish; Jeff 
        Murphy; David Walker; Andy Iro; Jon Curry; Greg Curry; Bryan Byrne; Paul 
        Kierstead; Tino Nunez; Tyler Rosenlund; Alfonso Motagalvan; Eric 
        Frimpong; Chris Pontius; Nick Perera; Eric Avila; Evan Patterson; 
        Brennan Tennelle; Kyle Kaveny; Andrew Proctor; Bongomin Otii; Bryant 
        Rueckner; Tony Chinakwe; Jason Badger; Jordan Kaplan; Drew Gleason; C.J. 
        Cintas; and Guillermo Jalomo: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives congratulates the 
University of California at Santa Barbara men's soccer team, the 
Gauchos, and Coaches Tim Vom Steeg, Greg Wilson, Erick Foss, and Neil 
Jones on an outstanding championship season, a season that set the 
Gauchos among the elite in collegiate soccer.
                                 <all>
```
From: bromyron@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:55 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,

Myron Ricketts

Clarksville, AR 72830
Before the Third Division,

April 8, 1963

No. 67583.

#### Carson M. Simon & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 62/9808 and 62/9810 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic artificial teeth similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Air Express Int’l Agency, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 163, C.D. 2251), 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 ON MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

EON-NET L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v.

FLAGSTAR BANCORP, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C05-2129RSM 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Eon-Net has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s January 4, 2010 Order on fees

and costs, Dkt. # 188. Such motions are disfavored and will be denied 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. . . .” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). The Court deems it unnecessary to direct

defendant to respond to the motion. 

Plaintiff has supported the motion with declarations that attempt to explain or refute deposition

testimony cited by the Court in its Order. Counsel also states that he “never sought to disclaim

responsibility” for an “error” in an interrogatory response that the Court discussed in its Order. Rather,

he “was simply attempting to explain” how the “error” happened. Declaration of Jean-Marc

Zimmerman, Dkt. # 189-2. However, it was not the “error” aspect of the interrogatory response which

the Court found troubling. See, Order, p. 19-20. The Court found that the interrogatory response
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 ON MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION - 2

demonstrated plaintiff’s “cavalier attitude” toward the patent litigation process, and counsel’s attempt to

dismiss the response—which he signed—as an “error” made by his assistant only exacerbated the

problem. Id. His attempt to explain his intent here has similar effect.

Plaintiff has also presented a declaration indicating that additional patents have been issued to

Dr. Medina after the Court filed its Order on Claim Construction, and after Dr. Medina provided a copy

of that Order to the Patent Office. Declaration of Mitchell Medina, Dkt. # 189-3. This is, however, not

a “new fact”; plaintiff advised the Court on December 23, 2009, of the issuance of the ‘383 and ‘768

patents, and of Dr. Medina’s disclosure of the Order on Claim Construction to the Patent Office, and this

information was considered by the Court. Dkt. # 187. Indeed, the new patents were discussed by the

Court in its Order. Dkt. # 188, p. 2. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration amounts to explanation and re-argument of matters already

addressed in the Court’s Order, and fails to demonstrate either manifest error, or new facts or legal

authority which could not have been presented earlier. The motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 189) is

accordingly DENIED, for failure to meet the standard set forth in Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). 

DATED this 3 day of February 2010.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
No. 62278.

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States,

protest 279704-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00125 - CR

JIMMIE FRANK DITTO APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------ Appellant Jimmie Frank Ditto pled guilty to indecency with a child by fondling. In accordance with the plea bargain between appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years’ defer red adjudication community supervision. Several months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging, among other things, that appellant had been discharged unsuccessfully from sex offender counseling and that appellant had been in

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

contact with children in violation of his community supervision. Appellant pled true to these two allegations. The trial court heard evidence about the two allegations , 2 adjudicated appellant guilty, and recessed the proceedings for the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI) requested by appellant. At the continued hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the clerk’s record and the PSI, which the trial court reviewed before the he aring. After hearing argument from the State and appellant’s counsel, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at eleven years’ confinement. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in sup port of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in h er professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional eval uation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). This court afforded a ppellant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not. Once an appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if

2 Appellant’s counsel was able to elicit evidence that appellant had suffered a stroke about ten years before being placed on deferred adjudication community supervision and that, at times, he seemed confused.3

there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See id . at 511. Only then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw

. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’ s brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Consequently, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

PER CURIAM

P ANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J. ; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL , JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 30, 2010
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 4

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 12

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 12 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

|               | (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. |

|  Date:  May                10, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                      |                     | /s/                Dirk A. Montgomery                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Dirk                A. Montgomery                                               |
|                                                         |                      |      | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
H. Res. 785 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 11, 2007. 

Whereas in 2007, the city of Robstown, Texas, celebrates its 

centennial as the ‘‘Biggest Little Town in Texas’’; 

Whereas before Robstown became a city in Nueces County, 

Robstown was a major thoroughfare north of the National Mexican Railway, making it vital for trade and 

commerce between Mexico and the United States; 

Whereas rancher and businessman Robert Driscoll conveyed 

territories encircling the boundaries of Robstown, inspiring Robstown’s name; 

Whereas Robstown enters the 21st century as the crossroads 

of international trade, being the location where the Texas 

Mexican Railway connects the Port of Laredo with the 

Port of Corpus Christi and Interstate 69 will intersect 

Texas State Highway 44; 

Whereas Robstown is the home of a new fairgrounds and entertainment venue; the future home of an inland port, 

which will be the first such port in the United States; 

and the future home of an Army storage facility; 

Whereas Robstown is one of the leading cotton producing 

areas in the United States, at one time operating the 

most cotton gins in the United States and later naming 
2 

•HRES 785 EH 

the mascot of the Robstown high school the ‘‘Cotton 

Picker’’; 

Whereas, a steadfast community in Nueces County, the residents of Robstown have included legendary National 

Football League Hall of Famer Gene Upshaw; Federal 

Judge Hilda Tagle; and numerous county, State, and 

Federally elected officials; 

Whereas Robstown has scheduled ‘‘Century of Celebration’’ 

festivities throughout 2007, beginning on January 1 and 

including a formal celebration on June 1 and the 

Cottonfest festival in October; and 

Whereas Robstown’s contributions to the history of the 

United States include being the site of the first game of 

Texas Hold ’em poker: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the 100th anniversary of Robstown, Texas, and commends all 

of the residents of Robstown and all other individuals who 

call Robstown home. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. P66/252. —

#### Levin Bros., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/2847 and 65/3147 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of blinker Christmas lanterns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *John A. Steer Company*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 229, Abstract 68673), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.