alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold P. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6217.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 28, 2001.

Harold P. Richardson, pro se.

Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

*109Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

PER CURIAM.

Harold P. Richardson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *Richardson v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*No. CA-00-89 (E.D.Va. Dec. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
Before the Third Division,

September 27, 1967

No. P67/321.

#### Haruta & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 66/12063, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups.and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all mate*889rial respects to those the-subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the annual Report of Source Gold Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Lauren Notar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.



|By:    | /s/Lauren Notar                                                              
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Lauren Notar                                                                 
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer,
        Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | November 15, 2011                                                            



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
From: jls@frc.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:44 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,

Jenna Spears

Holland, MI 49424
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      AMERICAN NORTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                     1999         1998
                                                  2ND QUARTER  2ND QUARTER
                                                 ------------  -----------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 1)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period     15,403,785  15,153,785

Effects of weighting shares:
   Weighted common shares issued                            -    (772,179)
                                                 ------------  -----------

Weighted average number of common shares           15,403,785  14,381,606
                                                 ============  ===========
   outstanding

Net Income                                       $ 699,266.33  895,617.67
                                                 ============  ===========

Earnings Per Share                                       0.05        0.06
                                                 ============  ===========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 1)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period     15,403,785  15,153,785

Effects of weighting shares:

   Weighted common shares issued                            -    (772,179)
   10% convertible debentures                               -       5,844
                                                 ------------  -----------

Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding            15,403,785  14,387,450
                                                 ============  ===========

Net Income                                       $ 699,266.33  895,617.67
                                                 ============  ===========

Earnings Per Share                               $       0.05        0.06
                                                 ============  ===========
</TABLE>


NOTE  1:
--------

     Earnings  per  common  share  and  common  equivalent share are computed by
dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock and
common  stock  equivalents  outstanding  during  the  period.  The Company's 10%
convertible  debentures  are  considered  to  be  common  stock  equivalents.
Consequently,  the  number  of  shares  issuable,  assuming  full  conversion
outstanding of these debentures as of the beginning of the fiscal year, is added
to  the number of common shares.  A fully diluted earnings per share is computed
assuming  conversion  of  all  debentures.


<PAGE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 121 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 675 

[Report No. 110–346] 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 

976) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief 

for small businesses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments 

to the bill (H.R. 976) to amend the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 976) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

4 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other 

5 purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and to con6 sider in the House, without intervention of any point of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HRES 675 RH 

1 order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, 

2 a single motion offered by the chairman of the Committee 

3 on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House 

4 concur in each of the Senate amendments with the respec5 tive amendment printed in the report of the Committee 

6 on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 

7 amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. 

8 The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 

9 among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor10 ity member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

11 and the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

12 Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question 

13 shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adop14 tion without intervening motion or demand for division of 

15 the question. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 121 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 675 

[Report No. 110

–346] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate 

lief for small businesses, and for other purposes. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax reamendments to the bill (H.R. 976) to amend the 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                       772
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,996
<PP&E>                                          19,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,239
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,734
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,890
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,358
<SALES>                                         46,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,594
<CGS>                                           42,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,957
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
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 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAUL SIMONDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

REIKO CALLNER, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1887C

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE by Friday, December 2, 2005 at 4:30

p.m. why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Pursuant to that Rule, the complaint must include a plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. The Court directs that Plaintiff respond to this Show Cause Order by submitting an

amended complaint. While Plaintiff need not set forth a complete and convincing picture of the alleged

wrongdoing in this amended complaint, he must at least set forth enough details so as to provide

Defendants and the Court with a fair idea of the basis of the complaint. In particular, the Court directs

Plaintiff to identify clearly each of the defendants in this action and to make a short and plain statement of

Case 2:05-cv-01887-JCC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 1 of 2

Simonds v. Canby et al Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
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 MINUTE ORDER – 2

the claim or claims against each defendant, showing that he is entitled to relief against that defendant. 

Failure to comply with this Order by December 2, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. will result in dismissal of this action

without prejudice.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01887-JCC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 2 of 2
Amendment to Employment Agreement with Gary S. Maier



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of November 6, 2012 (the “Agreement”), is made by and between Tower Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and Gary S. Maier (the “Executive”). 
 WITNESSETH THAT 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are the parties to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2007 (the
“Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set
forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the
Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows: 
 “Certain Tax Consequences. 
 (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, if any of the benefits and payments provided under this Agreement, either alone or together with other benefits and payments which the Executive
has the right to receive either directly or indirectly from the Company or any of its Affiliates, would constitute an excess parachute payment (the “Excess Payment”) under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), the Executive hereby agrees that the benefits and payments provided under this Agreement shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount necessary to prevent any such benefits and payments to the Executive from
constituting an Excess Payment; provided, however, that such reduction shall be made only if, by reason of such reduction, the Executive’s net after-tax economic benefit shall exceed the net after-tax economic benefit to the Executive if such
reduction were not made. 
 (b) All determinations required to be made under clause (a) of this Section 6, and the
assumptions to be utilized in arriving at such determination, shall be made by the certified public accounting firm used for auditing purposes by the Company immediately prior to the date of termination or, if the parties determine that the
certified public accounting firm used for auditing purposes by the Company immediately prior to the date of termination cannot make such determination because of legal restrictions, the parties shall agree on a different certified public accounting
firm (such certified public accounting firm is hereinafter referred to as the “Accounting Firm”), which shall promptly provide detailed supporting calculations both to the Company and the Executive. The Company shall pay all fees and
expenses of the Accounting Firm.” 

  
 1 








 2. Except as expressly amended above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set his hand and, pursuant to the authorization of the Board, the
Company has caused this Agreement to be executed, all as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	TOWER GROUP, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Elliot S. Orol

	 Title:
	 	Senior Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary
	
	GARY S. MAIER
	
	           /s/ Gary S.
Maier




  
 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 1054

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1000 to 1059, revised as of July 1, 2023, in § 1054.801, remove the second definition of “Equipment manufacturer” and place the remaining definition in alphabetical order, and reinstate the definition of “Engine manufacturer” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 1054.801

* * * * *

*Engine manufacturer*                             means the manufacturer of the engine. See the definition of “manufacturer” in this section.                        

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-21520 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
Before the First Division,

April 10, 1963

No. 67588.

#### Fred Bronner Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/22925 (New York).

*262Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), 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

ORDER - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ALAN CASSINI,

 Defendant.

No. CR05-0166P

 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 

 MOTION FOR BOND PENDING 

 APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Michael Alan Cassini’s Motion for Bond

Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 81). Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum in Support,

as well as the Government’s Response, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Bond Pending

Appeal. 

Under 18 U.S.C.§3143(b), the default is that a Defendant be detained pending appeal unless

the Court can find:

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to

the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of

this title; and

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or

fact likely to result in--

(i) reversal,

(ii) an order for a new trial,

(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or

(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time

already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

Case 2:05-cr-00166-MJP Document 84 Filed 05/17/06 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

ORDER - 2 

18 U.S.C.A. § 3143(b)

The Court agrees with the Government that it cannot make findings in favor of Mr. Cassini on

either prong of this test. Based on the facts of this case and because Mr. Cassini pled guilty to crimes

of fraud and is facing substantial prison time, the Court finds that Mr. Cassini possesses both the

capacity and motivation to flee the district. Additionally, the Court does not find that Mr. Cassini’s

appeal raises substantial issues of fact likely to alter the sentence he has already received from this

Court. Because the Court cannot make any of the statutorily requisite findings to grant bond in this

case, Defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: May 17, 2006

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00166-MJP Document 84 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

★

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 775 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1366) to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2007 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1366) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 

2 resolution the House shall without intervention of any 

3 point of order consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1366) 

4 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

5 the alternative minimum tax on individuals. The bill shall 

6 be considered as read. The previous question shall be con7 sidered as ordered on the bill to final adoption without 

8 intervening motion or demand for division of the question 

9 except: (1) one hour of debate on the resolution equally 

10 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking miVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:07 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR775.IH HR775

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HRES 775 IH1S 

1 nority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amend2 ment in the nature of a substitute, if offered by Represent3 ative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered as 

4 read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 

5 divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 

6 and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instruc7 tions. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS