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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000875385
<NAME>            Access Solutions International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         598,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,652
<INVENTORY>                                    485,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,467,564
<PP&E>                                       1,230,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                 907,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,332,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          990,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,652
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,637,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,332,498
<SALES>                                        325,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               325,056
<CGS>                                          209,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  841,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (701,172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (701,172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (701,172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.18)
        


</TABLE>
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 122 ) ll-E- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/200810:08:24 AM

Sheet 122 of 127P. 2



## .1 a 

# t C

D

Cf _9^^B_^_\\\_____W _m__-^--.-m^-l @©E__3®__iW0SB l CONTAC TREPOR T II-E- 8

Date __ . Originato r CONTAC TBY : TELEPHON E )_\ MEETIN G D Othe r | NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N T o ^ ^ LWIX A.* _ >>a r _ ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R Q U . / $ /Y7 V PURPOS E O R SUBJEC

T(Give project numbe ri f appropriate ) SUMMAR Y 

# _r _ • o • A V ^



# • M.M . 7*s, ^ . ;<<_U

. /v,..^ . «/*.«

- #/.oo/.. v r 

# _^j t

Distribution :
From: Dale.michels@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:38:43 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). This is

also true of physicians who participate in those insurance plans but have moral and ethical objections to

the prescription of certain "contraceptives."

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,

Dale Michels

Walton, NE 68461
[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and ore deposits of the Mogollon mining district, New Mexico**
 
Report | Plates: 010211
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:787
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959882
 
August 6, 2018
From: mdoncheckmail@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:12 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,

Monica Donovan

Huntington Beach, CA 92649
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

COUNTER BORE FOR
AMPHENOL CONNECTOR
NO, AN~3102A-148-5S,

4"p-24 THD *
FIT TO HOUSING,

BULLETIN 1005 PLATE 8 _

SECTON A-A

PHOTOTUBE HOUSING: | REQUIRED

334-24 TH) ———-| ‘oO

|» ss» 74
i 4
; ra
y t & .
y 2 Y
/ s
/f\ T
if |
i, +
/ /
/) i) °
/ “2
y
/; i
tar to~se tH {/) ! :
4 WoLes / ) e T yap S240 TaD
/} R y Sg DEEP 4 HOLES g
4 fet
/] TUBE PLUG FLANGE: | REQUIRED FOR CINCH SOCKET
/ y Material: Aluminum 3M-i4 WITH MOUNTING RING 3M—I4
- 7 Fittings to be light tight
Whig 0 :
4—-*
Buse FLAT HEAD -SeRe Ny E Y) = I
4 HOLES 2
Vig oie t “

L__________ "-24 THD |

DETAILS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TYPE-B.PHOTOTUBE HOUSING

268681 O ~ 54 (In pocket) No. 6

Wig’ UNDERCUT
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AN T OS R OD AS DE L E ON ; MAR C E L A JUL I E T A A R R I AG AS AN T I Z O, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74859 A ge nc yN os . A 098- 429- 775

A 098- 429- 776 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , M cK E O W N , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S ant os R od as D e L eon andhi s w i fe , nat i ves andci t i ze ns of G uat em al a, pet i t i on pro se f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order 

# FI LED APR15 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74859 2 d is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r atio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g th e ir appl i cat i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s , IN

S v. E l i a sZac ar i as , 5 0 2 U. S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n . 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , an dwe r e v i e w d e n o v o qu e s t i o n s o f l aw, R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 508 F . 3d 1271, 1274- 75 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. R o d a s D e L e o n f

e ar s p e r s e c u tio n f

r o m th e N atio n a l A d v an c e m e n t P arty b as edo n h is u n cle’s p o li ti ca l activ it ies. S ub stan ti al ev id en ce sup p o rts th e a g en cy ’s c onc l us i on thatR oda s D e L e on di d note s t abl i s h thathe w a s orw oul d be p e r s e c u te do n a c c o u n t o f an a c tu a l o rim p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n . See San gh a v. I NS , 1 0 3 F .3 d1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 9 - 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; O choa v. G on zales , 406 F . 3d 1166, 1170- 72 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . A c c or di ngl y , pe t i t i one r s ’ a s y l um and w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il . Se e O c hoa , 406 F . 3d at1172. F i na l l y , pe t i t i one r s ’ due pr oc e s s c l a i m thatthe B I A f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l lof th e ire v id e n c e f

a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( no due proces s vi ol at i on w here no prej ud i ce ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES L. SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5064

ORDER REVOKING

BOND and DETAINING

DEFENDANT PENDING

RESOLUTION

THIS MATTER comes on for an evidentiary hearing on the Petition of the United States

Pretrial Services Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of his bond by (1)

consuming alcohol March 10, 2006; and (2) driving without a valid operators licence March 24, 2006.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, LINDA SULLIVAN.

The defendant having been advised of the allegations; his right to a hearing; and having freely

and voluntarily admitted each alleged violation above set forth;

NOW THEREFORE, the court finds that defendant violated the conditions of his Appearance

Bond, and revokes said bond

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or

pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered by 

 the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

April 3, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05064-JKA Document 14 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 59803.

#### John V. Carr & Son *v.*United States,

protest 194254-K (Detroit).

*386Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-044 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
From: faithfulgirl42@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:44:28 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,

Christina Goebel

Tucson, AZ 85756
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5837 FDB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, does hereby find

and ORDER. 

Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security therefor. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below, an initial

partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent

of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the filing fee is

satisfied.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma pauperis,

the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial filing fee

equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the average

monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of this

Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 7 Filed 02/23/06 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

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid. 

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy of

this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgement and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager at the Department of

Corrections).

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 7 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 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

Dated this 15th day of February , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) CR06-11 JLR

ALASKA BROKERAGE

INTERNATIONAL, INC, 

and DAVID KARSCH,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

)

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The parties have requested a continuation of the initial and arraignment currently

scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 2006. The request is GRANTED.

The initial and arraignment is hereby rescheduled to

Thursday, March 2, 2006 at 2:30pm

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 12B, U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, Washington.

Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/15/06 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

Dated this 15th day of February , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2272

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. David D. Ingram, also known as L. A. * Ingram, also known as Elroy, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 4, 2012 Filed: January 9, 2012

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. David Ingram brings this appeal following entry of judgment by the district court 1 revoking his supervised release and senten cing him to serve two years in prison. For reversal, he argues that the court l acked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release after the term had expired; that the court clearly erre d in finding that he violated his supervised release; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.We reject these arguments. The district court had jurisdiction to revoke supervised release, because the court issueda warrant to arrestIngram for alleged violations of his supervised release before his term ha d expired. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). Further, upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the revocation hearing that Ingram illegally possessed a firearm and distributed a controlled substance, which violated his supervised release conditions. See United States v. Tyndall , 521 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2008). Fina lly, the ineffective-assistance claim is undeveloped and not pr operly before us. See United States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-