alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | 2016 |   | 2015 |   | 2014 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit of consolidated companies                                        | $ | 390 |  |   | 461 |  |   | 544 |  |   | $ | 527 |  |   | $ | 439 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 171 |  |   | 158 |  |   | 209 |  |   | 167 |  |   | 145 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 561 |  |   | $ | 619 |  |   | $ | 753 |  |   | $ | 694 |  |   | $ | 584 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 611 |  |   | $ | 593 |  |   | $ | 631 |  |   | $ | 734 |  |   | $ | 801 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 6 |  |   | 5 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 617 |  |   | $ | 598 |  |   | $ | 637 |  |   | $ | 740 |  |   | $ | 807 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 1,178 |  |   | $ | 1,217 |  |   | $ | 1,390 |  |   | $ | 1,434 |  |   | $ | 1,391 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 1.91 |  |   | 2.04 |  |   | 2.18 |  |   | 1.94 |  |   | 1.72 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
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 2008-021 (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. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LaTONYA R. FINLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15347 

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-07126-JSW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

LaTonya R. Finley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her fair housing action alleging due process and conspiracy claims in 

connection with the termination of her Section 8 benefits. We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lockhart v. United States, 376 F.3d 

1027, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Finley’s due process claims because

Finley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants deprived Finley of 

required due process. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-68 (1970) (welfare 

recipients are entitled to “timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a 

proposed termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any 

adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally”); 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings 

are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F. 3d 1178, (9th 

Cir. 2006) (requirements for showing municipal liability for a constitutional 

violation); 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.555(a)(1)(v), (a)(2), (c), and (e)(5) (explaining due 

process requirements owed to families prior to the termination of Section 8 

benefits; evidence may be considered without regard to admissibility under the 

rules of evidence).

The district court properly dismissed Finley’s conspiracy claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1985(3) because Finley failed to allege facts sufficient to show the 

existence of a conspiracy. See Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 

(9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 conspiracy claim); Simmons v. 
 3 

Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining 

that “conclusory allegations” are insufficient to state a conspiracy claim under 

§ 1983).

The district court properly dismissed Finley’s Privacy Act claim because 

Finley failed to allege facts sufficient to show a plausible claim. See Rouse v. U.S. 

Dep’t of State, 567 F.3d 408, 413-14 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for 

Privacy Act claims).

We reject as unsupported by the record Finley’s contentions that the

magistrate judge improperly issued non-dispositive orders and recommendations in 

her action.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 (the "Report") on the Form 10-K of Sync2
Networks Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John Moore, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

     2.   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

Date: November 15, 2012


/s/ John Moore
---------------------------------
John Moore
Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director
No. 61581.

#### Manca, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 266995-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts of enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiffs at 20 percent was sustained.
No. 56776.

#### Mrs. Joseph Rigley *v.*United States,

protest 171439-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was established that when the husband of the plaintiff returned to the United States, he filed a baggage declaration in accordance with paragraph 1798, as amended, and section 10.17 (k), Customs Regulations of 1943, as amended by T. D. 52482, and was allowed by the collector to include therein the original rugs in question. In view of the fact that the baggage declaration was amended to include the oriental rugs in question under paragraph 1798, *supra,*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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 1

JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARTIN MENERA-RAMIREZ,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5111FDB

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND INDICTMENT

DEADLINE

Upon the stipulation of the parties to extend the indictment deadline and the

waiver of right to speedy indictment executed by the defendant, the Court finds that such

an extension would serve the ends of justice and outweighs the interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial; now, therefore,

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cr-05111-FDB Document 21 Filed 06/02/06 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the indictment deadline be extended to July 9,

2006. The period of delay resulting from this extension is hereby excluded for speedy

indictment purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h).

DONE this 2nd day of June, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

________________________________

Russell V. Leonard

Attorney for Defendant

________________________________

David Jennings

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05111-FDB Document 21 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 60193.

protests 285112-K, etc. (New York).

#### Anco Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*347Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “C” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51898), for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted. "x
```

[House Document 114-56]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - -  House Document 114-56
______________________________________________________________________

 
 AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES FOR THE UNIFORMED 
                                SERVICES

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
       UNIFORMED SERVICES FOR 2016, PURSUANT TO 37 U.S.C. 1009(e)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  September 9, 2015.--Referred to the Committee on Armed Services and 
                         ordered to be printed
                         
                         
                                   ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

49-011                         WASHINGTON : 2015                          
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                                           The White House,
                                       Washington, August 28, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 
monthly basic pay increases for members of the uniformed 
services for 2016.
    I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service 
members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation 
over the past decade of war. As our country continues to 
recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general 
welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation 
on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough 
choices, especially in light of budget constraints.
    Accordingly, I have determined it is appropriate to 
exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United 
States Code, to set the 2016 monthly basic pay increase at 1.3 
percent. This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2016 
Budget and it will not materially affect the Federal 
Government's ability to attract and retain well-qualified 
members for the uniformed services.
    The adjustments described above shall take effect on 
January 1, 2016.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Barack Obama.

                                  [all]
```
No. 62809.

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/3799 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT -1

(C05-5306 RBL)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

Two Union Square, Suite 4100 (98101-2380)

Mail Address: P.O. Box 21926

Seattle, Washington 98111-3926

(206) 628-6600

 1892531.1

Honorable Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC., a

Washington Corporation; and ARKEMA INC.,

a Pennsylvania Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company; and BEAN

DREDGING LLC, a Louisiana limited liability

company,

Defendants.

NO. C05-5306 RBL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

THIS MATTER having come for hearing before the Court on Plaintiffs General Metals

of Tacoma, Inc., and Arkema Inc’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’

Motion”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Based upon a review of the record, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Having found that justice requires allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint,

Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED;

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 96 Filed 09/11/06 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT -2

(C05-5306 RBL)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

Two Union Square, Suite 4100 (98101-2380)

Mail Address: P.O. Box 21926

Seattle, Washington 98111-3926

(206) 628-6600

 1892531.1

2. Plaintiffs are directed to file and serve their Amended Complaint within two weeks of

this Order..

DATED THIS 11th day of September, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/John P. Evans, WSBA # 08892

Thomas A. Falkner, WSBA #28429

Attorneys for Plaintiff General Metals of Tacoma, Inc.

WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: 206.628.6600

Facsimile: 206.628.6611

E-mail: jevans@wkg.com; 

tfalkner@wkg.com

and

s/Marisa M. Bavand, WSBA # 27929

David C. Groff WSBA # 04706

Attorneys for Plaintiff Arkema Inc.

GROFF MURPHY TRACHTENBERG & EVERARD PLLC

300 East Pine Street

Seattle, WA 98122

Telephone: 206-628-9500

Facsimile: 206-628-9506

E-mail: mbavand@groffmurphy.com;

dgroff@groffmurphy.com

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 96 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
From: To: Cc: JEhrig@eckertseamans.com Finamore. Robert (OSD ESahr@eckertseamans.com Subject: Date: Fw: Service/Polling for Application ofChina Eastern for Exemption Authority Pursuantto 49 U.S.C. § 40109 Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:03:34 PM Attachments: APPLICATION OF CHINA EASTERN FOR EXEMPTION AUTHORITY PURSUANTTO 49 USC 40109 (N0172913).PDF



### Dear Bob,
As per my phone message, we finished polling all carriers on the service list and there were no objections to the attached China Eastern application. We would appreciate it ifyou could send the approval as soon as you can.
Thanks so much
Kind regards
Jim
James G. Ehrig, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & 

### Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202 659 6672 Fax : 202 659 6699 email: jehrig@eckertseamans.com

----- Forwarded byJames G

### Ehrig/ESCM on 04/18/2013 04:01 PM

----- Leslie · LaRose/ESCM
04/16/2013 03:33 PM To urskr@state.gov, john.allen@faa.gov, robert.wirick@aa.com, francis.heil@aa.com, sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com, howard.kass@usairways.com, benjamin.slocum@usairways.com, dan.weiss@united.com, steve.morrissey@united.com, thomas.bolling@united.com, kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com, rpommer@atlasair.com, anbird@fedex.com, nssparks@fedex.com, anita.mosner@hklaw.com, mlbenge@zsrlaw.com, info@airlineinfo.com, charters@evergreenairlines.com cc Subject Service/Polling forApplication ofChina Eastern for Exemption Authority Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### § 40109

Please find the attached Application of China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. for Exemption Authority Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### § 40109 thatwas filed today, April 16, 2013, with the Department ofTransportation.

Please note that China Eastern is polling on this application and kindly requests your reply as soon as possible.

Kind regards, Leslie (See attached file: APPLICATION OF CHINA EASTERN FOR EXEMPTION AUTHORITY PURSUANTTO 49 USC 40109 (N0172913).PDF)

Leslie LaRose Paralegal Eckert Seamans Cherin 

### & Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: 202.659.6611 Fax: 202.659.6699 Email: llarose@eckertseamans.com

Scanned by Symantec Anti-Virus and Content Filtering before delivery.

This e-mail message and any files transmitted with itare subject to attorney-client privilege and contain confidential information intended onlyforthe person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. Ifyou have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
Neither this information block, the typed name ofthe sender, noranything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statementto the contrary is included in this message.
No. 67577.

#### James Betesh Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/12335, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66652, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         241,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              142,160,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,623,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,152,344
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           130,797,349
<PP&E>                                       1,304,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                 663,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             141,989,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      105,103,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,756,700
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,129,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               141,989,998
<SALES>                                    110,388,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           115,837,929
<CGS>                                      103,269,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              105,807,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,161,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,860,924
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,537,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,007,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,800,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,207,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,207,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>