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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         32,743
<SECURITIES>                                   17,711
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                   400
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62,154
<PP&E>                                         27,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 82,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,173
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,245
<OTHER-SE>                                     72,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   82,209
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,860
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  34,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127
<INCOME-TAX>                                   520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 ***

 

In connection with the Annual Reportof One XL Corp., (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), C. Lynn White, the President, principal executive officer and principal financialofficer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1. The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodcovered by the Periodic Report.

 

 

Date: August 3, 2011	

 

By:*/s/C. Lynn White	*

C. Lynn White

President (Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer)

 

*	This certification accompaniesthe Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language containedin such filing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EMMA MANNING,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5078 RBL

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Motion, Dkt. #43.

The court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the file

herein.

Because defendant did not deliver its discovery responses in a timely fashion, Plaintiff’s response to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment could not be fairly prepared. Plaintiff’s motion for continuance

of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. #43, is therefore GRANTED.

Having reviewed the papers filed thus far, the court reminds Plaintiff of a nonmoving party’s

obligations when responding to a summary judgment motion. The nonmoving party must designate

“specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

(1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis added). Using specific citations, the nonmoving party must

direct the court’s attention to specific facts and may not rely on generalized declarations or general

citations to an entire deposition. A district court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a

Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 49 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references

so that it could conveniently be found. Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026,

1030-1031 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076, 1085 (8th Cir.1999) 

(“[A] district court is not ‘obligated to wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts

which might support the nonmoving party's claim.’”) (internal citation omitted); Ragas v. Tenn. Gas

Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir.1998) (“‘Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty

to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.’”)

(internal citation omitted).

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for continuance of defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, Dkt. #43, is GRANTED. 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. #36, is renoted for July 31. 

Plaintiff’s opposition brief is due no later than noon on July 25. All exhibits and supporting

materials must be filed at the same time.

Defendant’s reply, if any, is due at noon on July 31.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 49 Filed 07/19/07 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WENDY WADE, MARY NELSON, JAMES

ROGERS, JR., JOHNNNY BOOTH, RALPH

DAVIS, and all similarly evicted tenants,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GRE WINDSTAR, L.L.C. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5144RBL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction. The court has reviewed the materials submitted by the Plaintiffs. The court finds that

it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and that jurisdiction over the defendants can be obtained through

service of process. 

The court further finds that Plaintiffs have established for purposes of a Temporary Restraining Order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 that the Defendants have engaged in activities which deprive Plaintiffs of their

federally protected property interest in their homes without due process and which breached a contract

intended to benefit the plaintiffs. 

The court further finds that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irrevocable harm in the form if evictions

if the status quo is not maintained pending a fuller hearing on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs

have notified the defendants at least informally of their intent to file this action and to seek a TRO, although

it does not appear that the Complaint has been filed. The court finally finds that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c)

Case 3:06-cv-05144-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/22/06 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

security shall not be required of the plaintiffs, due to their apparent lack of financial resources. 

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED

1. The Defendants are ENJOINED from evicting the Plaintiffs from their homes.

2. The Plaintiffs shall serve their complaint, their Motion, and a copy of this ORDER on all of the

defendants within two days of the date of this ORDER. 

3. The Defendants shall, by the close of business Wednesday, March 29, 2006 SHOW CAUSE

in writing why a Preliminary Injunction should not be entered, and the parties shall appear for

a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on FRIDAY, March 31, 2006

at 8:30 a.m. This Order shall expire on that date unless it is extended or modified at the

hearing. 

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05144-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

DIGIMARC CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Digimarc Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2010 and as amended by the Companys Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Bruce Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the U.S. Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: August 6, 2010



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ BRUCE DAVIS        
|    |  | Bruce Davis            
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
From: robert.samuels@tyson.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:02:48 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,

Robert Samuels

Hope, AR 71801
Message Information 

Date 07/18/2011 02:22 PM 

From Weetal@aol.com

To ray.lahood©dot.gov ; LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc chris.httIetonohiolibertycouncil.org

Subject Fuel economy regulations 

Please find attached a letter from myself as well as members of the Union County 912 Board of Directors 

concerning our thoughts on the future fuel economy regulations. Please consider our input when making 

these important decisions. Thank you. 

4ca 

Union County 912 

740-666-0957 

614-562-6003 (cell) UnionCountyLetter.doc 

OEX Processing Information 

Processed Date: 

Processed By 

P0 Office	 Category:
JUly 18, 2011 

The I lonorabte Ray I al lood 

Secretary of the Department o [transportation 

1200 New Jerse y Avenue, SF 

Washington, 1). C 20590 

ftc I lonorable I isa Jackson 

Administrator ol the Fnvironmental Protection Agency 

1 200 Penns y lvania A venue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

I )car Secretary I al loud and Administrator Jackson, 

the Union Count 9/I 2 Group comprises like-minded individuals who are concerned about the 

direction our nation is taking. We are writing to you toda y on their behalf to express concern 

ahout the luel economy standards your agencies are considering for 201 7 to 2025. Of particular 

concern is the president's stated goal of 47 mpg to 62 mpg in that time period. 

.Jnion County is in central Ohio, near Columbus, The county is fortunate to have a strong 

agricultural presence as well as industrial presence. (I londa has a huge presence in Union 

Count y ). Although agriculture and industry have diverse needs, one thing they have in common 

is the need for a choice of aliordable vehicles to get their work done. 

Auto makers are currentl y working on ensuring the vehicles in their fleets comply with the 35.5 

mpg standard set for 2016. That's an increase from today's 29,2 mpg standard. It is 

unreasonable to think that one year after de 'eloping the technology for 35.5 mpg, auto makers 

will be able to attain even the low end of the president's goal. 47 mpg. 

That kind of stretch objective is immoderate and unnecessar y . We agree that our nation needs 

improved fuel economy to both help our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

A timely and gradual adjustnient to fuel economy standards, rather than a forklift increase, Will 

better serve our nations citizens, businesses and economy. 

We ask that y our agencies reconsider your current plans fur aggressive fuel economy regulations 

for 201 7 to 2025 and. instead, plan for the next logical step in America's efforts to achieve 

greater fuel econom for its cars and trucks. 

With regards, 

I isa Cooper. President & 

Members of the l3oarcl of I )irectors 

1/ nion ('ount y 9/12 Ci roup
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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE & PTM DEADLINE 

(Dong Seok; #06-126MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONG IN SEOK,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-126P

 ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL

MOTIONS DEADLINE

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties for a continuance

of the trial date and the pretrial motions date, finds that the ends of justice will be served by

ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure adequate time

for effective case preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

The Court futher finds that the period of time from the current trial date of June 19,

2006, until the new trial date of August 7, 2006, shall be excludable time pursuant to the

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. 

//

Case 2:06-cr-00126-MJP Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE & PTM DEADLINE 

(Dong Seok; #06-126MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

//

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date in this matter is continued until

August 7, 2006, and that pretrial motions shall be filed no later than June 15, 2006.

DONE this 24th day of May, 2006.

/S/Marsha J. Pechman 

MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Peter J. Avenia

WSBA # 20794

Attorney for Dong In Seok

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1100

Fax: (206) 553-0120

peter_avenia@fd.org

s/ Ye-Ting Woo

Assistant United States Attorney

Per Telephonic Authorization

Case 2:06-cr-00126-MJP Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21664]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11423-01-OAR]

Acid Rain Program: Excess Emissions Penalty Inflation Adjustments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of annual adjustment factors.

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

SUMMARY: The Acid Rain Program requires sources that do not meet their 
annual Acid Rain emissions limitations for sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOX) to pay inflation-
adjusted excess emissions penalties. This document provides notice of 
the annual adjustment factors used to calculate excess emissions 
penalties for compliance years 2023 and 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Kuhns at (202) 564-3236 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Acid Rain Program limits SO2 
and NOX emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity 
generating units. All affected sources must hold allowances sufficient 
to cover their annual SO2 mass emissions, and certain coal-
fired units must meet annual average NOX emission rate 
limits. Under 40 CFR 77.6, any source that does not meet these 
requirements must pay an excess emissions penalty without demand to the 
EPA Administrator. The automatic penalty is computed as the number of 
excess tons of SO2 or NOX emitted times a per-ton 
penalty amount of $2,000 times an annual adjustment factor, which must 
be published in the Federal Register.
    The annual adjustment factor used to compute excess emissions 
penalties for compliance year 2023 is 2.377, resulting in an automatic 
penalty amount of $4,754 per excess ton of SO2 or 
NOX emitted in 2023. In accordance with 40 CFR 77.6(b) and 
72.2, this annual adjustment factor is determined from values of the 
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for August 1989 
and August 2022.
    The annual adjustment factor used to compute excess emissions 
penalties for compliance year 2024 is 2.464, resulting in an automatic 
penalty amount of $4,928 per excess ton of SO2 or 
NOX emitted in 2024. This annual adjustment factor is 
determined from values of the CPI-U for August 1989 and August 2023.

Rona Birnbaum,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2023-21664 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
From: joyriley@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:57:06 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 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,

Debra J. Riley

Brentwood, TN 37027