alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart & Final Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 15, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ross E. Roeder, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|Date: July 25, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    ROSS E. ROEDER                                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  |  | Ross E. Roeder Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Smart & Final Inc. and will be retained by Smart & Final Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
#### In re Keith Desmond WRIGHT, Petitioner.

No. 01-6679.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

*153Keith Desmond Wright, Petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Keith Desmond Wright filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to review his motion to dismiss on the merits or to release him from federal custody immediately. We deny the petition.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) (writ of mandamus). Relief under this writ is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *See In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” *See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Wright has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. Wright’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

JOSHUA BINDER, and 

RICKY JENKS, and

PAUL FOSTER.

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion for Reconsideration of

Court’s Oral Order Allowing Juror Contact.” (Dkt. #838). The motion is DENIED.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 840 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 1
Case Mo. 6,478.

#### Ex parte HIGHT.

[See 2 Car. Law Bepos. 47.]
Regu l ator -y Eva l uation D oc k et No. F AA-206-23 706 Dir ectorate Id e ntifier: 2006-NE-03-/\D 1/ . 1"1111 muke c/J(IIJ.!!.<'S In 1/t e l'11f11es ill II!!' tuh/e he/u11 '. I' OIIIIJIISI t'IWII'C the totllls llf)(/1111'

**u1 ·c**  **onling~r.** ll 1/w .1· dn !WI. click ( or /'u/1) inlo uml 1/Jen o111 **t~/1/tc** ('//llllged r<'ll . Estimated Costs: Action Cos ts p er Pr o duct (e .g. , aircrafl, e ng in e, ( e.g. ,I nspec t ion , propeller ,a ppliance ) Work-hour s Labor Pa rts Cos t Total Co s ts Numbe r o f To tal Cost replacement) ( includ e cost ( labor + u.s. for U.S. Fle et Do n ot include o nco ndition co sts h ere acce ss, t es tin g, (@£ 85 /h parts) Regi s tered and cl ose- up) o ur ) Product s Ini tial in s p ect i on 8.0 $498 2,25 0

R epe titiv e 1 6.0 $498 1,1 25 in s p ec ti on # 1 Repet iti ve 1 6.0 £498 562 in s pection # 2 R epe titi ve 1 6.0 $498 28 1 in s p ect io n # 3 T h e known numb er of products in com plian ce: Total Cos ts of co mplian ce for U.S. fl ee t: $6,307,044

Cos ts covered under wa rr a n ty (if known) $ On -Co nditio n Costs: @ Action W o rk-h ou rs Labo r co st Parts Cost C ost per Product (e.g., Inspect i on , (i nclud e access , ( @ $85 /h our)

re placement) te s tin g, and cl ose up) S p ecia l consider·ations for· Eco nomic Analysis (Use this .fi e ld to e xp l ain anythin g in th e Es tim at ed Cos ts tabl e !lwt was assum e d or mi g ht not h e obv io u s. This field c an al so be u sed to e xplain warranty co sts ): To tal fleet cos tsare annotated above. The repet iti ve inspections listed are estimated to take t welve years to complete. Th e FAA amo rt ized cos ts over twelve yea rs r es ultin g in an annual cost of $525,587 . Execut i ve Order 12866: Cou ld the AD be considered a "s ig nificant regulat ory action "? YES*0 **NO~** *Explanation : DOT Regulatory Policie s a nd Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES* D **NO~** *Ex pl a n at ion:Regulatory Fl ex ibility Act: Will th e AD have a sign ifi cant eco n o mi c impa ct on a s ub s tantial number of s m all e ntiti es? Expla in fo r e ith er a Yes or No answer. YES D **NO~** Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intra state av iation in Alaska. Is it app r op riat e to in cl ude spec ifi c requirements for a ir craft ope ra ted in Alaska w h ere aviation might be the o nl y mode of tran sportation? YES*0 **NO~** *Exp l anation:
From: pfcmelody@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:43:47 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,

Melody Fusinski

, 46342-5883
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 55

Declaring the annual memorial service sponsored by the National Emergency

Medical Services Memorial Service Board of Directors to honor emergency medical services personnel to be the ‘‘National Emergency Medical

Services Memorial Service’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 21, 1997

Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. ROBB) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Declaring the annual memorial service sponsored by the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service

Board of Directors to honor emergency medical services

personnel to be the ‘‘National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service’’.

Whereas in 1928, Julian Stanley Wise founded the first volunteer rescue squad in Roanoke, Virginia, the Roanoke

Life Saving and First Aid Crew, and Virginia has subsequently taken the lead in honoring the thousands of people nationwide who gave their time and energy to community rescue squads through the establishment of To The

Rescue, a museum located in Roanoke devoted to emergency medical services (EMS) personnel;
2

•SCON 55 IS

Whereas to further recognize the selfless contributions of

EMS personnel nationwide and as the first State in the

Nation to establish a volunteer rescue squad, the Virginia

Association of Volunteer Rescue Squads, Inc. and the Julian Stanley Wise Foundation, in conjunction with To

The Rescue, in 1993 organized the First Annual National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Memorial

Service in Roanoke, Virginia, to honor EMS personnel

from across the country who have died in the line of

duty;

Whereas the National EMS Memorial Service has captured

national attention by honoring 119 providers of emergency medical services from 35 States;

Whereas the singular devotion of EMS personnel to the safety and welfare of their fellow citizens is worthy of the

highest praise;

Whereas the annual National EMS Memorial Service is a fitting reminder of the bravery and sacrifice of EMS personnel nationwide;

Whereas according to the Department of Health and Human

Services, 170,000 Americans require emergency medical

services on an average day, a number which projects to

over 60,000,000 people annually; and

Whereas the life of every American will be affected, directly

or indirectly, by the uniquely skilled and dedicated efforts

of the EMS personnel who work bravely and tirelessly to

preserve America’s greatest resource-people: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress declares the memorial service

3 held in Roanoke, Virginia, and sponsored by the National
3

•SCON 55 IS

1 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Memorial Service

2 Board of Directors to honor emergency medical services

3 personnel who have died in the line of duty as the ‘‘Na4 tional Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service’’.

5 SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

6 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to place

7 the National EMS Memorial Service under Federal au8 thority or to require any expenditure of Federal funds.

Æ
No. 58294.

protests 220907-K (B). etc. (New York).

#### American Traverse Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 60261.

protest 258887-K (Denver).

#### Charles M. Schayer & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
From: jdgncg@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:37 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,

James Green

Wynne, AR 72396
Exhibit 32.1

Certification 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 on Form 10-K of Inland Diversified Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry L. Lazarus, president of the Company, certifies, 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 his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2011 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Barry L. Lazarus                   
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Barry L. Lazarus                       
|                     |  | Title: |  | President (principal executive officer)

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Case No. 7,682.

#### KEMBALL v. STEWART.

[1 McLean, 332.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Ohio.

Dec. Term, 1838.

Pleading at Law — Opening or Default — Filing of Plea.

The plea to the declaration not having been filed within the rule, a default was entered; and a motion was made by Mr. Powers to open the default and for leave to file a plea.

[This was a motion to open a default in the suit of Warren Kemball against William Stewart.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.]

OPINION OF THE COURT.

The court •have uniformly set aside a default, entered at rules, before the appearance term, on motion, on the condition that the defendant shall file a plea to the merits and go to trial. In no case can the defendant take advantage of his own negligence, by procuring a continuance on the ground that the issue' was not made up. If a continuance be granted to him, it must be on ground wholly distinct from his •own laches. The court in requiring a plea to the merits, provide against dilatory or frivolous pleas, and this is the principal effect given to the rule. On the default being opened, it is optional with the plaintiff to try or continue the cause. Other conditions are annexed to the opening of a default for plea by a rule of court recently adopted. This rule requires the defendant to admit the partner*279ship of the plaintiffs, if the suit be brought in the name, of a firm, unless denied under oath. And also to admit the citizenship of the plaintiff, as alleged in the declaration. The great object of the court in adopting rules of practice was, to facilitate the transaction of business, without subjecting counsel, who live at a distance, to any inconvenience which can prejudice their clients. The default is opened and leave is given to file a plea to the merits.
```

[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]               
[Page 39209]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-48]                         

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 2010; 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: July 6, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16855 Filed 7-6-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,745)
<INVENTORY>                                     17,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,925
<PP&E>                                          25,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,853
<BONDS>                                         28,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,123
<SALES>                                        342,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,770
<CGS>                                          302,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  302,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (860)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (373)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (789)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (789)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DELANO RICARDO YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ENGLISH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5129RBL

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court, having reviewed the report and recommendation, plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis, any objections and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is approved and adopted;

(2) plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED;

(3) plaintiff shall pay the required filing fee ($250.00) to the Clerk of the Court within 30

days of the date of this Order, otherwise this action will be dismissed;

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and any other party that

has appeared in this action.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05129-RBL Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1