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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                      12,939,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,827,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,741,376
<INVENTORY>                                 24,682,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,556,852
<PP&E>                                      15,588,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,444,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,268,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,080
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,751,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,444,149
<SALES>                                     37,104,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,104,812
<CGS>                                       23,140,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,140,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,758,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,936,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,519,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,417,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,417,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
Case No. 6,563.

#### HODGSON v. BUTTS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 447.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1807.

Witness — Subpoena—Attachment.

The court will grant a rule on a witness residing in Baltimore, to show cause why he should not be attached for not attending according to summons.

The deposition of James Hamilton had been taken de bene esse, by the defendant with notice, and the plaintiff’s attorney appeared under protest, that is, reserving all objections, &c., and cross-examined the witness; the defendant had a subpoena served on Hamilton, who resides in Baltimore, and who by letter acknowledged service, but stated that he was a clerk in the collector’s office and could not attend without detriment to the public.

The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Jones, prayed for a continuance unless the plaintiff would permit the deposition to be read in evidence.

THE COURT

(DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent)

continued the cause and directed a rule on the witness to show cause on Saturday, the 12th instant, why an attachment of contempt should not issue against him for not obeying the summons.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 124 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 124

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to recent allegations of 
    espionage and illegal campaign financing that have brought into 
    question the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 1999

 Mr. Wu (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Brown 
of Ohio, Mr. Clay, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Cox, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
  Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Holt, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Larson, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
Menendez, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Stark, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. 
 Waxman, and Mr. Wynn) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to recent allegations of 
    espionage and illegal campaign financing that have brought into 
    question the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry.

Whereas the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are truths we 
        hold as self-evident;
Whereas all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of law;
Whereas Americans of Asian ancestry have made profound contributions to American 
        life, including the arts, our economy, education, the sciences, 
        technology, politics, and sports, among others;
Whereas Americans of Asian ancestry have demonstrated their patriotism by 
        honorably serving to defend the United States in times of armed 
        conflict, from the Civil War to the present; and
Whereas due to recent allegations of espionage and illegal campaign financing, 
        the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry has been 
        questioned: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) no Member of Congress or any other American should 
        generalize or stereotype the actions of an individual to an 
        entire group of people;
            (2) Americans of Asian ancestry are entitled to all rights 
        and privileges afforded to all Americans; and
            (3) the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
        Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
        should, within their respective jurisdictions, vigorously 
        enforce the security of America's national laboratories and 
        investigate all allegations of discrimination in public or 
        private workplaces.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David P. Southwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

|Dated: August 12, 2003 |  |                                                                
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | /s/DAVID P. SOUTHWELLDavid P. Southwell Chief Financial
Officer

---

QuickLinks
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 Quashing Material Witness Arrest Warrant - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

United States Magistrate Theiler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

IN RE: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION

07-2

MAMESH PATEL a/k/a MAHESH PATEL,

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-199RSM

ORDER QUASHING MATERIAL

WITNESS ARREST WARRANT

Upon advisement by the United States of America that the material witness,

MAMESH PATEL, has fully complied with his obligation in an ongoing criminal

investigation,

IT IS ORDERED that the Material Arrest Warrant be quashed as to MAMESH

PATEL, and the witness to be immediately released from the custody of the United States

Marshal and returned to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

DATED this 5th day of September, 2008.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge
# Official Journal L 196/24 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 196 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5124 July 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 196

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5124 July 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALLAN PARMELEE,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-2028-JLR-MAT

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 13, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response

to respondent’s answer to petitioner’s habeas petition. (Doc. #19). Citing numerous problems

with obtaining legal materials at his prison, petitioner requested an extension of 216 months, or

18 years, to file his response. The court denied the motion and ordered petitioner to show cause

why he should not be barred from filing any response as a sanction for wasting the court’s time

with an absurd motion. (Doc. #21). On March 24, 2006, petitioner appealed the court’s Order

to United States District Judge James L. Robart. (Doc. #21). That appeal is now pending.

On March 27, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with this court, seeking

reconsideration of the Order to Show Cause. (Doc. #22). On March 29, 2006, petitioner filed

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 25 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PAGE -2

a “partial” response to respondent’s answer. (Doc. #23). Having considered the motion for

reconsideration and the balance of the record, the court does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration seeks the same relief as his appeal of the

Order to Show Cause. Because that appeal is now pending before Judge Robart, the Clerk shall

STRIKE petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. #22) as duplicative. Although petitioner’s

habeas petition was noted for consideration on March 24, 2006, the court will not address the

petition until Judge Robart has ruled on the appeal.

(2) The Clerk shall direct a copy of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

DATED this 30th day of March , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 25 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

FEB 01 2010 

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

J. L.; et al., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

MERCER ISLAND SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, a municipal Washington 

corporation, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 07-35716

D.C. No. CV-06-00494-MJP

U.S. District Court for Western 

Washington, Seattle

MANDATE

The judgment of this Court, entered August 06, 2009, takes effect this date. 

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Cost awarded to the appellant in the amount of $1,399.20.

FOR THE COURT:

Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court

Rhonda Roberts

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00494-MJP Document 72 Filed 02/01/2010 Page 1 of 1 Case: 07-35716 02/01/2010 Page: 1 of 1 DktEntry: 7215267
From: greg_nan_goodman@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:55 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,

Greg Goodman

Villa Ridge, MO 63089
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0151

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM205AD

84-32-60 --- 6/13/08

MRBR PSM 1-84-7, R6 --- 11/1/08

GOODRICH SCR 086-07, RF --- 6/13/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
No. 60291.

protest 266227-K (Pembina).

#### J. P. Krusick and Markle’s *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose adequate reasons for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald Eugene MICHAEL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6449.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Gerald Eugene Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Eugene Michael, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000); and denying his motions to amend and for an evidentiary hearing. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Michael has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Michael’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

, *DISMISSED*
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 quarterly report of MDC Partners Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Miles S. Nadal, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,
that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated as of August 2, 2012 |                                                
|-------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|                           |                                                
|/s/ MILES S. NADAL         |                                                
|By:                        | Miles S. Nadal                                 
|Title:                     | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
#### In the Matter of Loren S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Paul J. Chmielewski, as Representative of the New York State Division for Youth, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 250]

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Nydam, J.), entered August 23, 1994, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to extend respondent’s placement with the New York State Division for Youth.

*858By petition dated July 1, 1994 and filed July 6, 1994, petitioner sought a one-year extension of respondent’s placement with the New York State Division for Youth, which was due to expire on August 7, 1994. In an effort to show good cause for filing the petition less than the requisite 60 days prior to the expiration of the placement (Family Ct Act § 355.3 [1]), petitioner annexed a letter explaining that the petition was filed late "due to special circumstances” in that respondent had been "arrested June 15, 1994 and charged with Assault 1st degree” and was "presently in detention in Rochester”. Family Court denied respondent’s ensuing motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and, following a hearing, granted the requested extension. Respondent now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to respondent’s argument, Family Court Act § 355.3 (1) contains no requirement that an excuse for late filing of an extension petition be set forth in the petition itself. Accordingly, we find that Family Court did not err when it considered petitioner’s July 5, 1994 letter. Nor do we disagree with the court’s determination that the requisite good cause was shown (see, *Matter of Aaron XX.,*199 AD2d 938, 939). The fact that respondent’s arrest took place after the deadline for filing a petition did not preclude Family Court’s consideration of this factor on the issue of good cause for the late application *(cf., Matter of Heriberto A.,*198 AD2d 191).

We are further unpersuaded that Family Court erred in considering the information set forth in petitioner’s letter in determining the merits of the application. A petition to extend a placement is not an accusatory instrument and, as such, is not governed by the stringent pleading requirements of Family Court Act § 311.1 *(cf., Matter of Jahron S.,*79 NY2d 632, 635). In any event, the record establishes that respondent’s arrest was not the sole basis for the extension request, but was merely the culmination of an escalating pattern of rule violations. Thus, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petition *(see, Matter of Percy H.,*159 AD2d 623).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
No. 60596.

#### Fred M. Reineman Co. *v.*United States,

protest 262821-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Creatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AULTRA
GOLD INC.


FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Rauno
Perttu, Chief Executive Officer of Aultra Gold Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2007, which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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





Dated:
      December 29, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Rauno PerttuName:
      Rauno Perttu
              Title:
      Chief Executive Officer