alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                Certification of the Principal Financial Officer
                       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  A.B.  Watley  Group  Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the six months ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Robert  Malin, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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.


                                                 /s/ Robert Malin
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Robert Malin
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
                                                 Date: May 14, 2003



<PAGE>
From: Tricia Larson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:42:16 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Tricia Larson

207 Vernon Avenue

Little Rock, AR 72205
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Spire Corporation:

       We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Spire Corporation of our report dated March ___, 2002, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Spire Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December
31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Spire Corporation.



KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
___ March 2002
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (13.88 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Poole646@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 7:54:53 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true

conscience protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care

plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of

providers or employees in order to participate in the health care system.

Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access

to health care and religious freedom of conscience.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-08-00847-CR & 04-08-00848-CR

Felix HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2007CR9885 & 2007CR5616B

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 11, 2009

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that the case is a “plea-bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has

a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
04-08-00847-CR & 04-08-00848-CR

-2-

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that

appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals

are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 7, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 29, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 42 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-250, CP2023-253.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-19212 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Georgia Perry

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:21:30 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Georgia Perry
Hillsboro, Oregon
From: Ann Shaw

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious refusal exemption

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:34:48 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Thank you for your consideration
From: Sydney Parlow

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Extend care for all Americans

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:02:32 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you 

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to 

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any 

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical 

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to 

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women 

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all 

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even 

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to 

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be 

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all 

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to 

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption 

provisions.

Excluding any one will result in higher costa as time goes by and we age as we 

inevitably do.

MANY ThANKS,

Sydney Parlow

Boston , MA 02116
From: kelly Hargraves

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:48:14 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

kelly Hargraves

2637 locksley place

Los Angeles, CA 90039
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 517

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to affordable

pharmaceuticals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

Mrs. THURMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide

greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals.

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

3 XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of

4 the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend the Federal Food,

6 Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to af7 fordable pharmaceuticals. The first reading of the bill

8 shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consid9 eration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be con-
2

HRES 517 IH

1 fined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally di2 vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor3 ity member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

4 After general debate the bill shall be considered for

5 amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be

6 considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of

7 the Whole shall accord priority in recognition to Rep8 resentative Brown of Ohio to offer an amendment. At the

9 conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

10 Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

11 such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

12 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

13 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

14 motion except one motion to recommit with or without in15 structions.

16 SEC. 2. If the Committee of the Whole rises and re17 ports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

18 on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

19 after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

20 rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for fur21 ther consideration of the bill.

Æ
From: Lottie Harris

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:12:07 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Lottie Harris

10 Stewart Pl

Apt. PHBW

White Plains, NY 10603
From: Dorcas K. Doering

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM recommendations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:21:15 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
Docket: HHS-OS-2010-0015 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: HHS-OS-2010-0015-0006 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Peter Mariahazy 

Organization: Modern Business Machines 

General Comment 

While reading the final regulations, two items came to mind that should be re-considered. 

First, the loss of grandfathering if a plan changes insurance companies. It seems to me that the 

plan itself and the plan design is more important to the participant and the business than the 

insurer. By preventing the company from shopping the identical plan to other insureres, you are 

limiting the competition that this legislation is professed to increase. Why, if I can maintain all the 

criteria for grandfathering by shopping the market, can't I go with an insurer that may save my 

employees and my company money? I suggest that if all other criteria for grandfathering a plan 

are in place(including limits on cost to participant), that a plan may change insurers. 

Second, The 15% plus medical inflation component is a step in the right direction. However, it 

only allows the 15% component once at the time of co-pay/deductible adjustment. As the example 

shows, if I make no change at all in my plan for two years, then I only get the 15% plus two years 

of medical inflation. On the other hand, if I change these compenents each year for the two years, 

then I get 15% plus medical inflation for the first change and another 15% plus medical inflation 

for the second change. You are giving businesses an incentive to change my plan to the maximum 

each year, rather than as needed. For example, we did not change our high deductibe plan co-pay 

or deductibles for three years, prior to the reform. I recommend the regulations allow 15% per 

complete plan year between changes in co-pay and/or deductible.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: August 12, 2010 

Received: June 18, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: July 23, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b05468 

Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480b05... 8/12/2010
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51083 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ROY RENE VILLAREAL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 1002

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Roy Rene Villareal, Jr., has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villareal h a s not filed a r esponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51083 Document: 00514121814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017No. 16

- 51083

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to with draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-51083 Document: 00514121814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017