alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
  (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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: November 13, 2009
    /s/ Robert A. OrtenzioRobert A OrtenzioChief Executive Officer/s/ Martin F. JacksonMartin F. JacksonExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
From: Chris Roerden

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:47:58 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Your wise decision is consistent with women making responsible choices.

To do any less would erect a barrier for women and men who choose to act responsibly and prevent

unwanted pregnancies, the only way to reduce abortion.

Sincerely,

Chris Roerden

3683 Waterwheel Ct

Greensboro, NC 27409
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11383

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD D. FINLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:00-CR-4-1-X)

December 19, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reginald Finley pled guilty pursuant to a written agreement to

being a felon in possession of a firearm and to failing to appear,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § §922(g)(1) and 3146(a)(1). He argues

that he was d enied effective assistance of counsel where his

attorney advised him to enter into a plea agreement from which he

received no benefit and in which he waived his right to appeal. We

find that Finley has failed to demonstrate that counsel was1 United States v. Rawls

, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).

2 United States v. Williams

, 264 F.3d 561, 574 (5th Cir.

2001).

3 Id

. ineffective.

Finley argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file

a pretrial motion t o dismiss the indictment on the ground that §

992 (g)(1) is unconstitutional. This argument is foreclosed by our

precedent. 1

Finley also claims that the government failed to present

sufficient facts to prove that he had been convicted previously of

a n offense punishable by a term exceeding one year, which is an

element of the offense. Because Finley did not raise this issue

below, we review only for plain error. 2 We hold that there was no

clear error that affected Finley’s substantial rights. 3

AFFIRMED.
From: Karen Tan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:44:48 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,

Karen Tan

370 Cleveland Ave

Athens, GA 30605
exv10w8



 





EXHIBIT 10.8




SUMMARY OF INFORMAL AGREEMENTS TO AWARD

SHARES OF RESTRICTED STOCK




          We have informally agreed to issue future restricted stock awards under
the 2001 Employee Incentive Compensation Plan totaling 98,000 shares to our
Chief Executive Officer and our President and Chief Operating Officer.
From: jmoeder@pld.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:47:20 AM

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,

Jeanne Moeder

Ulysses, KS 67880
From: Steven B. Combes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:28:11 PM

As the father of a 21 year old young lady I am outraged that anyone in government would allow

these religious zealots to decide what is medically right! Their neanderthal opinions have no basis

in fact! Period!

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.

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

Some days it's not worth chewing through the leather straps!
Clinton, Panetta: NATO partners committed to Afghanistan
 By Karen Parrish , American Forces Press Service
  Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, April 18, 2012.(DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo)
 BRUSSELS, (April 18, 2012) — Meetings today provided a clear sense of NATO’s ongoing commitment to the security mission in Afghanistan up to and beyond 2014, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said at NATO headquarters here today. The two leaders are attending a gathering of the alliance’s defense and foreign ministers. Clinton will remain for more meetings tomorrow; Panetta will return to the United States after defense-focused meetings end today. “We had a very good series of meetings today,” Panetta said during a news conference with Clinton. “Much of our discussion focused on our shared effort in Afghanistan. What came out of these meetings was a strong commitment to sticking to the plan and the strategy that’s been rolled out by General [John R.] Allen,” International Security Assistance Force commander. “Allies and partners have a very clear vision and a very clear message: Our strategy is right, our strategy is working, and if we stick to it, we can achieve the mission of establishing an Afghanistan that can secure and govern itself, and never again become a safe haven for terrorists,” Panetta said. NATO is committed to that goal, he said, and the alliance’s determination can withstand the challenges of war in Afghanistan. “We saw some of those challenges over this last weekend. ... There will be losses, there will be casualties, there will be incidents of the kind we have seen in the last few days,” he said, referring to coordinated attacks April 15 in and around the Afghan capital of Kabul. Afghan forces’ response to the attacks in Kabul demonstrates that they have learned to do what NATO forces have trained them to do, Panetta said. “They responded quickly, professionally and with great courage, rendering ineffective those largely symbolic attacks,” he added. Panetta noted that Allen has said history proves insurgencies ultimately are defeated not by foreign troops, but by indigenous security forces. Afghan forces know the ground, the culture and “the neighborhood,” he added. “When the Afghans win, we win,” he said. Clinton said the United States is grateful for “the solidarity and steadfastness of our NATO and ISAF partners.” U.S. and NATO officials note the gathering is the final preparation session for the NATO summit set for next month in Chicago. NATO summits are not regularly scheduled meetings, but occur when the alliance has important issues to resolve. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said today one central item of business for the Chicago summit will be determining NATO’s support to Afghan forces after they assume security responsibility for their nation by the end of 2014. That timeline was agreed at the last NATO summit, which took place in Lisbon, Portugal, in 2010. The other main issue for the Chicago summit, Rasmussen said, involves shaping NATO future capabilities.
| [Missing                Graphic Reference] |
|--------------------------------------------|

**Filed      Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**
** **

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

| **For                the Period: 5/8/2006 to                5/15/2006** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **Coupon** | **Interest**                       | **Maturity** | **Callable**     | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price****1** | **Yield****2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
|------------|------------------------------------|--------------|------------------|--------------------------|----------------|----------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| 5.100%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/08      | NO               | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.100%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q2L4 |
| 5.500%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/11      | 5/15/08(‡) | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.500%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q2M2 |
| 6.000%     | Quarterly(††)          | 5/15/18      | 5/15/08(‡) | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.045%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q2N0 |
| 6.125%     | Monthly(†)                   | 5/15/26      | 5/15/10(‡) | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.204%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q2P5 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior sale.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements of PWN Capital, Inc. as of June 30, 2000 and for the period then
ended, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          30,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,894
<PP&E>                                          12,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                     564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 353,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,224
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   353,443
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (79,729)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,729)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
From: David Cox

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:41:40 PM

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,

David Cox
Astoria, New York
EXHIBIT 32.1906 CERTIFICATION     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly reportof Callidus Software Inc. on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     Robert H. Youngjohns, the Chief Executive Officer and Ronald J. Fior, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Callidus Software Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of CallidusSoftware Inc.     Date: August 14, 2006                                                       /s/ ROBERT H. YOUNGJOHNS   *Robert H. Youngjohns*   *President and Chief Executive Officer*                                                          /s/ RONALD J. FIOR   *Ronald J. Fior*   *Chief Financial Officer,Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations*
From: Mary Peterson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:18:32 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.

 Mary
October 30, 1962.

No. 165.

#### Rommel et al. *v.*Kennedy, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian.

*John W. Pehle*and *James H. Mann*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guiljoyle, John G. Laughlin, Jr.*and *Pauline B. Heller*for respondent.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q AT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       5,709,729
<SECURITIES>                                 9,537,273
<RECEIVABLES>                               44,108,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,550,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,984,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            67,899,372
<PP&E>                                     207,856,895
<DEPRECIATION>                              89,932,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             224,869,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,661,612
<BONDS>                                    182,270,983
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,985,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               224,869,321
<SALES>                                     35,440,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,032,787
<CGS>                                       31,379,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               69,240,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,817,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,881,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,646,583)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,881,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,234,714)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: inboxrr-xtra2@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Oppose the proposed definition of "religious employer."

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:52:02 AM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for those

committed to preserving life. Healthcare 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.

R Reyna, Texas