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





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 New Century Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert K. Cole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    Robert K. Cole








Robert K. Cole


Chief Executive Officer


August 14, 2002
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE ALTAIR ENGINEERING, INC., AND

SLICKEDIT INC.,

Petitioners.

______________________ 

2014-105

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 

Nos. 6:12-cv-806 and 6:12-cv-814, Judge Leonard Davis.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of petitioners’ reply stating that 

their petition for a writ of mandamus is now moot, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is dismissed.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-105 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2013
From: zbblessed@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:03:36 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,

Zenia Balazs

Gresham, OR 97030
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6883

KEITH BRYAN WEBB, a/k/a Keith Bryan Webb-El,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STEVEN FIGIEL, Acting Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE 

COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:16-cv-00044-FPS-RWT)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Bryan Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Bryan Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his expedited motion regarding the magistrate judge’s 

paperless order denying Webb’s motion to strike. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial 

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Webb

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1477

To provide for an election of an annuity under section 377 of title 28,

United States Code, for any qualified magistrate judge.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 1, 2001

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for an election of an annuity under section 377

of title 28, United States Code, for any qualified magistrate judge.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ELECTION OF ANNUITY FOR A QUALIFIED MAG4 ISTRATE JUDGE.

5 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section the term ‘‘qualified

6 magistrate judge’’ means any person who—

7 (1) retired as a magistrate judge before Novem8 ber 15, 1988; and

9 (2) on the date of filing an election under sub10 section (b)—
2

•S 1477 IS

1 (A) is serving as a recalled magistrate

2 judge on a full-time basis under section 636(h)

3 of title 28, United States Code; and

4 (B) has completed at least 5 years of full5 time recall service.

6 (b) ELECTION OF ANNUITY.—The Director of the

7 Administrative Office of the United States Courts may ac8 cept the election of a qualified magistrate judge to—

9 (1) receive an annuity under section 377 of title

10 28, United States Code; and

11 (2) come within the purview of section 376 of

12 such title.

13 (c) CREDIT FOR SERVICE.—Full-time recall service

14 performed by a qualified magistrate judge shall be cred15 ited for service in calculating an annuity elected under this

16 section.

17 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Director of the Administra18 tive Office of the United States Courts may promulgate

19 regulations to carry out this Act.

Æ
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



        
                                
33587 Walker Road                        
Avon Lake, OH  44012                         
440.930.1000                             
www.polyone.com                            


February 10, 2016




Mr. Stephen D. Newlin
 
Dear Steve:
This letter amends the letter agreement dated March 6, 2014 (the “Letter Agreement”) between you and PolyOne Corporation (“PolyOne”), which Letter Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of your continued employment as the Executive Chairman of PolyOne.   We have agreed that the Letter Agreement will be amended in the following respects and any provisions in the Letter Agreement that specifically address the same topics addressed below will have no further force and effect, but all other terms of the Letter Agreement will remain unchanged.  Capitalized words and phrases used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings ascribed to those words and phrases in the Letter Agreement.


The Board has exercised its discretion under the Letter Agreement to extend the termination of the Employment Period from February 21, 2016 until July 1, 2016 and you have agreed to such extension.  Section 4(a) of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to substitute “July 1, 2016” for “February 21, 2016” where it appears therein.  


In addition, PolyOne currently maintains an office in Carefree, Arizona and, for the five-year period following your retirement as described in Paragraph 4(a)(iv) of the Letter Agreement, PolyOne will maintain this (or other suitable) office space in the Scottsdale, Arizona geographic area and will provide you access to such office space and the secretarial and technical support employed by PolyOne at such office space.  


In all other respects, the Letter Agreement will remain in full force and effect.







Stephen D. Newlin
Page 2





If you find this letter acceptable, please sign and date the letter below and return it to me.  This amendment to the Letter Agreement will become effective on the latest date set forth below.




Sincerely,




POLYONE CORPORATION




By:  /s/ Richard H. Fearon
Name:  Richard H. Fearon
		
	Title:
	Lead Director 



Date: February 10, 2016




I agree to the terms and conditions 
in this letter agreement




/s/ Stephen D. Newlin
Name:    Stephen D. Newlin
Date: February 10, 2016
#### Joiner *v.*The State.

Beck, J.

1. When in the trial of a person indicted for murder there is evidence from which the jury can find that the homicide resulted from a, blow inflicted by the accused with an instrument which would not ordinarily produce death, and with which the accused, having hastily-seized and picked up the same, without sufficient provocation, struck and killed the deceased, it is error requiring the granting of a new-trial for the judge to fail to charge the law relating to the subject of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. *Farmer*v. *State,*112 *Ga.*80 (37 S. E. 120); *Jordan*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*780 (53 S. E. 331), *Dorsey*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*633 (55 S. E. 479).

2. Under the evidence as it appears in the record, a charge upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter should not have been given: but inasmuch as the jury did not convict the defendant of that grade of homicide, but returned a verdict finding him guilty of the offense of murder, the error of the court in charging the jury upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter was necessarily harmless to the accused, and. constitutes no ground for a reversal of the judgment of the court below. *Joiner*v. *State,*105 *Ga.*646 (31 S. E. 556).

3. It was not error requiring the granting of a new trial for the court to fail to instruct the jury' “as to their duty to reconcile the evidence, if in their power to do so, and the rule of law applicable to the recon-*296oiling of evidence, and to their power as to believing the witnesses or disbelieving them in cases where the evidence was irreconcilable,” no written request having been made for a charge upon that subject, and it appearing that the judge charged the jury that they were “the sole and exclusive judges of the evidence in the case.”

Argued May 20,

Decided August 15, 1907.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Martin. Dodge superior court. April 16, 1907.

*D. M. Roberts & Son, G. W. Griffin,*and IF. *M. Morrison,*for plaintiff in error. *John G. Ilari,*attorney-general, and *E. D. Graham, solicitor-general,*contra.

4. No material error, other than that dealt with in the first headnote, is made to appear in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
From: sjcquest@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception Rights

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:25:56 PM

 Please Read:

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.

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

Catholic hospitals 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.

It's the 21st century - beyond time to be forward-thinking.

Thank You,

A Concerned Citizen
P: lof1
REENQ0BGI- Jo “

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS ee ent 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80edd359

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0073
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Jean Whitmore
Address:

106 Vandenberg Dr

Bilxoi, MS, 39531
Email: whitmoj65@yahoo.com

General Comment

No religious group or affiliate should be forced to pay or supply any kind of medication or
procedure that would go against their personal or collective conscience. Therefore, birth control
and any other reproduction meds or procedures should be optional for religious organizations. In
the USA we have freedom of Conscience and freedom of Religion. HHS nor anyone else should
take away religious organizations guaranteed rights.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900... 8/31/2011
Exhibit 10.3

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
BakBone Software KK:

We
consent to the inclusion of our report dated June 8, 2001, with respect to the balance sheets of BakBone Software KK (formerly NetVault Corporation) as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' capital deficiency and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1999 and for the period from
February 2, 1998 (date of incorporation) through December 31, 1998, which report appears in the registration statement on Form 20-F of BakBone Software Incorporated.

|                           |  | /s/ KPMG
|-------------------------- |  | --------
|                           |  |         
|Tokyo, Japan
July 11, 2001 |  |         

1

---

QuickLinks
#### The Bowery National Bank of New York, Respondent, v. Katharine Kehoe and another, Appellants.

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion hy

Davis, P. J.
EXHIBIT 99.2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


<S>  <C>                <C>     <C>
The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an
officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

  (i)   the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q
        for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

  (ii)  the information contained in such Quarterly Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operation of
        NSTAR.


Dated:  May 9, 2003            By:   /s/ James J. Judge
                                     James J. Judge
                                     Senior Vice President,
                                     Treasurer and Chief
                                     Financial Officer

</TABLE>
From: suzanne long

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:43:54 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,

suzanne long

3232 west 102nd street

bloomington, mn 55431
From: kpskimd@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:08:23 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,

katherine petrowski

Joppa, MD 21085
From: Meg Koziar

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:39:44 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.

Most American women use contraceptives during part of their reproductive

years, but no woman who objects to it for religious or other reasons will be

required to purchase contraceptives. Let's give the power to make this

important decision to the individual woman, not to her employer!

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.

Sincerely,

 Mrs. Mary Koziar
# **Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained insuch report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| This 13th day of May, 2003. |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
|                        |
| /s/ Douglas K. Freeman      |   |
|                        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer     |   |
|                        |   |
|                        |   |
| /s/ Steven F. Herbert       |   |
|                        |   |
| Chief Financial Executive   |   |

 

1

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 New Century Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert K. Cole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 K. Cole


                                        Robert K. Cole
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        November 14, 2002
| RATES      EFFECTIVE for Variable Denomination Floating Rate Demand      Notesas      of  March 22, 2010: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|