alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: thardin@sandia.gov

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:46:55 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,

T. Hardin

Albuquerque, NM 87113
No. 401.

#### Moseley, doing business as Moseley Plumbing & Heating Co., *v.*Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., et al.

*T. Baldwin Martin*for petitioner.

*Lamar W. Sizemore*for respondents.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.
Prelimin ary Regulatory Determinations 3 - Chlorate References
From: Cal

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Employer approval for contraception?

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:17:33 PM

It is outrageous that any employer have veto power over a woman's choice to

use/not use contraceptives. Let's remove the veil and stop pretending it's about

religious rights, it's about corporate greed. Churches are about religious freedom

NOT employers. They have no business in my, or any other womans, reproductive

system, period.

Cal Bennett
EXHIBIT 32








SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY DWIGHT O. SEEGMILLER





In connection with the Annual Report of Hills Bancorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dwight O. Seegmiller, Director, President and 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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








Date: March 10, 2011
By: /s/Dwight O. SeegmillerDwight O. Seegmiller, Director and President







SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY JAMES G. PRATT





In connection with the Annual Report of Hills Bancorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James G. Pratt, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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








Date: March 10, 2011
By: /s/James G. PrattJames G. Pratt, Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer


121
NUMBER 13-20-00141-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE MARIO A. DAVILA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Relator Mario A. Davila filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion to stay in 

the above cause on March 16, 2020. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to 

compel the trial court to vacate its orders freezing discovery. According to the petition, the 

underlying matter is a bill of review proceeding, and real party in interest, Easy Way 

Leisure Corporation d/b/a Easy Way Products Co. (Easy Way), has filed a traditional 

motion for summary judgment against relator which is set for hearing on March 23, 2020. 

By motion to stay, relator seeks to stay the trial court proceedings pending resolution of 

this petition for writ of mandamus.
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to stay, is of the 

opinion that it should be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, we grant the 

motion to stay and order that that any hearing or ruling on Easy Way’s traditional motion 

for summary judgment is stayed pending resolution of this original proceeding or further 

order of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order 

granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The motion to stay 

is denied as to other trial court proceedings. 

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Easy Way, or any others whose 

interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See

id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

17th day of March, 2020.
#### George A. Judd, Appellant, v. Burrett Brown, Respondent.

Order granting a new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
_ Page | of |
(REG | 2039 1-16
AL PROCESSING DIVISION, | 2g G |
LEG GULATION As of: September 01, 2011

TON & RE
PUBLICATION ANCH Received: August 16, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee25b5
‘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-2010-0017-0106
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Beth Sanders

General Comment

I fully support requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a co-pay, CMS-
9992-IFC2. This is a cost-effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and allows all women to
control the timing and frequency of wanted pregnancies. Thank you for this important
improvement to women's health care.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
#### Byron Alfred v. Eugene M. Cobb.

Motion denied, without costs.
<PAGE>   1

                        [LETTERHEAD OF HAFT & HAFT & CO.]

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants of Nir Ltd. for the years 1996 and 1995, we
hereby consent to the incorporation of our reports on the Financial Statements
for those years included in this Form 10K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 33-51023, and No. 55137.

                                                       Yours sincerely,

                                                 /s/ H.H.S.L. Haft & Haft Co.

                                                   H.H.S.L. Haft & Haft Co.
                                             Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

March 25, 1999
From: L. Lindo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Pregnancy

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:59:40 PM

not just "religious employers."

Pregnancy is not a disease and that reasonable and robust conscience

protections should be enacted for all Americans,

Loren Lindo

22018 NE 26th Pl.

Sammamish, WA 98074

lonpiloto@comcast.net

H:  425-898-9658
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSENDO RAMIREZ

- RAMIREZ, AKA Rosendo Ramirez Ramirez,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71013

Agency No. A201

- 223

- 330

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Rosendo Ramirez

- Ramirez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71013

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th

Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez

Ramirez failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. See

Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016

- 17 (9th Cir. 2003) ( discrimination and

harassment did not rise to the level of persecution) ; see also He v. Holder , 749

F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (defining economic persecution as “substantial

economic deprivation that interferes with the applicant’s livelihood” and

concluding that petitioner failed to establish economic persecution). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez

- Ramirez did not

establi sh that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Mexico. See

Nagoulko , 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ramirez

- Ramirez’s contention that the

agency applied an incor rect legal standard to his claim. Thus, Ramirez

- Ramirez’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
From: Kathy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: The "Religious Refusal" exemption

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:41:28 AM

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. I really find that if this

"religious refusal" exemption passes it shows us as a country that is not

using their own Constitution to govern. Freedom of religion is one of the

corner stones of our Constitution and we should be governing for all

Americans. 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.
Version 1.1



AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and NoticesU.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/bul/b2182/
Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact
Page Last Modified: Wed Nov 23 11:18 EDT 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,849
<SECURITIES>                                    18,538
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (436)
<INVENTORY>                                     41,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,279
<PP&E>                                          12,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,157)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              207
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,586
<SALES>                                        173,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,120
<CGS>                                          106,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,269)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80


</TABLE>
From: Nadia

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:25:41 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.

Sent from my iPhone
From: mystarkreality@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24:45 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,

Michelle Stark

Dixon, CA 95620
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Eric Borrmann, certify that:
6. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Plumtree Software,Inc. 7. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report. 8. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 9. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
10. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming due equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004     By: /s/ Eric Borrmann   Name: Eric Borrmann Title: Chief Financial Officer
From: dbowdens@dslextreme.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:15 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,

Dan Bowden

Yorba Linda, CA 92887