alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SECTION 302**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I,John M. Robbins, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AmNet Mortgage, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrantand have:

 

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report, based on such evaluation; and

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2005 |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
| /s/  John M. Robbins          |   |
| John  M. Robbins              |
| Chief  Executive Officer      |

 

----
From: mjuniet@rlcarriers.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:22 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,

Michael Juniet

Clarksville, OH 45113
#### In re BOSTON FRENCH RANGE CO.

(District Court, D. Massachusetts.

August 10, 1916.)

No. 22550.

Bankruptcy <®==o348—Priorities—-Wages.

Where five workingmen organized a corporation, each paying in a sum of money, one of them, who was treasurer and director and also labored in the shop is not, as to his claim for compensation for services rendered as treasurer and director, entitled to priority over corporate creditors.-

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 536; Dec. Dig. c@=^348.]

@c^Eor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of the Boston French Range Company. Proceeding by claimant to review order of referee.

Order affirmed.

Frederick W. Mowatt, of Boston, Mass., for trustee.

Moses Caplan, of Boston, Mass., for creditor.

MORTON, District Judge.

The evidence not being reported, the referee’s findings of fact are conclusive, except so far as they appear to be erroneous on the face of his report. It does not appear that the referee was in error in his findings as to the amounts for which the claimant is entitled to prove.

The question whether the claimant is entitled to priority on his later claim is more doubtful. The bankrupt corporation had several points of similarity with co-operative enterprises. Apparently five workingmen got together to organize it. Each paid in the same sum of money, $300, and each was to work for the corporation and to be paid by it, at the same rate as the others. The claimant was treasurer and director. He was also foreman of the shop. The compensation of the members was referred to as “salaries,” and was expected to be paid weekly at the established union rate of wages for journeymen in that industry. No apportionment was made on the sums paid to, or due to, the claimant, between what was owed him for work at the bench and what was owed him for services as treasurer or foreman. The duties of those positions, while probably not onerous or extensive, must have occupied an appreciable part of his time. To that extent clearly his claim is not entitled to priority. There is no finding that the claimant received no compensation for his services as treasurer or director, as there was in Re Swain Co. (D. C.) 194 Fed. 749, 28 Am. Bankr. Rep. 66. It may well be doubted whether the claimant’s relation to the bankrupt was of such a subprdinate character as to constitute him a “workman” or “servant.” *917See In re Grubbs-Wiley Grocery Company (D. C.).96 Fed. 183, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 444; In re Greenberger (D. C.) 203 Fed. 583, 30 Am. Bankr. Rep. 117. I think it doubtful, as was suggested in Re Grubbs-Wiley Grocery Company, supra, whether managers of a corporation can, by hiring themselves as workmen, obtain priority over persons from whom, as managers, they have purchased goods on the corporation’s account. Upon facts rather close to' those here it was held in Re Crown Point Brush Company (D. C.) 200 Fed. 882, 29 Am. Bankr. Rep. 638, in an exhaustive opinion, that the claimant was not entitled to priority. See, too, Remington on Bankruptcy (2d Ed.) § 2168 et seq.

The order of the referee is affirmed.
From: lsustickgirl@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:59 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,

Rebecca Ringuette

Gonzales, LA 70737
No. 104.

#### New Jersey et al. *v.*New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co.

*Clarence M. Mulholland, Edward J. Hickey, Jr.*and *James L. Highsaw, Jr.*on the motion.

*Vincent P. Biunno*for appellee, in opposition.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (Probable jurisdiction noted, 370 U. S. 933.) The motion of Railway Labor Executives’ Association for leave to file brief, as *amicus curiae,*is granted.
No. 443.

#### Turner et ux. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*H. Clyde'Pearson*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox,*

*Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Robert N. Anderson*for respondent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Page 1 of 1

REG-) 20 39)—

GAL PROC G DIV Puen
aL ICATION & REGUL. ATION re 7 —
P BRANCH Received: August 10, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80edd60a
(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: [RS-2010-0017-0118
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Charlotte June Knipple
Address:

2030 Sampson Street

Wisconsin Rapids, WI, WI, 54494
Email: cnrknip@wete.net

General Comment

Abortion is not health care. It sacrifices a living, breathing child.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
From: coffutt44@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:50:58 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,

Curtis Offutt

Wichita Falls, TX 76302
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4234

Estimates of Evapotranspiration from the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge Area, Ruby Valley,Northeastern Nevada, May 1999-October 2000

----

# PDF Version of Report

To view PDF documents, you need to have the **Adobe Acrobat Reader** (free from Adobe Systems) installed on yourcomputer. Download Acrobat Reader.

  Reporttext (1,503 Kb). Includes title page, table of contents, report text, tables, figures, and appendices (exceptfigures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 -- see Note 2 below).

  Reportcover (1,238 Kb). Features full-page color photograph of bulrush-marsh evapotranspiration site, looking northwesttoward Ruby Mountains. Photograph by David L. Berger, U.S. Geological Survey, 2000.

  Frontispiece(662 Kb). Features full-page natural-color composite image of Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Ruby Valley, Nevada,obtained April 8, 2000. Satellite imagery recorded with enhanced thematic mapper on USGS Landsat 7. Labels on imageindicate location of six of the evapotranspiration sites used in the study (see figs. 5,6, and 7 for photographs of each site).

**Note 1**: In the body of the report, all references to the figures, tables, and appendices are shown in blue. Click the blue text to go directly to the corresponding figure, table, or appendix.

**Note 2**: To reduce overall file sizes, figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 have been placed in separate files. They willopen automatically when you click the corresponding bookmark or blue text in the body of the report.

To **print** the entire report, print the report text (1,503 Kb), thenprint  figure 1 (952 Kb), figure 2 (411 Kb), figure 5 (1,060 Kb), figure 6 (1,221K), figure 7 (898K), the cover (1,238 Kb), and the frontispiece (662 Kb).

----

Return to Home Page
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00206

- CV

CR+ ENTERPRISES, INC.

, Appellants

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY , as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS

Capital I Inc. Trust 2006

- NC4, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2006

- NC4,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19332

Honorable Peter A. Sakai , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. A lvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

L ori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On January 6, 2022, appellant Barco Realty, L.P. filed an unopposed second motion for

extension of time to file reply brief. The motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s reply brief is due no

later than January 18, 2022

.

It is so ORDERED on January 7, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
From: Kathe Mayer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception & women"s healthcare

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:49:26 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. If an

individual doesn’t want to avail herself with these services, that is her business, but we

should not let one person’s feels dictate to the rest.

Kathe
From: sueo1961@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:00 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,

Suzanne Ortello

, 13340-1320
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 EXHIBIT 21.1 PRIMARY SUBSIDIARIES OF CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION COMPANY
    
    PLACE OF INCORPORATIONAmerican Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania
    
    PennsylvaniaCNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd.
    
    United KingdomCNA Surety Corporation
    
    DelawareContinental Assurance Company
    
    IllinoisContinental Casualty Company
    
    IllinoisContinental Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey
    
    New JerseyFiremens Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey
    
    New JerseyNational Fire Insurance Company of Hartford
    
    ConnecticutThe Buckeye Union Insurance Company
    
    OhioThe Continental Insurance Company
    
    South CarolinaThe Continental Corporation
    
    New YorkThe Glens Falls Insurance Company
    
    DelawareTranscontinental Insurance Company
    
    New YorkValley Forge Life Insurance Company
    
    Pennsylvania
 All other subsidiaries, when aggregated, are not considered significant.
From: sbmkb@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:02:33 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,

Beth Ballard

Martinsville, IN 46151