alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Holiday Inn Capitol

550 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20024

October 24, 2007

Purpose

The Department will present its methodology for conducting the energy conservation

standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners. The

Department also will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies,

assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00 - 9:05 a.m. Welcome

9:05 - 9:15 a.m. Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda

Review

Doug Brookman

9:1 5 - 9:30 a.m. Rulemaking and Analytical Methodology Overview

Stephen Witkowski

9:30 - 10 : 30 a.m. Market and Technology Assessment

Judith Reich

10:30 - 10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 - 11:30 a.m. Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis

Judith Reich

11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Constantin von Wentzel

1 2:00 - 1:00 p.m. Break for Lunch

1:00 2 : 00 p.m. Markups for Equipment Price Determination,

Energy Use Determination and Life-Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis

Gregory Rosenquist

 EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 COMMENT 02.3
2:00 - 2: 45 p.m. Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and

LCC Subgroup Analysis

Gregory Rosenquist

2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Break

3:00 - 3:15 p.m. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Constantin von Wentzel

3:15 - 3:45 p.m. Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Gregory Rosenquist

3:45 - 4:30 p.m. Other Issues and Comments / Closing Remarks

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

 EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 COMMENT 02.3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ISSUER'S
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000, SET FORTH IN THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                         199,803
<SECURITIES>                                   268,734
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,958,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                   697,765
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,801,679
<PP&E>                                       9,037,327
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,961,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,109,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,506,695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       217,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,433,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,109,196
<SALES>                                     14,117,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,117,982
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,215,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (5,912)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                63,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             306,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                601,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            601,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   601,695
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
From: Andrew Woitkoski

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM - preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:57:16 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. 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.
From: Brian Bobko

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I support access to preventative care and contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:24:29 PM

To whom it may concern,

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.

Sincerely,

Brian P Bobko
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7429

JOEY DUANE SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERICA A. HOOKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00174-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joey Duane Scott, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joey Duane Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Scott’s motions for leave to file a 

supplemental informal brief, we deny his motions to appoint counsel, to remand the case 

for an evidentiary hearing, to review the appeal de novo, and for bail or release pending 

appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

WHEREAS,
McDATA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001; and

WHEREAS,
each of the undersigned is a Director of the Company;

NOW
THEREFORE, each of the undersigned constitutes and appoints JOHN F. MCDONNELL, JANET K. COOPER, ERNEST J. SAMPIAS and THOMAS O. MCGIMPSEY, and each of them, as attorneys for him or
her and in his or her name, place, and stead, and in his or her capacity as a Director of the Company, to execute and file such annual report, and thereafter to execute and file any amendment or
amendments thereto on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intents and purposes, as he or she might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 6th day of March, 2002.

/s/
John F. McDonnell
/s/ John A. Kelley, Jr.
/s/ John W. Gerdelman
/s/ Charles C. Johnston
/s/ D. Van Skilling
/s/ Thomas M. Uhlman
/s/ Laurence G. Walker

---

QuickLinks
#### Lydia J. McGarrity, Respondent, v. Arthur W. McGarrity, Appelllant.

Order affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
From: molly.cstreams@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:10:50 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,

Mary Buten

Fort Thomas, KY 41075
#### GEORGIA et al. *v.*UNITED STATES et al.

No. 114.

Decided October 8, 1962.

*Eugene Cook,*Attorney General of Georgia, and *Paul Rodgers,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene*and *Robert W. Ginnane*for the United States et al.

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
From: teddy.bullard@bemc.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:44 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,

Teddy Bullard

Chadbourn, NC 28431
From: dalanderos@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:26:00 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,

Richard Landeros

Humble, TX 77346
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the annual report of TransGlobe Energy
Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ross G. Clarkson, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 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:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Ross
ClarksonName:
Ross G. Clarkson Title: Chief Executive Officer March 13, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 40-F), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1405 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1405

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain coins to be 
   acquired by individual retirement accounts and other individually 
                    directed pension plan accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 2001

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain coins to be 
   acquired by individual retirement accounts and other individually 
                    directed pension plan accounts.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECTIBLES.

    (a) In General.--Section 408(m)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to exception for certain coins and bullion) is amended--
            (1) by inserting after clause (iv) in subparagraph (A) the 
        following new clause:
                            ``(v) any coin certified by a recognized 
                        grading service and either traded on a 
                        nationally recognized electronic network or 
                        listed by a recognized wholesale reporting 
                        service, and which is or was at any time legal 
                        tender in the United States, or'', and
            (2) by striking ``such bullion'' in the matter following 
        subparagraph (B) and inserting ``such coin or bullion (in 
        either coin or bar form)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
REV HOLDINGS LLC AND
SUBSIDIARIES

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC
(the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ronald O. Perelman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 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:

(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/ Ronald O.
Perelman

Ronald O.
PerelmanChief Executive OfficerNovember 13,
2003

37

---
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





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications Inc., a
corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”) for the
period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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.





Dated:  February 27,
      2009
                  /s/
      Alan HornAlan
      HornChairman
      and acting Chief Executive OfficerDated:  February
      27, 2009
                  /s/
      William W. LintonWilliam
      W. LintonSenior
      Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
  Officer
#### Charles Carney, Respondent, v. Perry G. Wadhams, as Executor, etc., Appellant.

Judgment and orders appealed from reversed and new trial ordered, costs of the appeal to abide the final determination of costs. Opinion by Barker,, J.