alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: jlgwhiz@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:18 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,

John Gress

Dyke, VA 22935
| **Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified**       | Dec. 31, 2013 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| **Derivative**                                                                                                          |          |
| Deferred net losses, interest rate risk, to be reclassified from equity to current earnings over the next twelve months | $ 3           |

| X                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DerivativeLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The estimated net amount of unrealized gains or losses on interest rate cash flow hedges as of the balance sheet date expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next twelve months.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 815 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=7668309&loc=d3e80748-113994
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_InterestRateCashFlowHedgeGainLossToBeReclassifiedDuringNext12MonthsNet**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00046-CR

____________________

IN RE ROLANDO GUTIERREZ

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In this mandamus proceeding, Rolando Gutierrez seeks to compel the 

Montgomery County Jail to allow him to spend more time in the law library while 

he prepares his case for trial. Although he does not identify the respondent by any 

name other than Montgomery County Jail, Gutierrez evidently seeks mandamus 

relief against the sheriff of Montgomery County, or one or more deputies, in 

connection with a criminal case that has not proceeded to judgment. See Tex. Local 

Gov’t Code Ann. § 351.041 (West 2005). Gutierrez is not requesting relief against 

a judge of a district or county court, and he has not shown that the requested relief 

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (a), (b) 
2

(West 2004). Because Gutierrez is not entitled to mandamus relief from this Court, 

we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
From: tskeet70@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:12 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,

Linda Pettet

Oklahoma City, OK 73119
From: Robin Vogler

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:22:12 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.

Robin Vogler

958 Blue Lkae

Bigfork MT 59911
Exhibit 31.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Halton Martin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Vital Health
Technologies, Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


/s/ Halton Martin                                       April 14, 2004
------------------------------------
Halton Martin
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00081

- CV

IN RE AP GULF STATES , INC.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on March 1, 2019. The Court

requests a response to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus from Respondent and /or

Real Parties in Interest

, Coryell County Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Coryell

Memorial Healthcare System and Zurich American Insurance Company. Any response

shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days from the da te of this Order.

Relator’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief is granted. The trial court’s

February 26, 2019 Order concerning tender of funds and any proceedings in trial court

cause no. DC

- 19

- 49267 are stayed pending further order of this Court.In re AP Gulf States, Inc. Page 2 PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Neill

Order issued and filed March 4, 2019
**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 corporationorganized under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ Edward S. Rogers     Edward S. RogersPresident and Chief Executive Officer   Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ Alan D. Horn     Alan D. HornVice President, Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer
August 15, 2014

Dr. John J. Coleman, Ph.D.

6981 Tepper Drive

Clifton, Virginia 20124-1600

Dear Dr. Coleman:

This is in response to your March 18, 2014, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

to undertake a project to amend Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 121.343 

to require cockpit voice recorders (CVR) and flight data recorders (FDR) to communicate their 

data on a real-time basis by telemetry or wireless (radio) communications to ground stations that 

would be managed by the airlines.

In your petition you cite hypothetical circumstances that may have led to the disappearance of 

Malaysian Airlines flight 370. Your petition conveys your belief that mandating real-time 

transmission of data from CVR and FDR equipment to ground stations would provide a means of 

immediately identifying aircraft deviating from their flight plans. 

The Malaysian airplane is still under open investigation. As such, it would be inappropriate for 

the FAA to take regulatory action at this time. However, we will consider your petition should 

we undertake rulemaking on this subject in the future.

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

Sincerely,

//s//

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
Exhibit 23.2





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-22223, 333-128611 and 333-143517) of the report of Caturano and Company, P.C. (whose name has since changed to Caturano and Company, Inc.) dated March 31, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Spire Corporation as of December 31, 2009 and the year then ended, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.








/s/ Caturano and Company, Inc.





Boston, Massachusetts


January 3, 2012
No. 266, Misc.

#### Carmack *v.*Alabama.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Alabama, and *David W.*Clark, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Alabama. Certiorari denied.
No. 309.

#### Abernathy et al. *v.*City of Irvine et al.

*R. J. Turley*for petitioners. *Thomas D. Shumate*for respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
# **Exhibit 32**

# ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

This 12th day of November, 2003.

 

 
| /s/ Douglas K. Freeman     |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer    |
|                       |
| /s/ Steven F. Herbert      |   |
| Chief Financial  Executive |
|                            |        |  |

 

1

----
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0066.html[8/29/2011 2:42:38 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 25, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80ef19fa

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0066

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Hannah Kleeberger

Address:

1026 Oakridge Dr

Centerville, UT, 84014

Email: rumpfhk@yahoo.com

Phone: 801-294-7567

General Comment

Dear Sir or Ma'am:

I am writing to share my grave concern over your recently released guidelines for implementation of

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and to request broadening of the religious

exemption before August 2012.

The PPACA guidelines require most health insurance plans—including those offered by private

employers—to provide full access to birth control, as well as abortion-inducing drugs such as “Ella”

and “the morning after pill.” This completely eliminates the right of employers to follow their

conscience and refuse to offer birth control drugs to their employees in company-funded health care

plans. Many employers object to using their company resources to pay for birth control, and many

more strongly object to using company resources to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

The religious exemption you provide is extremely narrow and will only apply to churches and other

houses of worship, and possibly denominational seminaries. Religious organizations, most religious

colleges, and other religious employers who have conscientious objections to offering birth control or

abortion-inducing drugs will be forced to choose between abhorrent options. They will have to decide

whether to end their insurance programs—which will hurt millions of employees across the nation—or

violate their conscience by including in their insurance programs birth control and abortion-inducing

drugs, which they believe murder an unborn person.

I believe the only way to protect freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is to broaden the

religious exemption to also include religious organizations, religious colleges, and employer-funded
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0066.html[8/29/2011 2:42:38 PM]

private health insurance plans if the employer has a conscientious objection to using corporate funds

to pay for birth control or abortion-inducing drugs.

Thank you for your consideration and service to our great nation.

Sincerely, Hannah Kleeberger
#### Eugene Brewster, as Executor, etc., Appellant, v. Spencer Carnes, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Haight, J.; Smith, P. J., not voting.
From: tmkeck1@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:14 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Good leaders are not "thought police." They cannot mandate thought and conscience. These are basic

freedoms that one should preserve for America's workers and their offspring.

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,

M. James Keck

Twin Lake, MI 49457