alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 422.

#### City of Kansas City, Missouri, *v.*Federal Pacific Electric Co. et al.

*Keith Wilson, Jr.*for petitioner.

*Ralph M. Jones*and *Charles B. Blackmar*for General Electric Co., respondent.

*Leo A. Larkin, Charles S. Rhyne, Lenox G. Cooper, John C. Melaniphy, David Berger*and *J. Elliott Drinard*for the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, as *amicus curiae,*in support of the petition.

*Richard S. Righter, Carl E. Enggas*and *John H. Pickering*for Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al., as *amici curiae,*in opposition.

Motion of petitioner for leave to amend the petition for certiorari granted. Motion of Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al. for leave to file brief, as *amici curiae,*granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
From: provwoman@intergate.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:14:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Katherine Roark

Atoka, TN 38004
No. 44, Misc.

#### Downum *v.*United States.

Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals *812for the Fifth Circuit granted. Case transferred to the appellate docket.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Kirby W. Patterson*for the United States.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-77803, 333-69141, 333-55642, 333-39736) and
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-82239, 333-63306) of Identix Incorporated of our report
dated August 1, 2001, except for Note 14 which is as of September 17, 2001,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
September 25, 2001
From: rhenbest@employersresource.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:34 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,

Robert G Henbest

Meridian, ID 83642
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 22, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 22, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0317. EARNEST JAMES CEASAR v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2007CR1823
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, AS ADOPTED
              PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report of Spire Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K (the "Report") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Roger G. Little,
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: March 31, 2008                    By: /s/ Roger G. Little
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Roger G. Little
                                             Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                             Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
*** RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE ***
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AMERITECH CORPORATION'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         214,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,366,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (239,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    217,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,903,000
<PP&E>                                      31,767,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,494,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,434,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,045,000
<BONDS>                                      4,309,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       588,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,834,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,434,000
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,033,000
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,392,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (198,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               250,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             382,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,457,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   893,000                         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,564,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,564,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41<F4>
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). WE HAVE INCLUDED
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUE" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 
IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER REGULATION
S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
<F4>WE HAVE CALCULATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAS
128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN PLACE
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY, AND REFLECT THE TWO-FOR-ONE
STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 2.000% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/2021 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HQJ2 |   |
| 2.500% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/2023 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HQK9 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 11/15/2013 |   |
|                    |   |
June 10, 2015 

 

Mr. John West 

44 Old Country Road 

Westhampton, NY 11977 

Dear Mr. West: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 18, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1742), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
No. 272, Misc.

#### Zupko *v.*New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1355 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 23, 2008.
Whereas all people, including those with disabilities, should be guaranteed the 
        right to receive a quality education, to be productive members of our 
        workforce, to raise families, to exert control and choice over their own 
        lives, and to have equal opportunity to access and participate in all 
        facets of life;
Whereas having a disability should be seen as a natural part of human diversity;
Whereas many people with disabilities share a cultural experience and history;
Whereas 18 years ago, on July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was 
        signed into law, ending discrimination against and providing equal 
        opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, education, 
        government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and 
        transportation;
Whereas in spite of the recent efforts to restore the intent of the Americans 
        with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities continue to face 
        tremendous challenges in our society that test their resolve 
        sociologically, emotionally, and psychologically, as well as face 
        negative cultural assumptions based on fears and myths that need to be 
        eliminated and replaced with presumptions of competence, strength, and 
        individual worth;
Whereas July 26, 2008, is the City of Chicago's 5th Annual Disability Pride 
        Parade, a celebration that will seek to educate and change the way that 
        people think about and define those with disabilities by promoting the 
        belief that disability is a natural and beautiful part of human 
        diversity in which people living with disabilities can take pride; and
Whereas July 26, 2008, would be an appropriate day to designate as Disability 
        Pride Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Disability Pride Day;
            (2) acknowledges the efforts of the City of Chicago's 5th Annual 
        Disability Pride Parade organizers to raise awareness concerning the 
        value of people with disabilities;
            (3) invites the Nation to join in celebrating the pride, the power, 
        and the potential of people with disabilities by celebrating Disability 
        Pride Day; and
            (4) urges public officials and the general public to honor Americans 
        with disabilities by educating themselves on ways to support and 
        encourage understanding of persons with disabilities in our schools, 
        within our diverse workforce, as well as in our communities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: paul777@cox-internet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:38 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,

Paul Lester

Bentonville, AR 72712
From: tbabbitt@veritasv.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:16 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,

Teri Babbitt

Salinas, CA 93901
H. Res. 1277 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 19, 2008. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

5781) to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave 

made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave, and 

for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 

of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 

10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 

recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as 

adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 

one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
2 

•HRES 1277 EH 

this resolution, if offered by Representative Davis of Illinois 

or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 

of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 

10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5781 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.