alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: rblair86@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: unjust mandate

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:43 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,

Ruth Blair

Berlin, PA 15530
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0004748

11-FEB-2014

10:31 AM
From: pianomac2@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:26 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 McCauley

Concord, CA 94520
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 20, 2019. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D18-2621 

Lower Tribunal No. 16-20205 

________________ 

Jerartis D. Icon, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

The State of Florida, 

Appellee. 

 An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. 

 Jerartis D. Icon, in proper person. 

 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. 

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. 

 PER CURIAM. 
2 

 Jerartis D. Icon appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion 

for additional credit time served, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.801. Even if (as Icon asserts) the three-year prison sentence imposed 

in the instant case was ordered to run concurrently with a prison sentence previously 

and separately imposed in the circuit court for Palm Beach County,1

 this would not 

entitle him to receive any additional credit for county jail time served in the instant 

case. Icon was awarded a total of 577 days of jail credit, and has failed to allege or 

establish an entitlement to any additional jail credit. See, e.g., Brito v. State, 194 

So. 3d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1998); Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). 

 Affirmed. 

 

1

 The record on appeal, including the judgment, sentence and sentencing guideline 

scoresheet, fails to reflect that the sentence imposed in the instant case was to run 

concurrently with any other sentence. Further, Icon failed to provide a transcript of 

the plea and sentencing hearing in this case.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 00 448

- CV PROPHET RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, EX REL. , Appellant
V. BIG STAR HONDA, JOHN DOE, ET AL. , Appellee s Appeal from the 295th District Court of Harris County

( Tr. Ct. No. 20 1 5

- 08974 ). This case is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on April 29 , 201 5

. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that it ha s no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that costs be taxed against appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered November 19 , 201 5

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of J ustice s Jennings, Keyes, and Bland

.
Order entered March 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01049-CV

LESKEL NICHOLS, Appellant

V.

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-00690

ORDER

By letter filed December 8, 2020, Antoinette Reagor, Official Court 

Reporter for the 68th Judicial District Court, informed the Court that no record was 

made of either of the two hearings appellant requested, the hearing held July 20, 

2020, and the hearing held November 30, 2020. In a jurisdictional letter brief filed 

January 21, 2021, appellant disputes that.

The Court’s jurisdiction having been determined, we ORDER the trial court 

to conduct a hearing and make written findings of fact concerning whether the two 
requested reporter’s records exist no later than March 30, 2021. We further 

ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the findings no later than April 5, 2021. A supplemental 

reporter’s record of the trial court’s hearing shall also be filed no later than April 5, 

2021.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Martin Hoffman, Presiding Judge of the 68th Judicial District Court; 

Ms. Pitre; Ms. Reagor; and the parties.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court an opportunity to conduct the 

hearing. The appeal shall be reinstated no later than April 12, 2021.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
JOHNNY WELCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0855

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 4, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Levy County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Johnny Welch, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
From: suzeeq@bresnan.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:36:48 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 Trower

Billings, MT 59101
Filed 1/5/15 P. v. Barron CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIGITTE ANN BARRON,

Defendant and Appellant. H040580

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. Nos. B1365928, B1369559,

C1362445)

Defendant Brigitte Ann Barron was placed on probation after pleading no contest

to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) , and the court ordered as a

condition of probation that she “ not possess or use alcohol or illegally controlled

substances or go to places that [ sic ] you know alcohol, illegal substances, or non

prescribed controlled substances are used or sold.” On appeal, she contends that this

co ndition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. She ask s us to modify this

condition to add the word “knowingly” so that it reads “not knowingly possess or use

alcohol or illegally controlled substances

. . . .” The Attorney General concedes that the

condition must be modified to add “knowingly” to the prohibition against possession or

use of “ alcohol ,” but she insists that the prohibition on possession or use of “ illegally

controlled substances ” does not require the addition of the word “knowingly” be cause the

condition “implicitly contains a knowledge element.”2

The Attorney General relies on this court’s decision in P eople v. Rodriguez (2013)

222 Cal.App.4th 578 ( Rodriguez ) . In Rodriguez , the defendant challenged as

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad a probation condition that she “ ‘ [n]ot use or

possess alcohol, intoxicants, narcotics, or other controlled substances without the

prescription of a physician

. . . . ’ ” ( Rodriguez , at p p. 592

- 593 .) Although t his court

suggested that “ a scienter element is reason ably implicit in this condition” with respect to

controlled substances, it nevertheless ordered that the entire condition be modified to add

an express knowledge requirement beca use “ the addition of an express knowledge

requirement will eliminate any potential for vagueness or overbreadth in applying the

condition. ” ( Rodriguez , at p p

. 593

- 594.) We do the same in this case.

The order of probation is hereby modified so that the c hallenged condition read s :

“You shall not knowingly possess or use alcohol or illegally controlled substances or go

to places where you know alcohol, illegal substances, or non

- prescribed controlled

substances are used or sold.” As so modified, the order is affirmed.3 _______________________________ Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________ Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________ Bamattre

- Manoukian , J.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

I, G. Ward Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of Intrusion Inc., certifythat:

(1)                          I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-KSB of Intrusion Inc.:

(2)                          Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

(5)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 29, 2007 |   | /s/ G. Ward Paxton      |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                 |   | G. Ward Paxton          |   |   |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7150 ENRIQUE ALFONSO GAYLE, a/k/a Kiki, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7151 ROBERTO SPALDING, a/k/a Pepito, a/k/a Pops, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105-N, CA-97-417, CA-97-418) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL Enrique Alfonso Gayle, Roberto Spalding, Appellants Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Enrique Gayle and Roberto Spalding seek to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellants' convictions b ecamefinal in 1993. The district court dismissed their§ 2255 motions, executed and deposited in the prison mailing system on April 21, 1997, as filed outside the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 1998), Appellants had until April 23, 1997, in which to timely file their motions. Accordingly, because Appellants filed their motions prior to this date, we grant certificates of appealability, vacate the district court's orders, and remand these cases for consideration on the merits.* See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston to habeas petitions). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED

_________________________________________________________________ *We also grant Appellants' motions for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 2
Exhibit 10.22 PRESIDENTIALREALTYCORPORATION

180 South Broadway  White
 Plains, N.Y. 10605  (914) 948-1300September 11,

2007 Arthur Cohen
Trust 
Martin Cohen Trust 
Stephen Silverstein 
Lyla Dolgin Dear Partners: The
Letter Agreement dated September 16, 2005 (the Existing Letter Agreement)
with respect to loans to be made by PDL, Inc. (the General Partner) to PDL,
Inc. and Associates Limited Co-partnership (the Partnership) is hereby
amended in the following respects. 1)
Presidential
 will lend the Partnership up to an additional $500,000 for the purposes set
 forth in the Existing Letter Agreement, so that the total amount of the Loan
 (as defined in the Existing Letter Agreement) will be a maximum of
 $2,500,000.2)
The interest
 rate on the last $500,000 to be lent by the General Partner will be 13% per
 annum and otherwise payable under the same terms and conditions as set forth
 in the Existing Letter Agreement.3)
If the net
 proceeds of a refinancing of the existing first mortgage on the property
 (expected to be accomplished on or before May 1, 2008) are not sufficient to
 repay the Loan in full (including the additional $500,000 advance), then any unpaid
 principal balance of the Loan shall thereafter accrue interest at the rate of
 13% per annum and be otherwise payable in accordance with the terms of the
 Existing Letter Agreement.    September 11, 2007 
Page 2 of 2

Please
sign a copy of this letter in the space provided below for your signature and
return the executed copy to the undersigned in order to evidence your agreement
to the above.

Very truly
 yours,PDL, Inc.By: /s/
 Steven BaruchSteven BaruchMartin Cohen
 TrustBy:  /s/ Alan
 CohenArthur Cohen
 TrustBy:  /s/
 Arthur Cohen/s/ Stephen
 SilversteinStephen
 Silverstein/s/ Lyla
 DolginLyla Dolgin
EXHIBIT 32.1906 CERTIFICATION     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly reportof Callidus Software Inc. on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     Robert H. Youngjohns, the Chief Executive Officer and Ronald J. Fior, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Callidus Software Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Callidus Software Inc.Date: August 1, 2007                                                                            /s/ ROBERT H. YOUNGJOHNS   *Robert H. Youngjohns*   *President and Chief Executive Officer*                                                                               /s/ RONALD J. FIOR   *Ronald J. Fior*   *Chief Financial Officer,*
No. 1178, Misc.,

October Term, 1961.

#### Garcia *v.*Turner,

370 U. S. 950. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.