alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

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 of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the
year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Yip Kam Ming, Chief Financial Officer 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/ Yip Kam Ming



Yip Kam Ming,

 Chief Financial Officer

September 14, 2006
Exhibit
23.1
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   To
the Board of Directorsof Rogers Communications
Inc.
   We
consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:
  -
                our
      Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 18,
      2009 on the consolidated balance sheets of Rogers Communications Inc.
      ("the Company") as at December 31, 2008 and 2007, the consolidated
      statements of income, shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and cash
      flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,
      2008
  -
                our
      Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 18,
      2009 on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of
      December 31, 2008
  each
ofwhich is
incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.
  We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the
Registration Statements (No. 333-154916 and No. 333-147078) on Form F-9 of
Rogers Communications Inc.
  /s/
KPMG LLP
  Chartered
Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
   Toronto,
Canada
 February
27, 2009
From: Rita Schwieters

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:28:59 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as it pertains 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.

Employers have no business determining health care for their employees. Contraceptives allow women

the opportunity for family planning. It gives women like me the chance to wait to have children until we

are in a position to give them all they deserve. Our employers have no business determining it to be

immoral, and denying us access to it. 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.
> FDLP Electronic Collection Archive   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are now accessing the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection Archive for the following document:Title:
> 
> Appalachian ReporterDate Archived:2/24/99Author/Publisher:Appalachian Regional CommissionSuDoc No.:Y 3.AP 4/2:11/ Item No.:1050-A-01Resource Identifier:http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS2404Availability:
> 
> Autumn 1998
> 
> AprilJune 1998
> 
> JanuaryMarch 1998
> 
> SeptemberNovember 1997
> 
> JulyAugust 1997
> 
> MayJune 1997
> 
> MarchApril 1997
> 
> JanuaryFebruary 1997 
> 
> NovemberDecember 1996
> 
> File Formats:htm; gif;For additional information about the FDLP Electronic Collection Archive, please refer to The FDLP Electronic Collection Archive----------------------**HELP! - [email protected] - 
> 
> 
> Local/Toll Free Phone - 
> 
> 
> Fax**  |   **Suggestions/Comments**
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Page #hldgrecd.html April 14, 1999
#### BLAUSTEIN *v.*AIELLO, SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE.

No. 570.

Decided January 7, 1963.

*Albert A. Rapoport*and *Carl W. Berueffy*for appellant.

*J. Douglas Bradshaw*and *Howard J. Thomas*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Peak International Limited (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Supan, Chief Financial Officer 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) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2007



/s/ John SupanJohn SupanChief Financial Officer
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1226

AN ACT

To require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World

War II memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial,

and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘POW/MIA Memorial

5 Flag Act of 2002’’.
 †

2

S 1226 ES

1 SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG AT WORLD WAR II ME2 MORIAL, KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL, AND VIET3 NAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.

4 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR DISPLAY.—Subsection (d)(3)

5 of section 902 of title 36, United States Code, is amended

6 by striking ‘‘The Korean War Veterans Memorial and the

7 Vietnam Veterans Memorial’’ and inserting ‘‘The World

8 War II memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial,

9 and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’’.

10 (b) DAYS FOR DISPLAY.—Subsection (c)(2) of that

11 section is amended—

12 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and

13 (B) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and

14 (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so

15 redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):

16 ‘‘(A) in the case of display at the World War

17 II memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, and

18 Vietnam Veterans Memorial (required by subsection

19 (d)(3) of this section), any day on which the United

20 States flag is displayed;’’.

21 (c) DISPLAY ON EXISTING FLAGPOLE.—No element

22 of the United States Government may construe the

23 amendments made by this section as requiring the acquisi-
†

3

S 1226 ES

1 tion of erection of a new or additional flagpole for pur2 poses of the display of the POW/MIA flag.

Passed the Senate October 2, 2002.

Attest:

Secretary.
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1226

AN ACT

To require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the

World War II memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10w-1

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            THE BELLSOUTH CORPORATION
                      DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION DEFERRAL PLAN

      THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made to the BellSouth Corporation Directors'
Compensation Deferral Plan (the "Plan"), as amended and restated as of the 1st
day of May, 2001;

      WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of
BellSouth shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the Plan at any
time and, further, that the Plan Administrator shall have the right, in its sole
discretion, to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time so long as such
amendment is not of a material nature; and

      WHEREAS, Section 1.24 of the Plan in pertinent part designates the Chief
Executive Officer of BellSouth (the "CEO") as Plan Administrator of the Plan;

      NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority vested in the CEO as Plan
Administrator to approve non-material amendments to the Plan, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

      Section 4.2(b) of the Plan is amended by inserting, immediately following
the first sentence thereof, the following:

        All deferrals of Compensation otherwise payable with respect
        to special meetings of the Board (or a committee of the Board)
        shall be deemed invested in the Interest Income Option.

Any other provisions of the Plan not amended herein shall remain in full force
and effect.

      This First Amendment shall be effective as of the 6th day of February,
2004.

                                By:         /s/ F. D. Ackerman
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
From: jandj_junction@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:54 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,

Jim Nelms

Fletcher, NC 28732
#### HALL v. SWART.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 11, 1912.)

No. 1,082.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Frank S. Appleman (Arden Howell, on the brief), for appellant.

Frederick S. Stitt (R. S. *&*A. B. Lacey, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and DAYTON and ROSE, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was complainant below. She said that the appellee had infringed claim 6 of letters patent No. 730.647, issued June 9, 1903, to Haynie and Halí. The learned judge below dismissed her bill. He held that, in view of the prior art, the combination described in the claim in question was without patentable novelty. We are of the same opinion. Affirmed.
From: vietamproj@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:17 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,

Trangdai Glassey-Tranguyen

Anaheim, CA 92802
Exhibit 99.1   Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  To the Shareholders of NSTAR:  We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries (the "Company") as of September 30, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earnings and comprehensive income for each of the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We previously audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated February 16, 2007 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements (our opinion contained an explanatory paragraph stating the Company changed the manner in which it accounts for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans effective December 31, 2006). In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP  October 31, 2007
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1146

To amend the Act of March 3, 1875, to permit the State of Colorado

to use land held in trust by the State as open space.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29, 2001

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Act of March 3, 1875, to permit the State

of Colorado to use land held in trust by the State as

open space.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COLORADO TRUST LAND.

4 Section 7 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 475,

5 chapter 139) (commonly known as the ‘‘Colorado Ena6 bling Act’’), is amended by inserting before the period at

7 the end the following: ‘‘and for use for open space, wildlife

8 habitat, scenic value, or other natural value, regardless of

9 whether the land generates income for the common schools

10 as described under section 14, except that the amount of
2

•S 1146 IS

1 land used for natural value shall not exceed 300,000

2 acres’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      18,941,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,263,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   809,000
<INVENTORY>                                    575,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,632,000
<PP&E>                                      88,841,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,886,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             118,352,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,573,000
<BONDS>                                     18,494,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                        61,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,087,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               118,352,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,571,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,999,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,000,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             764,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (428,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (163,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,126,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Kristina Pilat

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Protecting Religious Employees

Date: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:01:23 AM

Please please DO NOT make people go against there religious beliefs. Abortion is immoral, there is

no if's and's but's about it. Like my brother said, I would hate to stand before God and explain why this

was done to His people.

Kristina Pilat
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2078

ELIZABETH DESTA,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A74-638-996)

Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: May 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General,

Civil Division, Michelle Gluck, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mary

Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Desta seeks a review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on her application for

asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board’s determination

that Desta is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if the

determination is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1105a(a)(4) (1994). The decision may be reversed only if the

evidence presented by Desta was such that a reasonable fact finder

would have to conclude that the requisite persecution or fear of

persecution existed. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481

(1992). The Board concluded Desta failed to meet her burden of

proving she was persecuted on account of protected grounds. Our

review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based

upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Because

Desta failed to show entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the

higher standard for withholding deportation. See INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page | of |

Aub REC 12039 1-/0

LEGAL PROCS ..40 Li VISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee18cb
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0071
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Maria McKinney
Address:
13731 231st Lane NE
Redmond, WA, 98053

General Comment

It is very important that women have the choice whether to have, or not have, children. It is also
important that their health plan supports that choice.

Maria McKinney, D.M.A.

http://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011