alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: caryf@bil-denglass.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:03 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,

Cary Farrington

Omaha, NE 68134
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                            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 of Identix Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of Joseph J. Atick,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Erik E. Prusch, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 result of operations of the
Company.


        /s/ Joseph J. Atick                                  September 26, 2002
        ----------------------------------------
        Joseph J. Atick, Chief Executive Officer


        /s/ Erik E. Prusch                                   September 26, 2002
        ----------------------------------------
        Erik E. Prusch, Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Douglas K. Freeman, Chief Executive Officer of NetBank, Inc.,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NetBank, Inc.;

 

2.                           Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material 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, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.                           The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrants, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                           The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)                          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)                              Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | November 9, 2004                       |   | /s/ Douglas K. Freeman |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
|   | Douglas K. Freeman                     |
|   | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT CASEY

v.

XPEDX, XPEDX, VERITIV, VERITIV 

CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR 

COMPANY AND FORD

PETITION OF: FORD MOTOR COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 104 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ROBERT CASEY

v.

XPEDX, XPEDX, VERITIV, VERITIV 

CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR 

COMPANY AND FORD

PETITION OF: XPEDX, XPEDX, VERITIV, 

AND VERITIV CORPORATION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 122 EAL 2020

Cross Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal from the Order of the 

Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EX-4.61



 Exhibit 4.61 

English Summary 
 of

 Supplemental Agreement to the Centralized Services Agreement 

Between 
 China
Telecommunications Corporation 
 and 

China Telecom Corporation Limited 
 China
Telecommunications Corporation (“Party A”) and China Telecom Corporation Limited (“Party B”) entered into the Supplemental Agreement to the Centralized Services Agreement on September 23, 2015. 

The key terms and conditions of the Supplemental Agreement are as follows: 

1. The Parties agree to add Sub-article 2.2 to Article 2 of the Centralized Services Agreement as follows: “Market rates shall mean the rates at which
the same or similar type of products or services are provided by Independent Third Parties in the ordinary course of business and under normal commercial terms. When determining the relevant market rates, to the extent practicable, management of the
Company shall take into account the rates of at least two similar and comparable transactions entered into with or carried out by Independent Third Parties in the ordinary course of business in the corresponding period for reference.” 

2. The execution, validity, performance, interpretation of this Supplemental Agreement and any relevant dispute resolutions shall be governed by the PRC laws.

 3. This Supplemental Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2016. If there is any conflict between this Supplemental Agreement and the
Centralized Services Agreement, this Supplemental Agreement shall prevail.
No. 294.

#### Collins et ux. *v.*United States.

*Robert H. McNeill*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox*and *Acting Assistant Attorney General Jones*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1348 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1348

     To designate the Federal building located at 10th Street and 
 Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, as the 
         ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2001

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Specter, Mrs. 
 Clinton, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Feingold) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To designate the Federal building located at 10th Street and 
 Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, as the 
         ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
              BUILDING.

    The Federal building located at 10th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, and known as the 
``Department of Justice Building'', shall be known and designated as 
the ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Robert F. Kennedy 
Department of Justice Building.
                                 <all>
```
From: Phyllis Wilson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:37:40 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Wilson
Frisco, Texas
Order entered July 10 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00846 - CV IN RE CHELSEA DAVIS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 01240 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding

. /s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of USURF America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date:  May 24, 2004                          By: /s/ Douglas O. McKinnon
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Name:  Douglas O. McKinnon
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 24, 2004                          By: /s/ Ronald Bass
                                             ---------------------
                                             Name:  Ronald Bass
                                             Title: Principal Accounting Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to USURF America,
Inc. and will be retained by USURF America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Helen Langa

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: reject exemptions for religious employers for women"s health coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:09:22 PM

Dear Health and Human Services:

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.

Women are uniquely able to give birth to human beings, but we also need health care to

limit the size of our families and to take the best care of the children we already have!

Employers should be able to define health care for their own personal families, but not for

those who work in their businesses!

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.

Thank you!

Helen Langa
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGUSTO SOTO-CESAR, a.k.a., Cesar

Agusto Soto, a.k.a Cesar Augusto SotoAlvarado,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73511

Agency No. A074-790-779

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Agusto Soto-Cesar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

FILED

DEC 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
cancellation of removal and special-rule cancellation of removal under the

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. 

Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Soto-Cesar’s 2006 conviction under

California Penal Code § 273.5(a) constitutes a crime of domestic violence under

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that disqualifies him from eligibility for cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). See Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1085. SotoCesar’s assertion that his offense was only a misdemeanor does not alter this

conclusion. See 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (defining a “crime of violence” without

requiring a felony conviction); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053, 1056

(9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the petty-offense exception to inadmissibility

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) is unavailable to cancellation applicants who

possess a conviction for a crime of domestic violence).

Soto-Cesar waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise

any argument regarding these issues. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993,

997 (9th Cir. 2007).

2 12-73511
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination that

Soto-Cesar is ineligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202,

1213 (9th Cir. 2011).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Soto-Cesar’s remaining

contentions that he merits relief because his other convictions were also

misdemeanors and that his removal will cause extreme hardship to him and his

family. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

3 12-73511
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–683

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4691, ABORTION 

NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2002

SEPTEMBER 24, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 546]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 546, by a record vote of 7 to 3, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration in the House of H.R. 

4691, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, under a closed 

rule. The rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule provides one motion to 

recommit with or without instructions. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 171

Date: September 24, 2002. 

Measure: H.R. 4691. 

Motion by: Mrs. Slaughter. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and grant the appropriate 

waivers to the DeGette amendment, which assures that the bill is 

not construed to limit the information or services a healthcare professional can provide to their patients nor construed to limit state 

authority to regulate in this area. 

Results: Defeated 3 to 7. 

2

Vote by Members: Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; Diaz-Balart—Nay; 

Myrick—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Reynolds—Nay; Slaughter—Yea; 

McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 172

Date: September 24, 2002. 

Measure: H.R. 4691. 

Motion by: Mr. Linder. 

Summary of motion: To report the resolution. 

Results: Agreed to 7 to 3. 

Vote by Members: Linder—Yea; Pryce—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; 

Myrick—Yea; Sessions—Yea; Reynolds—Yea; Slaughter—Nay; 

McGovern—Nay; Hastings (FL)—Nay; Dreier—Yea.

Æ