alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5/20/2011 8:55 AM at 8:55 AM

1

Steve Edris

From: Carl Steele

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:43 PM

To: Alan Siepker; Amy ODonnell; Austin Hess; Cori Groninger; Dan Wakefield; Eric Ryder; Fred 

Layne; Garry Mulkey; Gary Cooper; Heath Clark; Jason Parrett; Jay Parrett; John Hight; John 

Hight; Kevin Thompson; Kim Driscoll; Michael Castro; Steve Edris

Subject: Shift Summary's

# 2 The cupola ran fair , the urea hose had came apart in the #2 hoffman blower room , that’s why we were not getting 

any urea. We had a plug up on the turning belts due to # 9 belt coming off. The screen is not staying clean at all , we have 

washed it about 7 times.we kept the windbox and rollers blown out, the high resin binder is making the rollers build up.We 

had 2.37 tons of side piece throw away. 

# 4 The cupola has ran fair today with no major problems 

We did not change any bags today
#### GRISANTI *v.*CITY OF CLEVELAND et al.

No. 353.

Decided November 5, 1962.

*George J. McMonagle*and *Richard E. McMonagle*for appellant.

*Joseph H. Crowley, Henry J. Crawford*and *John Lansdale*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is .granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
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    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR.  Date: May 2, 2008By:/s/ JAMES J. JUDGEJames J. JudgeSenior Vice President,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<CIK>               0001036262
<NAME>              INTEST CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000



<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                    10,020
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             14,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                 238
<INVENTORY>                               10,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          36,826
<PP&E>                                    10,013
<DEPRECIATION>                             6,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            47,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     12,287
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                      86
<OTHER-SE>                                34,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              47,201
<SALES>                                   41,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          41,570
<CGS>                                     21,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             14,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            6,631
<INCOME-TAX>                               3,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        3,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,272
<EPS-BASIC>                                .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .39



</TABLE>
No. 587.

#### Muskegon Piston Ring Co. *v.*Olsen et al.

*Peter P. Price, Robert C. C. Heaney*and *J. Roger Wollenberg*for petitioner.

*Harold M. Street*for respondents.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSolar Proton Transport within an ICRU Sphere Surrounded by a Complex Shield: Combinatorial GeometryThe 3DHZETRN code, with improved neutron and light ion (Z (is) less than 2) transport procedures, was recently developed and compared to Monte Carlo (MC) simulations using simplified spherical geometries. It was shown that 3DHZETRN agrees with the MC codes to the extent they agree with each other. In the present report, the 3DHZETRN code is extended to enable analysis in general combinatorial geometry. A more complex shielding structure with internal parts surrounding a tissue sphere is considered and compared against MC simulations. It is shown that even in the more complex geometry, 3DHZETRN agrees well with the MC codes and maintains a high degree of computational efficiency.Document ID20160001628Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsWilson, John W.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA, United States)*Slaba, Tony C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Badavi, Francis F.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA, United States)*Reddell, Brandon D.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Bahadori, Amir A.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 5, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2015Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-22932NASA/TP-2015-218980L-20624Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 651549.02.07.10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160001628.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Robinson
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending September
30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and Jamie E.
McReynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to First Robinson Financial
Corporation and will be retained by First Robinson Financial Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:  /s/ Rick L. Catt                   By: /s/ Jamie E. McReynolds
---------------------                   ---------------------------
Name:  Rick L. Catt                     Name:  Jamie E. McReynolds
Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Financial Officer
November 10, 2005                       November 10, 2005




                                       33
From: dmurphy@drury.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:55:52 AM

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,

Martha Murphy

Springfield, MO 65804
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0004230 27-MAR-2014 10:13 AM
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40670

Conference Calendar

 

FREDERICK TYRONE RIDGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAIGE MILLER, Criminal 

District Attorney, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-159

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Frederick Tyrone Ridge, Texas state prisoner #542124,

appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights

complaint as frivolous and imposition of sanctions. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because

Ridge’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We
No. 96-40670

- 2 -

previously warned Ridge that frivolous appeals could result in

sanctions against him. See Ridge v. Scott, No. 94-60747 (5th

Cir. March 22, 1995). Accordingly, Ridge is BARRED from filing

any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court without

the prior written approval of a judge of this court in active

service. Further, he is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma

pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to

this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission

of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the

clerks of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction

of this court are directed to return to Ridge, unfiled, any

attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Compendium on Monetary Policy Guidelines and Federal Reserve Structure

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency. Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, 1964-1975					 and 	Ninetieth Congress, 1967-1969. 						*Compendium on Monetary Policy Guidelines and Federal Reserve Structure : Pursuant to H.R. 11, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Committee on Banking and Currency, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, December 1968*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										December 1968,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/393,			accessed on September 15, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
From: crawfordx6@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:45:52 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,

James Crawford

Buffalo, NY 14217
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 2.700% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/2025 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HRQ5 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 9/15/2015 |   |
|                    |   |
From: jlehman@curves.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:33 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,

j lehman

Fort Wayne, IN 46835
From: Patricia Meyers

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:34:17 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,

Patricia Meyers
Westchester, Illinois
From: pace0620@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:22 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,

Vincent Pacelli

North Branford, CT 06471
From: Debra Williams

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:51:19 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Debra Williams

444 West 49th Street

New York, NY 10019