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

607 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. Bert Ford, rdmlnlstxetox 

Texas LlqUDr (lontrol Board 

Austin, Texss 

Dear girt 

power 

rule and regulation 

he pl?Qvisions or the 

hfrd, whether or not 

if promulgated by the 

repugnant to the antle Li~usr Oontrol Aot, eraoae; other thin@, 

6h1 (d), that the Lfquox Oontr@l Board 

ius ail et&m ~QWWE, duties, and 

erred by thla Aat, and all powers 

incIdental, amvenients or wm!~aeary to onable 

it to admlnietsr or ,aarxy out any of the proviclone of this Act ama to publish all neoeassry 

rulea, and reg;ulntlona." 

Seseotlon 17 of the Afft pmvidim that it ahall be Mawrul for any persaa rho wina or has an intervat in the busintms of a d~stiller,~bzewer, rsatiiler, who&@llralar, w%nOrg, 
Ron. Bert Ford, Fage #2. 

or dine bottler, or any agent, servant, or eatployee "to furnish, 

61~s. or lend any money, EarviOe, or other things of value, or 

to extend unusual aredlt terms to any retailer, or to any 

person, for the use, benefit, or relief of auah retailer, or 

to guarantee the frilfillment of any flnanoial obligation of 

any retailer." 

Section 24 of Artlals 2 of the Liquor Control Aot provides~ 

*The exteaeton of oradlt for longer period or 

tine than Is generally extended to regular ouetomers 

Of a nurntu'aoturer or distributor ooveting the purohslse 

of brewery produots from auoh aaanufaotuxer or dlatributor &all ba deemed unusual oredit tonas.* 

TAO hat gu0wi0n rrorp th0 A0t is the odly ad'inition 

of the tern wunusual oredlt tonne" whioh me hove found In 

the Aot. Shile it is in Article 2, we think It does evidenoe 

the leglelatlve intent end deities what is meant by the same 

phraee a8 used in ArtlOle 1. 

we are or the opinion that the Power &iven the Board to 

prevent the granting of unusual oredit is not the same am the 

nmer to require oesh to.ba paid, 

In CamerOle Standard Insuranoe Company vs. Board of 

Insuranoe Cocaalseioners, S4 S. Pq. (Ed) S4S, the oourC said: 

*The Board oan exerolse only the authority 

oanterred upon It by law in clear and unmistakable 

tenus, and nil1 not be deezmd to be given by lo+ 

plioatloa, nor aan it be extended by iaferenoe, 

but mu-t be strlotly cronetrued." 

In Mo;oDonald vs. Amrioan Fruit CSoWera, Inc., 126 S. X. 

(2d) S3, (whloh ie the Court of Civil Appeals opinion) and 

127 6.~. (2d) 291 (which 1~ the opinion of the Supreme Court, 

dismisslag the application for writ of error), a very ei!a%lar 

question was oonsldored, end it was there deoided by the 

Court tSat the power had not been granted by the Legislature. 

Under that authority we are of the opinion that the power 

to promlgate the proposed rule and regulation has not boeu 

granted by the Legislature. 

VJCJ dsr)sr It unneoeasary to answer the other question, 

psrtiaularly, since the Supreme Court, in pa&e%% on the 
Eon. Bert Ford, Page #S. 

appllaatfon in the EfaDoneld case, dealined to state whether . . - the Legislature night delegate tne power. In any event, 

that question m8y be answered ii aAd WheA the Legislature 

grants the power. 

YOAr8 very truly 

ATTORNEY GTTTERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

’ A . 8. R0lli~8 

-. 4SRxpbp
From: thebez2@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:19:22 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,

charles jackson

San Leandro, CA 94578
No. 505, Misc.

#### James *v.*Murphy, Warden.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                             797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (714)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,894
<PP&E>                                          10,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,143)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,236
<BONDS>                                         10,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,699
<SALES>                                         70,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,712
<CGS>                                           53,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.80)


</TABLE>
From: vsansou@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:12 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,

Virginia Sansoucie

Roswell, NM 88203
From: barbjst@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:45 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,

Barbara J Struble

, 99501-2537
No. 400,

October Term, 1961.

#### Central Railroad Company of Pennsylvania *v.*Pennsylvania,

370 U. S. 607. Motion to recall the mandate, presented to Mr. Justice Harlan and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and application.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.36

                LICENSE AGREEMENT GRANTING THE AUTHORIZATION TO
             MANUFACTURE PARTIALLY THE PRODUCT CALLED L.E.D. LIGHT
                              (OR APOLLO-E-LIGHT)


1.   This contract is made and agreed for by:

     DMDS Co. Ltd. UK, Pantile, Whistley Green, Hurst, Berks RG10 OES, UNITED
     KINGDOM with registration number 3505875 here represented by Guy DeVreese,
     duly empowered for acting in this contract -- party one;

     Francois Duret, Chateau de Tarailhan, 11560 Fleury d'Aude, France, acting
     for a company in constitution -- party two:

     It is agreed what follows:

2.   Party one is granting the license for manufacturing partially the L.E.D.
     light, under conditions as described in the attached manufacturing
     contract, price of the license will be [*].

3.   Party two will pay the license fee in eight quarterly terms of [*]
     (two years period).

4.   The license right and the payment terms will be subject to next condition:

     - A minimum production of 24,000 lights in the two year period.


DMDS Ltd. UK                                                      Francois Duret


Guy DeVresse


*CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1

2
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVI RCG-\20%/-16 SEP
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS EG 1 2an
BRANCH As of: September 01, 2011

Received: August 15, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce189¢e
‘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-2010-0017-0132
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: JOE BALL
Address:
1622 SW HOLDEN ST
SEATTLE, WA, 98106

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan
when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to space their
pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies
can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making women's health a priority.

JB

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT

In connection with this annual report of TransGlobe Energy
Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ross G. Clarkson, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 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:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.

/s/ Ross ClarksonName: Ross G. Clarkson
Title: Chief Executive Officer May 26, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 40-F/A to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 40-F/A), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
From: pam311@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:41:48 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,

Pietro Mazzarini

, 15122-2821
No. 31,691

#### Carl O. Perry, *Appellant,*v. Frank Steinacher, *Appellee.*

*(34*P. 2d 100.)

Opinion filed July 7, 1934.

*J. Sidney Nye,*of Newton, and *Eustace Smith,*of Hutchinson, for the appellant.

*J. W. Hammond, John K. Waring*and *Robert B. Waring,*all of Geneva, Neb., for the appellee.

*Per curiam:*

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied. Applicant appeals.

Applicant was charged in the state of Nebraska with the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. He was arrested in Kansas. The governor of Kansas approved extradition proceedings and he was delivered to the custody of the agent of the governor of Nebraska. Whereupon this action for a writ of habeas corpus was *220instituted in the district court of Shawnee • county, Kansas. The theory of applicant is that the complaint filed in Nebraska upon which he was arrested does not charge him with a crime under the laws of that state. Applicant argues that the complaint does not show any causal connection between the false pretense charged and the giving up of her property by the complainant. We have examined this complaint and have reached the conclusion that it does state an offense under section 28-1207, Compiled Statutes of 1929, Neb., as this statute is construed and applied by the supreme court of that state in *MacDonald v. State,*124 Neb. 332, 246 N. W. 716.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7947
JOSEPH E. MILTIER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN JABE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1364-AM) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Miltier, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Miltier v. Jabe , No. CA-95-1364-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                  OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING

                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income
Program 1984-1, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:

            -     fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            -     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/  Paul E. Martin
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Paul E. Martin
                                                     Principal Financial Officer
                                                     April 10, 2003
# FILED

December 15, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COUR T OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
JAMES DAVID CARTER, ) ) Appellant, ) Greene County ) Vs. ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Appeal No. ) 03-S01-9612-CR-00119 )

ORD ER O N PE TIT ION TO RE HEAR

Upon consideration of the petition to rehear filed by the appellee, James David Carter, and the State’s response thereto, this Court i s of the opinion that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied.

PER CURIAM