alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 1355 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 23, 2008. 

Whereas all people, including those with disabilities, should 

be guaranteed the right to receive a quality education, to 

be productive members of our workforce, to raise families, to exert control and choice over their own lives, and 

to have equal opportunity to access and participate in all 

facets of life; 

Whereas having a disability should be seen as a natural part 

of human diversity; 

Whereas many people with disabilities share a cultural experience and history; 

Whereas 18 years ago, on July 26, 1990, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act was signed into law, ending discrimination against and providing equal opportunity for persons 

with disabilities in employment, education, government 

services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, 

and transportation; 

Whereas in spite of the recent efforts to restore the intent 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities continue to face tremendous challenges in our society that test their resolve sociologically, emotionally, 

and psychologically, as well as face negative cultural assumptions based on fears and myths that need to be 
2 

•HRES 1355 EH 

eliminated and replaced with presumptions of competence, strength, and individual worth; 

Whereas July 26, 2008, is the City of Chicago’s 5th Annual 

Disability Pride Parade, a celebration that will seek to 

educate and change the way that people think about and 

define those with disabilities by promoting the belief that 

disability is a natural and beautiful part of human diversity in which people living with disabilities can take pride; 

and 

Whereas July 26, 2008, would be an appropriate day to designate as Disability Pride Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of Disability Pride 

Day; 

(2) acknowledges the efforts of the City of Chicago’s 5th Annual Disability Pride Parade organizers to 

raise awareness concerning the value of people with disabilities; 

(3) invites the Nation to join in celebrating the 

pride, the power, and the potential of people with disabilities by celebrating Disability Pride Day; and 

(4) urges public officials and the general public to 

honor Americans with disabilities by educating themselves on ways to support and encourage understanding 
3 

•HRES 1355 EH 

of persons with disabilities in our schools, within our diverse workforce, as well as in our communities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael L. Paxton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| March 29, 2007 |   | /s/ Michael L. Paxton   |   |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|           |   | Michael L. Paxton       |   |   |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----
#### CAROLINE *M.*H. SEARING, Appellant, *v.*THE VILLA*GE*OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, Respondent.

*Discharge of sewage on private property*— when *the owner cannot claim damages if the sewer was constructed with her assent.*

This action was brought against the defendant, a village, by the plaintiff to recover damages sustained by her from sewage which entered upon her lot from an old sewer in one of the streets, through a sewer or pipe built on her own land by the defendant with her knowledge and consent, if not at her request.

*Held,*that she could not maintain the action.

*It seems,*that if she did not like to have the sewer remain on her land she could take it up, and thereafter, if any sewage were illegally or improperly thrown upon her land by the agents of the defendant, she could recover the damages which she might sustain therefrom.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the trial of this action at the Saratoga County Special Term.

*John R.*Putnam, for the appellant.

*Charles S.*Lester, for the respondent.

Peckiiam, J.:

The plaintiff claims to recover damages sustained by her from sewage which enters upon her lot from the old sewer in Walworth street, through a sewer or pipe built on her own land by defendant, with her knowledge and assent, if not at her request. The plaintiff claims the sewage comes on her land through a defect in the pipe laid cn it by defendant, and she says that even without the sewer thus laid, the sewage from the old Walworth street sewer would run on her land and damage her. But her cause of complaint now is that sewage coming down the Walworth street sewer is dumped upon her land by reason of the pipe made on it by defendant. As this was done with her assent, if not at her suggestion, the principle comes within the cases decided by this court in *McCaffrey*v. *City of Albany*(11 Hun, 613), and' by the Court of Appeals in *Matter of Rhinelander*(68 N. Y., 105). If the plaintiff do not like the sewer as it remains on her land, she can take it up, and thereafter, if any sewage be illegally or improperly thrown *308upon her land by the agents of defendant, she can then probably recover the damages which she may sustain.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Learned, P. J., and Peokham, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### DAVIDSON *v.*LaVALLEE, WARDEN.

No. 446, Misc.

Decided October 15, 1962.

*Jacques M. Schiffer*for appellant.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Nos. 219 and 220.

#### Bridges *v.*Texas.

*Hume Gofer*and *John D. Cofer*for petitioner.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
No. 152, Misc.

#### Sims *v.*Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent.

*Lewis T. Booker*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Certiorari denied.
From: mmonroe777@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:30:10 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,

Marilyn Monroe

Elmira, NY 14905
No. 267, Misc.

#### Meyes *v.*California.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
[No. 3610.]

#### City of Pueblo v. Travelers Insurance Co.

The judgment not being claimed to be excessive was affirmed on the authority of Pueblo v. Bradley, ante.

*Appeal from Pueblo District Court.*Hon. C. S. Essex, Judge.

Mr. W. O. Peterson, for appellant.

Mr. S. D. Trimble, Mr. Alered W. Arrington, for appellee.

Cunningham, Judge.

The action in this case was brought by plaintiff against the city to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the construction of a viaduct on South Main Street in the city of Pueblo, in front of plaintiff’s property, which was improved by a two-story brick building. The viaduct in question covers the entire width of the street, to-wit, eighty feet, and is something over twenty-two feet in height. Plaintiff claimed damages in the sum of $4,000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $900.00 and judgment was entered thereon.

1. The facts presented by the record in this case are substantially identical with the facts involved in *202
      *Pueblo v. Bradley,*3551, in which case judgment against the city has just been affirmed by us. It will, therefore, only be necessary in this case to refer to our opinion in the Bradley case, in so far as the right of the plaintiff to recover against the city is concerned.

2. But three errors are assigned in the present case, all of which go either to the giving or refusing of instructions by the trial court. It is not seriously contended by counsel for the city that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for such damages as he may have sustained by reason of the raising of the viaduct something like fifteen feet above a grade that had been established by the city some fourteen or fifteen years prior to the construction of the viaduct. Nothing had ever been done by the city prior to the construction of the viaduct, to bring the street in question to the grade first established by ordinance. No complaint is made by the city in its assignment of errors as to the size of the verdict. Indeed, in the closing paragraph of his brief counsel for the city says:

> “The refusal of the trial court to give instructions numbers 5 and 6, requested by appellant, and the giving of instruction number 7 by the court, upon which said ruling this appeal is predicated, grew out of the uncertainty as to what had really been decided by the supreme court in the *Strait*and *Leiper*cases. The *Strait*and *Leiper*cases are considered in the case of *Pueblo v. Bradley, supra.*This appeal, therefore, is prosecuted for the purpose of getting the law in this character of eases settled.”

Desirable as it is that the important questions presented by the assignment of errors should be settled, if they have not been, still it is not incumbent upon this court to consider and determine these questions when presented in connection with an appeal from a judgment *203that the appellant does not claim is excessive, and for this reason, if for no other, the judgment of the trial court in this case should he affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
From: www.stephenwinstead@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:45:57 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,

stephen winstead

El Centro, CA 92243
December 26, 1962.

No. 449.

#### Fahy et al. *v.*Connecticut.

*S. Floyd Nagle*and *John J. Sullivan*for petitioner Arnold.

*Lorin W. Willis*for respondent.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. Petition as to petitioner Arnold dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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:  | February 18, 2014 | /s/ Kent M. Adams |
|   |   | Kent M. Adams |
|   |   | President, Director and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |
| Date:  | February 18, 2014 | /s/ James A. Duensing |
|   |   | James A. Duensing |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
From: Monique Johns

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:04:15 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.

Yes, and thank you for this. This has been sorely needed for years.

Sincerely,

Monique Johns

706 Westland Farm Road

Address Line 2

Mount Holly, NC 28120
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL 11397-01-OA]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be held virtually on September 28, 2023. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days public notice. The FRRCC provides independent policy advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.

# DATES:

                        This meeting will be held virtually Thursday, September 28, 2023, from approximately 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. This meeting will take place virtually. To register and receive information on how to listen to the meeting and to provide comments, please visit:                         *www.epa.gov/​faca/​frrcc.*                         Attendees must register online to receive instructions for virtual attendance.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Virtual attendance will be via Zoom. The link to register for the meeting can be found on the FRRCC web page,                         *www.epa.gov/​faca/​frrcc.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Venus Welch-White, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at                         *FRRCC@epa.gov*                         or 202-566-2369. General information regarding the FRRCC can be found on the EPA website at:                         *www.epa.gov/​faca/​frrcc.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Meetings of the FRRCC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted at                     *www.epa.gov/​faca/​frrcc.*

*Access and Accommodations:*                     For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please visit:                     *www.epa.gov/​faca/​frrcc.*

Rodney Snyder,

Senior Advisor for Agriculture, U.S. EPA.

[FR Doc. 2023-20336 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 553.

#### Associated Telephone & Telegraph Co. *v.*United States.

*John J. Boland, Theodore F. Brophy, Robert Adelson*and *Robert P. Adelman*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberts*and *Harold C. Wilkenfeld*for the United States. *George E. Cleary*for Commerce & Industry Association of New York, Inc., as *amicus curiae,*in support of the petition.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: ggideon7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:11 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,

Ann Webster

Kingman, AZ 86409
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
The Board of DirectorsCT Communications, Inc.:
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements (Nos. 33-59641, 33-59643, 33-59645,333-15537, 333-30125, 333-38895, 333-77323, 333-65818, and333-65846) of CT Communications, Inc. of our report datedFebruary 13, 2004, relating to the consolidated balancesheets of CT Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidatedstatements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders’equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2003, and related schedule, whichreport is included in the December 31, 2003 Annual Reporton Form 10-K of CT Communications, Inc.
     As discussed in Note 1(i) to the consolidatedfinancial statements, the Company changed its method ofaccounting for goodwill and other intangible assets in 2002.
 /s/ KPMG LLP    
Charlotte, North CarolinaMarch 10, 2004
No. 248.

#### Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, *v.*Fleuti.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Philip R. Monahan*and *Maurice A. Roberts*for petitioner.

*Hiram W. Kwan*for respondent.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.