alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 2, 1977

“Office under the United States”—National

Commission on Neighborhoods

You have asked for our opinion concerning the question of whether 

service by a State official as a member of the National Commission on 

Neighborhoods would constitute holding an office under the authority 

of the United States. It is our opinion that it would not be so construed 

under the Federal Constitution. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 provides 

in part that “no Person holding any Office under the United States, 

shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” 

The legislation establishing the agency itself includes as members two 

Members of the Senate and two Members of the House. Obviously, it 

was not intended that they must relinquish their congressional offices.

The practice of Presidents in appointing Members of Congress as 

commissioners to negotiate treaties and agreements with foreign governments is noted in Constitution of the United States of America, 

Revised and Annotated, 1972, p. 523: Such appointments “are ordinarily merely temporary and for special tasks, and hence do not fulfill the 

tests of ‘office’ in the strict sense.” The classic definition of an office in 

the constitutional sense is found in United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 

385, 393 (1867):

An office is a public station, or employment, conferred by the 

appointment of government. The term embraces the ideas of 

tenure, duration, emolument, and duties.

The Court determined that Hartwell, a clerk in the office of the 

Assistant Treasurer of the United States, was an officer, in part because 

“his duties were continuing and permanent, not occasional and temporary.”

Your attention is also invited to the discussion (in an 1899 House 

Judiciary Committee report (Rep. No. 2205, 55th Cong., 3rd Sess.)) of 

whether holding positions on certain commissions constituted holding 

office within the meaning of the Constitution.

L e o n U l m a n

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office of Legal Counsel

77-32 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

125
From: GuerinWilwil@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious employer" definition

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:41:51 PM

I am becoming aware of a rather strict definition of "religious employer" in the matter

of certain prescriptions in health programs. I urge you to consider properly the rights

of conscience in religious matters, in that forcing some definitions on religious groups

to which they do not subscribe is not the American way.

Wilfred L. Guerin, Shreveport, LA
From: tbreiner@bbpatlaw.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:18 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,

Theodore Breiner

Alexandria, VA 22309
- 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 > Direct Purchases of Government Securities by Federal Reserve Banks

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Eightieth Congress, 1947-1949. 						*Direct Purchases of Government Securities by Federal Reserve Banks : Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, First Session, on H. R. 2233, March 3, 4, and 5, 1947*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										March 3, 1947,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/723,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
From: Paul Boer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:04:12 AM

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,

Paul Boer
Edmond, Oklahoma
Grafton,

Jan. 6, 1914.

#### State *v.*Ralmond A. Burgess.

An indictment alleging that the respondent was guilty of lascivious behavior by willfully and unnecessarily exposing his private parts in the view of women is sufficient to charge an offence under section 3, chapter 272, Public Statutes.

An allegation that an offence was committed “willfully and unnecessarily” is sufficient to charge criminal intent.

Section 7, chapter 264, Public Statutes, was intended to punish bathing in exposed places, and has no application to lascivious conduct which is prohibited by section 3, chapter 272, Public Statutes.

Indictment, alleging that the respondent, at a stated time and place, was “guilty of lascivious behavior by then and there willfully and unnecessarily exposing the private parts of the person of him, the said Ralmond A. Burgess, in the view of” three women. Trial by jury and verdict of guilty. Transferred from the April term, 1913, of the superior court by *Chamberlin,*J., on the respondent’s exception to the denial of his motion to quash the indictment.

*171
      *Edward J. Cummings,*solicitor, for the state.

*James A. Broderick,*for the defendant.

Walker, J.

The indictment is sufficient. It is provided in section 3, chapter 272, Public Statutes: “If any person shall be guilty of open, gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, such person shall be imprisoned not exceeding six months and be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars.” The indictment charges in the language of the statute that the respondent was guilty of “lascivious behavior” and specifies what his conduct was at the time alleged, which is clearly sufficient to constitute the offence. “The indictment is sufficient if it sets out so much of fact as to make the criminal nature of what is charged against the defendant appear.” *State*v. *Dame,*60 N. H. 479, 480. If, as is claimed, an allegation of intent is essential, it appears in the words “willfully and unnecessarily”; that is, he intended to unnecessarily exhibit his person to the women present. Verbal and technical refinement in construing the allegations of an indictment which fully and plainly describes an offence is not to be encouraged.

Nor is there any doubt that the offence charged is an offence under the statute above referred to, and not under section 7, chapter 264, Public Statutes, which provides: “No person shall, within the view of a dwelling-house, or of a public road, street, or wharf, in the daytime, without necessity, bathe or swim, nor expose his person indecently in dressing or undressing. ” A simple reading of this statute shows that it was intended to apply to bathing in public, and not to lascivious conduct which is prohibited in the other statute.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
Exhibit 32

                    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 Cybertel Communications Corp. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Richard D. Mangiarelli, Chief Executive Officer and Richard
Schmidt, Chief Financial 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:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: Aug. 8, 2003                       /s/Richard D. Mangiarelli
      ------------                       -------------------------
                                         Richard D. Mangiarelli
                                         Chief Executive Officer

Date: Aug. 8, 2003                       /s/Richard Schmidt
      ------------                       ------------------
                                         Richard Schmidt
                                         Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
U.S.EPACommunicationsNotetoFileGHGReportingProgramDevelopment-SubpartIFrom:KirstenCappel,U.S.EPATo:TomDiamond,SemiconductorIndustryAssociation(SIA)Dates:April21-May1,2010Subject:EPAInvitationtoProvideFluorinated-GHGMeasurementDataKirstenCappelsoughttoconfirmthatSIAanditsmembercompanieswereunabletoprovideemissionsmeasurementdata,otherthaninformationthatmayhavebeensharedwithSEMI,tosupporttheconsiderationofexpandeddefaultemissionfactorsforsemiconductormanufacturingprocesstypes.TomDiamondconfirmedtheunavailabilityofdataonbehalfofSIAduringphonecallsplacedonApril21,2010andagainonMay1,2010.Writtenconfirmationviae-mailwassoughtonApril23,2010butnowrittenresponsewasprovided(seeattached).confirmingourconversationKirstenCappelto:tdiamond04/23/201001:55PMHiTom,BasedonourconversationonWednesday(4/21),IunderstandthatSIAwillnotbeprovidinganydatatosupportthedevelopmentofemissionfactorsfortherefinedprocesscategories.Younotedtomethatyourmembercompaniesdonothavedataseparatedbytheprocesscategoriesthatweproposed.PleasecorrectmeifImisunderstood.Thankyou,KirstenKirstenCappelClimateChangeDivisionUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyTelephone:(202)343-9556Mobile:(202)351-9573Fax:(202)343-2202cappel.kirsten@epa.govMailingAddress:1200PennsylvaniaAvenue,N.W.(6207J)Washington,D.C.20460OfficeAddress:1310LStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20005AnycommunicationonthemandatoryGHGreportingruleisintendedtoprovidegeneralandadministrativeinformationabouttheRule.Thiscommunicationdoesnotprovidelegaladvice,andresponsestoquestionsreceiveddonothavelegallybindingeffectorexpresslyorimplicitlycreate,expand,orlimitanylegalrights,obligations,responsibilities,expectations,orbenefitsinregardtoanyperson.Facilityownersoroperatorsandsuppliersareresponsiblefordetermininghowtheywouldbeaffectedbytherequirementsoftherule.
BLD-078 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3849

___________

IN RE: HECTOR HUERTAS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-cv-00010)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 28, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 10, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Hector Huertas seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to rule upon cross-motions 

for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the former Secretary of the 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Jeffrey Beard, and various officials employed 

at SCI-Albion and SCI-Forest. We will deny the mandamus petition.
2

Huertas filed a complaint in District Court against the Defendants alleging 

violations of his procedural due process and Eighth Amendment rights arising from his 

continued confinement in segregation or restricted housing units in various state 

correctional institutions. The Defendants moved for summary judgment; in response, 

Huertas filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the Defendants’ motion be granted and that Huertas’s motion be 

denied. Huertas filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. He then filed this 

petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order to compel the District Court to decide 

the motions.

On December 6, 2012, the District Court granted the Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and denied Huertas’s motion for partial summary judgment. In light 

of the District Court’s order, Huertas’s petition for a writ of mandamus is now moot. 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1332 

Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce 

through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase 

employment of former foster youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2008 

Mr. CARDOZA (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, and Mr. FATTAH) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 

and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to 

the workforce through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase employment of former foster 

youth. 

Whereas, on any given day, there are more than 500,000 

youth in foster care in the United States; 

Whereas an estimated 26,000 of these youth are discharged 

from the foster care system or ‘‘age out’’ with little to 

no resources to start their own lives; 

Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere appreciation for the circumstances that place children in 

foster care; 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1332 IH 

Whereas foster youth possess unique qualities and skills that 

make them ideal candidates for employment, but compared to youth nationally and youth from low-income 

families, they are less likely to be employed or employed 

regularly; 

Whereas, when afforded comprehensive support, this resilient 

population excels in the job market; 

Whereas, within 18 months after leaving foster care, 25 percent of foster youth become homeless and comprise more 

than a quarter of the United States homeless population; 

Whereas, without positive intervention, youth who age out of 

foster care often have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity, and incarceration; 

Whereas addressing job readiness early in the transition to 

adulthood is critical to shaping the future trajectories of 

these youth; and 

Whereas youth who begin connecting to the workforce prior 

to discharge from foster care maintain the highest probability of employment: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of connecting fos3 ter youth to the workforce through internship pro4 grams, such as the Orphan Foundation of America’s 

5 InternAmerica program, that provide foster youth 

6 the foundation upon which to build their careers and 

7 to be successful members of the work force; and 

8 (2) encourages employers of all sectors and 

9 Federal, State, and local governmental agencies to 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1332 IH 

1 increase employment of the young men and women 

2 who have been discharged from foster care in the 

3 United States. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
From: rich@strongsignals.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:22 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,

Rich Wells

Garner, NC 27529
EXHIBIT 99.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
Date:	August 14, 2002

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer