alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dbunruh@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:34 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,

Dan & Barb Unruh

New Baltimore, MI 48047
From: Robert Bouchard, Jr.

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:37:44 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. It is socialism / communism at it's "finest"!!

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

birth control on moral and religious grounds. As a Roman Catholic, it violates the

very essence of the most basic tenets of my faith: The Ten Commandments / Thou

Shall NOT Kill!!!!!

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, un-American, and MOST OF ALL, UNCHRISTIAN--and it

SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
Sincerely,

Robert Bouchard, Jr.

Gilmer, Texas
From: THOMAS STEFFEN

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:23:19 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,

THOMAS STEFFEN
PORTLAND, Oregon
From: mybossisajewishcarpenter2000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Jean Rucker

Akron, OH 44312
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Cornerstone Fund II and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      29,293,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,050<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,431,023<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,431,023<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,279,346<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,363,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,916,164
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,916,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,916,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $106,167 and receivable from
DWR of $27,883.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $2,003,679.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $199,022, accrued brokerage
commissions of $0, accrued management fees of $104,350, common
administrative expenses payable of $21,640, accrued transaction fees
and costs of $0 and accrued incentive fees of $618,270.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $6,363,803, net
change in unrealized of $687,245 and interest income of $1,228,298.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Simon Heyman, Appellant, v. Bernhard Mittelstaedt, Respondent.

Order entered, as directed in opinion. Opinion by

Brady, J.
From: James McGlincy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM cover women"s health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:22:41 PM

I am writing to support passage of this bill. Not covering contraception is another step in taking control

of women's reproductive rights. Joan McGlincy
# Jurnalul Oficial C 64A/28 f

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 64A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 6028 februarie 2017 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 64A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 6028 februarie 2017

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anunţuri |
| | PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | Parlamentul European |
| 2017/C 64 A/01 | Procedura de selecție PE/195/S — Agent temporar — Șef de unitate (AD 14) — Lista candidaților eligibili | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

V   Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Parlamentul European

2017/C 64 A/01

Procedura de selecție PE/195/S — Agent temporar — Șef de unitate (AD 14) — Lista candidaților eligibili

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

V Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Parlamentul European

| 28.2.2017 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2017

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 64/1

---

PROCEDURA DE SELECȚIE PE/195/S

Agent temporar — Șef de unitate (AD 14)

LISTA CANDIDAȚILOR ELIGIBILI

(2017/C 064 A/01)

| 1. | BORDEZ, Emmanuel |
| --- | --- |

1.

BORDEZ, Emmanuel

Lista candidaților eligibili a fost adoptată la 14 februarie 2017.

---
No. 632.

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

*Solicitor General Cox,*As*sistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, I. Henry Kutz*and *Mildred L. Seidman*for the United States.

*Scott P. Crampton*for respondents.

Court of Claims. Certiorari granted.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00554-CV

Louvenia Henderson, Appellant

v.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 13-0590-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN McMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After Louvenia Henderson failed to timely file her appellant’s brief, the clerk of this

Court wrote her advising that her brief was overdue and that if she did not file her brief or otherwise

respond byFebruary 18, 2014, her appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. The

February 18 deadline has passed, and Henderson has made no response. Accordingly, we dismiss

this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a); 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 7, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G.Ward Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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/ G. Ward Paxton      |   |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|           |   | G. Ward Paxton          |   |   |
|           |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
     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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstBank
NW Corp. ("the Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Larry K. Moxley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                  13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended, and

         o        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the Company's financial condition and
                  results of operations.






/s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  November 12, 2004

                                                                              31
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00495-CV

M.M.V., Appellant

V.

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

Appeal from the 313th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-02934J).

TO THE 313TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 11th day of December 2014, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on June 4, 2014. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains 

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered December 11, 2014.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Opinion 

delivered by Justice Brown.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

February 20, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**SECTION 302**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Judith A. Berry, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of American Residential Investment Trust, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theregistrant and have:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 13, 2003 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Judith A. Berry     |   |
| Judith A. Berry         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
AIR RESOURCES BOARD

VENTURA COUNTY APCD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 1

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Ventura County APCD Rule No.: 37 Date / Amended/Repealed: June 12, 2012

Rule Title: Project XL

Date Submitted to ARB: October 18, 2012 If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended: Not Applicable

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? (X) Yes ( ) No If NO, do not complete remainder of form.

District Contact: Stan Cowen Phone No.: 805/645-1408

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: ( ) New Rule ( ) Amended (X) Repealed

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Circle): ROG NOx SO2 PM10 CO TAC

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emission. Attach reference(s) for emission factor(s) and other 

information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emissions information provided below was determined. See staff report Appendix A for emission calculations.

Net Effect on Emissions: ( ) Increase( ) Decrease ( X ) N/A No impact on emissions.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: ( ) Attainment(X) Nonattainment ( ) Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule: None

Percent in Nonattainment Area: Not Applicable

Number of Large (>100 TPY) Sources Controlled: None Percent in Nonattainment Area: Not Applicable

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Not Applicable

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Not Applicable

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

(X) No Impact( ) Impacts RFP ( ) Impacts attainment

Discussion: The repeal of Rule 37 will have no impact on emissions because it does not apply to any sources.