alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: e.merced33@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:34 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,

Edwin & Miriam Merced

Jersey City, NJ 07306
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 26, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 26, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1466. TAJEENDER KOUR ON BEHALF OF BMS CORPORATION v. STATE OF 

GEORGIA.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On March 18, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and 

a brief no later than April 09, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
**EXHIBIT 10.26**

 

 
|   |                       |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | 1101  E. Arapaho Road |
|   | Richardson,  TX 75081 |
|   | 972-234-6400  tel     |
|   | 972-234-1467  fax     |

 

 

 

February 4,2010

 

***Confidential***

 

TheBoard of Directors

IntrusionInc.

 

Re:  Intrusion Inc.

 

Gentlemen:

 

Asyou are aware, over the past few years, I have provided financial assistance toIntrusion through various private placements. This letter confirms my intention to make available funds in the amountof up to $1,500,000 to cover cash flow shortfalls, if any, which may beexperienced by Intrusion during the period, ended March 2011.  I also confirm that I have access tosufficient financial assets to make these funds available.  In the event of my death, my heirs will bebound by this commitment.

 

Thisletter is in replacement of, and not in addition to, the original commitmentletter dated March 20, 2008 for $1,500,000.  In essence, I am only extending my originalcommitment one year.

 

Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/G. Ward Paxton

 

G.Ward Paxton

Presidentand CEO

IntrusionInc.

 

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1202 CAF 11-01551 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOSHUA BURRELL, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANGELA D. BURRELL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CULLEY, MARKS, TANENBAUM & PEZZULO, LLP, ROCHESTER (JON E. BONAVILLA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

WENDY S. SISSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, GENESEO, FOR BRIANNA B.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), entered July 8, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner primary physical custody of the subject child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order awarding petitioner father primary physical custody of the parties’ child. We agree with Family Court that the father established the requisite change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the child would be served by modifying the existing custody arrangement ( see Matter of Simonds v Kirkland , 67 AD3d 1481, 1482). The father established that the mother left the child without adult supervision on several occasions late at night while she ran errands and that the child had indicated to both parents that she had been touched sexually or otherwise inappropriately by her half brother. Although we note that the statement of the child to her parents that she was touched sexually or otherwise inappropriately by her half brother was not corroborated ( cf. Matter of Nikki O. v William N. , 64 AD3d 938, 938-939, lv dismissed 13 NY3d 825), the mother admitted that, upon hearing that statement, she enrolled the child’s half brother in counseling. In our view, the mother’s conduct in leaving the child without adult supervision late at night while she ran errands, coupled with the child’s statement of the touching by the half brother, constituted the necessary change in circumstances. We further conclude that the court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to have primary physical custody ( see-2- 1202 CAF 11-01551
generally Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Matter of Brothers v Chapman , 83 AD3d 1598, 1598-1599, lv denied 17 NY3d 707).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19801]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD348]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of web conference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Halibut 
and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Committee (IFQ Committee) will 
hold a public meeting. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 28, 2023, from 
8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through 
the link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3014.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave., Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-
2809. Instructions for attending the meeting via video conference are 
given under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Henry, Council staff; phone: 
(907) 271-2809; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b3bcbcb3fcbab7bca0ab92bcbdb3b3fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f0e01010e41070a011d162f01000e0e41080019">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support, 
please contact our admin Council staff, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#472937212a246926232a2e29072928262669202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147a647279773a7570797d7a547a7b75753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Thursday, September 28, 2023

    The IFQ Committee agenda will include: (a) review and provide 
recommendations on Area 4 vessel cap initial review analysis; (b) IFQ 
program review workplan; and (c) other business. The agenda is subject 
to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3014 prior to the meeting, along 
with meeting materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3014.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3014.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 8, 2023.
Diane M. DeJames-Daly,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19801 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.”

These preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless

women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

From: Bonnie Williams

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: SUPPORT ACCCESS TO PREVENTIVE CARE & CONTRACEPTION

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:18:18 PM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    281,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        330,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           144
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,888
<SALES>                                         27,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,519
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
        

</TABLE>
#### Edward J. Kelsey and others, Respondents, v. James Sargeant and others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, without costs.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:03 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,

John Stuart

Thornton, CO 80241
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2012 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 results of operations of the Company.
Date:	May 15, 2012

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 475.

#### Samuels, Trustee, *v.*Kockos Brothers, Ltd.

*Allen M. Singer*for petitioner.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: lindy_schn@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:23 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,

Lindy Schneider

Peoria, AZ 85381
H. Res. 1342 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 15, 2008. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

(1) COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

REFORM.—Ms. Speier. 

(2) COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

Ms. Edwards of Maryland (to rank immediately after 

Ms. Richardson). 

(3) COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE.—Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Ethiopia

                    On September 17, 2021, by Executive Order 14046, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in and in relation to northern Ethiopia.                

The situation in and in relation to northern Ethiopia, which has been marked by activities that threaten the peace, security, and stability of Ethiopia and the greater Horn of Africa region, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14046 of September 17, 2021, must continue in effect beyond September 17, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14046 with respect to Ethiopia.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2023-19742

Billing code 3395-F3-P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10937 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Daniel Salgado,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23

- CR

- 82

- 1

**_______________________ _______**  Before **King, Haynes,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Daniel Salgado appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)( 1 ). Salgado argues that treating a prior felony conviction that increases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b) as a senten cing factor, rather than a separate element of the offense, violates the Constitution. While Salgado’s 12

- month term of

**____________________ _** 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10937 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024No. 23

- 10937

2 imprisonment i s within the otherwise applicable statutory maximum in § 1326(a), he complains that his three

- year term of supervised rel ease exceeds the one

- year statutory maximum that applies without a § 1326(b) enhancement. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(b). However, Salgado concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and merely raises this issue to preserve it for further review. The Government therefore has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief.
Because Salgado is correct that his argument is foreclosed, s ee United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp

. , Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-10937 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2024