alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: 9jackie.s@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:42 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,

Jackie Sullivan

Gilbert, AZ 85233
No. 50, Misc.

#### Sostre *v.*Wilkins, Warden, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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:	May 14, 2004

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
From: sperry@christianhomes.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:17 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,

Sharon Perry

Abilene, TX 79601
From: Scott Steiner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception.

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:30:51 AM

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.

Thank you,

Scott Steiner
From: marianne200026@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:58 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,

Marianne Plenge

Tilton, NH 03276
#### Mary A. Gilbert, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Hartford and Connecticut Western Railroad Company, Appellant

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, witlr costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13635

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KHOURTNEY BROWN, 

a.k.a. Kok,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cr-00097-RAH-SMD-3

USCA11 Case: 23-13635 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13635

____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) 

(sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly 

and voluntarily); United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166, 1169 (11th 

Cir. 1999) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right 

to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error); 

United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (sentence 

appeal waiver was enforceable because the district court “effectively conveyed to [the defendant] that he was giving up his right 

to appeal his sentence under most circumstances”).

USCA11 Case: 23-13635 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2024 Page: 2 of 2
No. 450.

#### Mahler et al. *v.*United States.

*Robert A. Cohen*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Alan S. Rosenthal*for the United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [RTID 0648-XD182]

# AGENCY:

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

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        NMFS published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 7, 2023, concerning the proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA) for take of marine mammals incidental to construction activities, including pile driving, to install a point of delivery metering station and a tie-in facility in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. That notice included an incorrect email address for submitting public comments. This notice provides a correction to that email address; all other information is unchanged.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Tucker, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 7, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-19310, on page 61530, in the third column, correct the                     **ADDRESSES**                     caption to read:                 

**ADDRESSES:**                     Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division,                           ( print page 64888)                        Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to                     *ITP.Tucker@noaa.gov.*

Dated: September 14, 2023.

Kimberly Damon-Randall,

Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2023-20297 Filed 9-15-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10077.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10077.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
EXHIBIT 24.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-45396 and 333-26567) on Form S-8 of Ross Cosmetics Distributions
Centers, Inc. and Tristar Corporation, respectively, of our report dated
December 4, 1998, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Tristar Corporation and subsidiaries as of
August 29, 1998 and August 30, 1997, and for the years then ended, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
December 4, 1998
From: Anita_Delagarza@ahm.acura.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Conscience

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:14:08 PM

"The current definition of religious employer does not provide true

conscience protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care

plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions

of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care

system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal

access to health care and religious freedom of conscience."

Anita S. Delagarza

Acura Parts and Service Zone 6

Irving, TX

972-929-5461
No. 383, Misc.

#### Handley *v.*Murphy, Warden.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
ITEM 77M: Mergers
Value Line Income & Growth Fund, Inc. - Value Line Convertible
Fund, Inc.

On December 15, 2011, a special Meeting of Shareholders
(the Meeting) of the Value Line Convertible Fund, Inc.
(the Acquired Fund) was held to consider and vote upon a Plan of
Reorganization (the Reorganization) between the Value Line
Convertible Fund, Inc. and Value Line Income & Growth Fund, Inc.
(the Surviving Fund).

On December 16, 2011, the Surviving Fund acquired all of the assets
and assumed the liabilities of the Acquired Fund, in a tax-free
exchange for Federal tax purposes, pursuant to the Reorganization
approved by the Boards of both Funds and shareholders of record of
the Acquired Fund as of the applicable record date.
EXHIBIT 99.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 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:	May 15, 2003

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion to dismiss appeal denied October 16,

appeal dismissed December 11, 1923,

rehearing denied January 8, 1924.

#### W. *Z.*MOSS *v.*E. E. WOODCOCK.

(220 Pac. 1017.)

Appeal and Error — Statute Abolishing Appeals Applies Equally to Pending and Unperfected Appeals.

1. Laws of 1923, page 216, abolishing the right to appeal in cases where the amount is less than $250, applies to pending as well as unperfeeted appeals, and deprives the court of jurisdiction over either.

Appeal and Error — Court will Dismiss Unperfected Appeal Barred by Intervening Statute, to Avoid Needless Trouble.

2. Where to allow an appeal to stand for hearing would have involved needless trouble owing to remoteness of counsel and parties, and the court would have had to decline jurisdiction because of Laws of 1923, page 216, abolishing appeals in certain eases, it dismissed the appeal without hearing.

Prom Lake: J. M. Batchelder, Judge.

In Banc.

Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.

For the motion, *Mr. 8. A. Jetmore.*

Contra, *Mr. O. M. CorJcins.*

MoBRIDE, C. J.

This was a civil action in which the amount in controversy was less than $250. The appeal in this case was perfected and the transcript filed in this court on the thirteenth day of July, 1923, within the time as extended by orders of the Circuit Court.

1. Chapter 153, Laws of Oregon of 1923, providing that no appeal “shall be taken or allowed” where the amount in controversy is less than $250, went into effect on May 23, 1923. A motion to dismiss the appeal for this and other reasons was filed October 4, 1923, and was overruled without a written *598opinion. Since that date we have had occasion, in *Libby*v. *Southern Pac. Co.,*ante, p. 449 (219 Pac. 604), and upon a motion- for rehearing in the same case in which an opinion was filed on this date, critically to examine and consider the effect of the statute of 1923 above cited, and have arrived at the conclusion that it applies as well to pending cases as to those in which appeals had not been perfected, and that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

2. In view of the fact that Lake County is remote from the capital we feel that it would be involving counsel and the parties in needless expense and trouble to allow this appeal to stand for final hearing, when at the very threshold of such hearing we would be obliged to decline jurisdiction of the appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.
***EXHIBIT32(a)***

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of WWA Group, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, EricMontandon, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledgeand belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: August 17, 2011

 

 

/s/ Eric Montandon

Eric Montandon

Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

This certification accompaniesthis report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of thisreport), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in suchfiling.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
From: wheart2@peoplepc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margo Cox

Grand Junction, CO 81501
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2023-0027]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments 
for a New Information Collection; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice, ``Agency Information 
Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information 
Collection,'' published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Jodoin, 202-366-5465, Office of 
Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice published 
in the Federal Register on September 15, 2023, at 88 FR 63644 (FR 
Number 2023-20021).

    Issued on: September 15, 2023.
Jazmyne Lewis,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-20344 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P