alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**
 CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.  33-92053, 33-2171, 33-17848 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 1), 33-33803, 33-33807,  33-39323, 33-36911, 33-45176, 33-45231, 33-45233, 33-56952, 33-58708, 33-72158,  033-55265 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 1), 033-60379, 033-63547, 333-11639,  333-15923, 333-29099, 333-70459, 333-74371, 333-34726, 333-44508, 333-50992,  333-59504, 333-64988, and 333-76764 of 3Com Corporation on Form S-8 of our report  dated June 25, 2003 (July 28, 2003 as to Note 23) (which expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement  of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible  Assets” and an explanatory paragraph regarding the restatement of 3Com  Corporation’s consolidated statements of operations for the years ended  May 31, 2002 and June 1, 2001 to account for CommWorks as a discontinued operation),  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of 3Com Corporation for the year  ended May 30, 2003.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 
San Jose, California  August 1, 2003
Exhibit 32.2  Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(ii)the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.  Dated: May 1, 2007By:/s/ JAMES J. JUDGEJames J. JudgeSenior Vice President,Treasurer and ChiefFinancial Officer
From: hhillan@ptd.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:17 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,

Edward Hillanbrand

Jim Thorpe, PA 18229
No. 420.

#### Ghioto et al. *v.*Hampton et al.

*Elmer E. Hazard*for petitioners.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Sarah Tomlinson, Respondent and Appellant, v. Catherine S. Seifert, Respondent and Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, without cost of the appeal to either party. Opinion by

Bradley, J. ;

Barker, J., not sitting.
Argued October 9,

affirmed November 13, 1923.

#### C. F. SENTER *v.*PENINSULA LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation.

(220 Pac. 139.)

From Multnomah.: Robert Tucker, Judge.

Department 2.

Affirmed.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Mr. G. A. Hart*and *Messrs. Carey & Kerr,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Hart.*

For respondent there was a brief over the names of *Mr. John W. Kaste*and *Mr. Jay Bowerman,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Kaste.*

MoCOURT, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant in blowing off a boiler and permitting the steam therefrom to enter the place where plaintiff was working. From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

The questions, both of law and of fact, presented by this appeal are identical with those considered by the court in the case of *Hicks*v. *Peninsula Lumber Co., ante,*p. 305 (220 Pac. 133). For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the Circuit .Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McBride, C. J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

October 27, 1965

No. 69604.

#### C. M. Import & Export Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/7570, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 69019, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Bonnie Breckenridge

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: women’s preventive health care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:40:17 PM

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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each ofthe undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of NetBank,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 9, 2005                  |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Douglas K. Freeman                |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                  |
| /s/ Steven F. Herbert                 |   |
| Chief Finance Executive               |

 

44

----
----

| Delaware                                       | 37-1105865                           |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification Number) |

|   |   |   | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)                  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)                 |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |

----

| d)     | Exhibits: |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|
|   |      | 99.1   | Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated January 26, 2012 |
|   |      |   |   |
|   |      |   |   |

| Date:  January 26, 2012 |           By:  /s/ J. Wesley Blumenshine                                                      |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                       J. Wesley Blumenshine |
|                              |                       Secretary             |

----

| EXHIBIT INDEX  |
|---------------------|
| Exhibit No.         | Description |
|                |   |
| 99.1                | Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated January 26, 2012 |
|                |   |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

August 5, 2015

Matthew Tepper

700 Jeffrey Way, Suite 100

Round Rock, TX 78665

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

David Goad

1154 Rivertree Drive

New Braunfels, TX 78130

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-14-00497-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 12-1923-CV

Style: David C. Goad v. The County of Guadalupe, Texas

Dear Counsel:

The above cause has been set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this 

Court on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, before a panel consisting of Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, 

Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
From: kathleen carland

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: peace of mind

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:46:51 AM

Please allow all women to bear children when they can,,having this peace of mind

brings joy to all people involved..make it safe,,let's bring healthy wanted babies into

this world.

-- 

Kathleen Carland
No. 546, Misc.

#### Bush *v.*Texas.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Carl E. F. Dally*for respondent.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
#### EDWIN PLATT, Executor, etc., of MARY U. WORRALL, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*JOHN GRUBB and BENJAMIN J. HALL, as Executors, etc., of ISAAC WORRALL, Deceased, Appellants.

*Deposit m a savings bank of money of a husband, in the name of the husband and wife*— *right of the survivor to the fund.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action at the Dutchess Special Term by the court without a jury.

Isaac Worrall was the husband of Mary U. Worrall, and both are now dead. The plaintiff is the executor of the wife, and the defendants are the executors of the husband. During the lifetime of both, on the 5th day of July, 1882, the husband made a deposit of $1,500 of his own money in the Mechanics’ Savings Bank, at Eishkill Landing, in the joint names of himself and his wife. It is found as a fact, by the judge before whom the cause was tried without a jmy, that the money was so deposited because it was desired and intended that either might draw the whole or any part thereof during their joint lives, and on the death of either the survivor should be the owner, and have the whole amount then remaining on deposit, with whatever interest might have accumulated thereon. After the death of the husband the defendants, as his executors, obtained possession of the bank-book and drew a small portion of the money, and refuse now to deliver either to the plaintiff. The bank-book and the money were included in the inventory of the husband’s estate, with the assent of the wife, who survived him. The trial judge decided that the money belonged to the husband; that it was deposited in the names of both and went to the survivor; that, in ignorance of her rights, she said it was the money of her husband, and that she had no interest in it, but as the parties had not acted upon this assertion it did not amount to an estoppel.

The court at General Term said: “ By reason of the unity of husband and wife in the view of the law, an obligation taken in the name of both enures to the benefit of both, and the whole goes to *448the survivor. This old rule of law is still prevalent in this State *(Bertles*v. *Nunan,*92 N. Y., 151), and is in favor of the plaintiff here.

“ In the case of *Mulcahey*v. *The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank*(89 N. Y., 135), the plaintiff and her nephew opened a deposit account with the defendant, and the book was issued to the plaintiff or O’Keef, and it was held that the bank was authorized to pay on the separate order of each, and that such right was not terminated by the death of either. This case falls easily under the control of the principles enumerated in the case of *Sanford*v. *Sanford*(15 N. Y., 726, and 58 id., 72). That case, as last reported, is conclusive both on the question of the right of the wife and her waiver thereof.”

We conclude, also, that the discretion of the court was properly exercised on the question of costs, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

*Edward*Grummey, for the appellants.

*Haokett <& Williams,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Dtkman, J.;

Cullen, J., concurred; Barnard, P. J. not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 7, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00669

- CR

Joshua SCHECHTER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437t h Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1922 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appella n t Joshua Schechter entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to which

he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance

. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal , and the district clerk filed a copy of the clerk ’ s record, which

includes the trial court ’ s r ule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement. See

id. R. 25.2(d). We must dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not b een made part of the record. ” Id

.

Here, t he clerk ’ s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also supports the trial court ’ s certification that appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk ’ s record to determine whether trial court ’ s certification is accurate).

A ccordingly, a ppellant is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to r ule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by or before December 9,

2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

, 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref ’ d) (not designated for publication).We ORDER all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We

further ORDER the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court reporter.

__________________ _______________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of November, 2019

.

__________________ _________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
From: th186607@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:15 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,

Theresa Holley

Quinlan, TX 75474
IV 

House Calendar No. 268 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1449 

[Report No. 110–859] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6604) to amend the Commodity 

Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 

Ms. SUTTON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6604) to amend 

the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 6604) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring 

4 greater transparency and accountability to commodity 

5 markets, and for other purposes. All points of order 

6 against consideration of the bill are waived except those 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1449 RH 

1 arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 

2 in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 

3 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 

4 considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be con5 sidered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 

6 amended, are waived. The previous question shall be con7 sidered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage 

8 without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

9 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank10 ing minority member of the Committee on Agriculture; 

11 and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instruc12 tions. 

13 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6604 pursuant 

14 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

15 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid16 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

17 the Speaker. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 268 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1449 

[Report No. 110–859] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6604) 

modity markets, and for other purposes. greater transparency and accountability to comto amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS