alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 402 OF

THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT

JUDGES :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 436

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of July

, 201 9 , upon the recommendation of the Minor

Court Rules Committee, the proposal having been publ ished for public comment at 45

Pa.B. 1252 (March 14, 2015) and 47 Pa.B. 7305 (December 2, 2017) :

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania

tha t Rule 402 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure B efore Magisterial District

Judges is amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall

be effective on January 1, 2020

.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(b)



                            D&N CAPITAL CORPORATION
               Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend requirements


                   For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2001
                          (In thousands, except ratio)
<TABLE>

 <S>                                                    <C>
   Net income                                            $  971

   Fixed charges:
       Advisory fees                                         42

   Total fixed charges                                       42

   Earnings before fixed charges                         $1,013

   Fixed charges, as above                                   42

   Preferred stock dividend requirement                     681

   Fixed charges including preferred stock dividends     $  723

   Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
       stock dividends requirements                        1.40

</TABLE>


                                      12
No. 299, Misc.

#### Janek *v.*Federal Pacific Electric Co.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Isidor Kalisch*for respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
From: jerrylaursen@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:09:42 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,

Gerald Laursen

Spokane, WA 99206
#### Loretta I. Gallagher, as Executrix of Edward J. Gallagher, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Gallagher*v. *Long Island R. R. Co.,*143 App. Div. 904, affirmed.

(Submitted December 13,1913;

decided December 31, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 24, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant.

*Adolph Huger, W. P. Vinning*and *Thomas W. Butts*for appellant.

*William C. Beecher*and *Joseph F. Keany*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
H. Res. 1333 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 25, 2008. 

Whereas Tay-Sachs disease is a rare, genetic disorder that 

causes destruction of nerve cells in the brain and spinal 

cord due to the poor functioning of an enzyme called 

beta-hexosaminidase A; 

Whereas there is no proven treatment or cure for Tay-Sachs 

disease, which is always fatal in children; 

Whereas the disorder was named after Warren Tay, an ophthalmologist from the United Kingdom, and Bernard 

Sachs, a neurologist from the United States, both of 

whom contributed to the discovery of the disease in 1881 

and 1887, respectively; 

Whereas Tay-Sachs disease often affects families with no 

prior history of the disease; 

Whereas approximately 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews, 1 in 30 

Louisianan Cajuns, 1 in 30 French Canadians, 1 in 50 

Irish Americans, and 1 in every 250 people are carriers 

of Tay-Sachs disease; 

Whereas approximately 1,200,000 Americans are carriers of 

Tay-Sachs disease; 

Whereas these unaffected carriers of the disease possess the 

recessive gene that can trigger the disease in future generations; 
2 

•HRES 1333 EH 

Whereas if both parents of a child are carriers of Tay-Sachs 

disease, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the child will develop Tay-Sachs disease; 

Whereas a blood test can determine if an individual is a carrier of Tay-Sachs disease, and those citizens who are 

members of high-risk populations should consider being 

screened; and 

Whereas heightened awareness and continued research efforts 

are the best ways to find a treatment for this horrific disease: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of Tay-Sachs Awareness Month and encourages and supports education and research efforts with respect to Tay-Sachs disease. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Gevity HR, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:  November 13, 2003 |  | /s/ ERIK VONK                                                                                   
|------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          |  | Erik Vonk
                                                     Chief Executive Officer          
|                          |  |                                                                                                 
|                          |  | /s/ PETER C. GRABOWSKI                                                                          
|                          |  | Peter C. Grabowski
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
|                          |  |                                                                                                 
|                          |  |                                                                                                 
|                          |  |
From: keithbwebb@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:36 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,

Keith Webb

Snowflake, AZ 85937
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:13 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,

Ricky Williams

Santa Rosa, CA 95403
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the annual report of TransGlobe Energy
  Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December
  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the “Report”), I, David C. Ferguson, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

| | 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.

|/s/ David Ferguson                                                                  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                    | 
|Name: David C. Ferguson 
      Title: Chief Financial Officer 
      March 24, 2005 | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule
  13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it relates,
  is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to
  be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
  Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
  the date of the Form 40-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language
  contained in such filing.

---
October 8, 1962.*

No. 282,

October Term, 1961.

#### Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., *v.*Ellerman Lines, Ltd., et al.,

*T. E. Byrne, Jr.*for respondents.

*Francis E. Marshall*for petitioner.

*

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of cases in which orders were this day announced.

369 U. S. 355,

The motion of respondents to recall and amend the judgment is denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
From: corinne_smith@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Corinne Smith

Collierville, TN 38017
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 906

EX PA R TE JI M M Y ED W A R D PA R K ER , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. F - 2 0 0 3 - 0 8 6 6 - EW HC1 I N T HE 3 6 7 TH DI S TR I CT COURT FROM DENTO N CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial court transmitt ed to this Court this application for writ of ha beas c orpus. Ex

pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was c onvicted of three counts of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child and sentenc ed to life on one count and 99 y ear s’ imprisonment on the re maining cou n t s . The Second Court of Appea ls affirme d his conviction. Parker v . State, No. 2-05-265- CR (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, August 17, 2006, no pe t ). Ap pli c ant c on te nd s, inter alia, that his tr ia l couns e l re nd e re d ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e be c a us e counsel fa iled to: adequately consult with Applicant bef ore tria l; investigate and intervie w State’switnesses and pote ntial defe nse witnesses; and f ile a re quest fo r n o t i ce of intent to introduce extraneous offe nse evide nce. Th e tr ia l c ourt

ha s d e te rm ine d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l’ s p e rf orma nc e wa s d e fi c ie nt a

nd that hi s defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

judiced Applica

nt. The habe as re cord s u p p o rt s the trial cour t’s fac tual de te rm inatio ns a s w e ll a s it s c on c lus ions of law
. W e fi nd , th e re fo re , th a t a pp lic ant i s e nti tle d to relief . The judg ment of convic tion in Case No. F- 2003-0866-E in the 367 District Court of Denton th County is s e t a sid e , a

nd App lic ant i s r e mand e d to the c us tod y of the She ri ff

of De nto n Co un ty

to
answe r the c harg e ag ainst him. A copy of this opini on shall be for war ded to the Te x as De partment of Criminal J ustice – Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division.

Deliver ed: April 30, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
No. 644.

#### American Stevedores, Inc., *v.*United States.

*John T. Reges*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Joseph M. Howard*and *Burton Berkley*for the United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: katlin@noblecompany.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:43 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,

KATLIN DYKSTRA

Muskegon, MI 49441
#### James W. Whitney and others v. Adolphus Hoffstadt and others.

Motion denied.