alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Karen Offen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you VERY MUCHfor supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:28:00 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012. BRAVO!!!

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs. YOU DID THE RIGHT THING!

Sincerely,

Karen Offen

450 Raymundo

Woodside, CA 94062
From: mgtrammell@mindspring.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:38 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,

Ginny Trammell

Birmingham, AL 35216
From: mestorms279@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:30 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.

As a healthcare worker, I feel that this violates the right of conscience to perform duties by all

healthcare personnel.

Sincerely,

Margaret Storms

Highland, IN 46322
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First KeystoneCorporation (the “Corporation”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, J. GeraldBazewicz, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

 

15.                    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

16.                    The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of and forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  | March 11, 2008                   |   | /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | J. Gerald Bazewicz                    |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Estate of * From the 220th District

Amber Lea Lowery, deceased, Court of Comanche County,

 Trial Court No. CV13613.

No. 11-14-00253-CV * October 16, 2014

 * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against 

Michael L. Lowery.
From: mariovian@ameritech.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:24 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,

Mario Vian

Indianapolis, IN 46219
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Willard B. Munroe, Respondent, v. The New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Follett, Jy not sitting.
From: george@panalaw.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:25:41 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,

George Armbruster III

Youngsville, LA 70592
---

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, 2005 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 28, 2006                

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.

---
#### Donald R. CASTEEL, by next friend, Georgia Casteel Jones v. GREAT SOUTHERN TRUCKING COMPANY and Ralph J. Medders.

Civ. A. No. 3303.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

Oct. 30, 1958.

*436Kelley & DiRisio, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Kefauver, Duggan & McDonald, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendants.

DARR, Chief Judge.

On July 28, 1958, the defendants filed a petition to remove this case from the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, to this court. On August 11, 1958, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand because the amount sued for did not exceed $10,000.

On July 25, 1958, an amendment to, the statutes regarding jurisdiction of the federal district courts raised the minimum amount required for jurisdiction from over $3,000 to ovér $10,000. The statute applicable here is 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as amended. The amending act, Public Law 85-554, stated in section 3 that, “This Act shall apply only in the case of actions commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act.” 72 Stat. 415. The defendants contend that the case now before the Court was commenced (in the state court) prior to July 25, 1958, and that the amending Act does not apply. The plaintiff contends that “commenced”, as used in the Act, means “commenced in the federal court”.

The question is one of jurisdiction, and prior to the time of the filing of the petition for removal there was no jurisdiction in this court. It is true that there was inchoate jurisdiction from the time of the filing of the case in the state court until the effective date of the statute, but this inchoate jurisdiction was not exercised by this Court and was cut off by the passage of the amendment to the Code section in question. Lorraine Motors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1958, 166 F.Supp. 319. It has long been well settled that the jurisdictional requirements must be met at the time when the federal court assumes jurisdiction of the case. Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance Co., 264 U.S. 182, 44 S.Ct. 266, 31 A.L.R. 867. As stated in 76 C.J.S. Removal of Causes § 2, page 918, “ * * * the law in effect at the time of the application to remove controls”.

The motion to remand is granted.

Order accordingly.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00383- CV TEX AS D EP AR TM EN T OF P UB LIC SAF ETY ,

Appellant/Cross-Appe llee

v . J ulian TOR

RE S , III , Appellee /Cross-Appellant F ro m th e 22 9th

Judic ia l D istri c t Co ur

t, S ta rr County , T e xas Trial Court No. DC-05-98 Honora ble Alex W . Gabe rt , J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dec ember 17, 2008 REVERSED and REMANDED The pa rties have filed a “Joi nt Motion to Set Aside and Remand” stating the y have r eac hed

a se ttl e me nt, a nd re qu e sti ng that we se t asi de the tr ia l court ’s jud g me nt wit ho ut re g a rd to the me ri ts and re mand t h e ca u se to the trial cour t for fur ther proc eeding s in acc ordanc e with the par ties’s settlement ag ree ment. The motion is gr anted. The judg ment of the trial c ourt signe d on Marc h 12, 2008 is rever sed, and the cause is remande d to the trial court f or fur ther proc eeding s. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .1 (a )( 2) (B ), 43 .2 (d ). Cos ts o f a pp e a l a re ta xed

a g a ins t the pa

rt ie s who ha ve inc ur

re d th e m. PER C URI AM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40230

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SEAN DEQUINCE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CR-5-1

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

December 21, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sean DeQuince Brown (“Brown”) appeals his convictions

involving bank robbery and the use of a firearm during the

commission of a crime of violence. He argues that (1) his waiver

of the right to counsel was (a) involuntarily made because he was

forced to choose between proceeding with ineffective counsel and

proceeding pro se and (b) unknowingly made because the magistrate

judge’s inquiry into the waiver was inadequate; (2) the district

court erred in admitting his confession; (3) the district court

violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
No. 99-40230

-2-

Amendment by admitting hearsay testimony; and (4) the evidence

was insufficient to support his convictions.

This court has reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties. This court rejects Brown’s argument that his waiver of

the right to counsel was involuntarily made because the record

does not show that he was forced to choose between proceeding

with ineffective counsel and proceeding pro se. See Richardson

v. Lucas, 741 F.2d 753, 757 (5th Cir. 1984). This court rejects

Brown’s argument that his waiver of the right to counsel was

unknowingly made because the magistrate judge’s inquiry into the

waiver was adequate. See Neal v. Texas, 870 F.2d 312, 314 (5th

Cir. 1989). This court rejects Brown’s argument that the

district court erred in admitting his confession because he did

not raise an issue as to the voluntariness of his confession in

the district court and does not explain how the evidence in the

record would “clearly raise” a question as to the voluntariness

of his confession. See United States v. Iwegbu, 6 F.3d 272, 274

(5th Cir. 1993). This court rejects Brown’s argument that the

district court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause

by admitting hearsay testimony because the testimony of Agents

Angel Martinez and Blake McConnell did not contain hearsay as

Brown asserts. See United States v. Cheramie, 51 F.3d 538, 541

(5th Cir. 1995). This court rejects Brown’s argument that

insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions because

Brown did not adequately brief his aiding-and-abetting claim, see

United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1031, 1080, 1137 (1999), and Brown’s argument
No. 99-40230

 3

about hearsay is foreclosed by the earlier conclusion that the

testimony of Agents Martinez and McConnell did not contain

hearsay. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
From: bvellia@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:25 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,

Brenda Vellia

Hertford, NC 27944
EXHIBIT 23
                                             


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                                       25

<PAGE>


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-KSB) of First Keystone Corporation of our report dated January 9,
1996, included in the 1995 Annual Report to Stockholders of First Keystone
Corporation.


                                         /s/ J. J. Williams & Co., LLP
March 22, 1996                          J. H. Williams & Co., LLP
Kingston, Pennsylvania                  Certified Public Accountants


                                       26

<PAGE>


                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE


                                       27

<PAGE>