alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: ocs@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:18 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.

No "thought police", everyone has a right of conscience

Sincerely,

Roger German

Decatur, IL 62526
From: Gundula Lee

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:26:18 AM

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Gundula Lee

3 Benjamin Hill Road

Newfield, NY 14867
#### Rose Ann Spohre, Respondent, v. The Syracuse and Liverpool Plank Road Company.

Motion denied.
<page>								   EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report.

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

	a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

	b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

	c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and








<page>
5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

   a)	 All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

   b)	 Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.






Date:   March 30, 2004        /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 President,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
                                 general partner of the registrant
From: maritza.sanchez@manheim.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:02:28 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,

Maritza Sanchez

Columbia, PA 17512
EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors
Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-54053 and No. 333-30171) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-60741) on Form S-3, of
Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March
20, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Petroleum Heat and
Power Co., Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
(deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1997, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Petroleum Heat and Power Co.,
Inc.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Stamford, CT
March 26, 1998
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31110

IN THE MATTER OF: GRAND PALAIS RIVERBOAT, INC., CRESCENT CITY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., and CRESCENT CITY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. LIQUIDATION TRUST, Debtors, GRAND PALAIS LITIGATION TRUST; CRESCENT CITY LIQUIDATION TRUST, Appellants,

versus NEW ORLEANS 2000 PARTNERSHIP, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-1241) August 7, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *R. 47.5.4. 2



### Grand Palais Litigation Trust and Crescent City Liquidation Trust appeal an adverse judgment of the district court affirming a judgment of the bankruptcy court. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and pertinent parts of the record, and essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### Mary H. Graves and others, Appellants, v. John Deterling and others, Respondents.

Judgment dismissing complaint affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Cullen, J.
#### Edward Blanchard, Appellant, v. The Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with cost* Opinion by

Learned, P. J,;

Landon, J., nod acting.
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

         In connection with the Annual Report of Marwich II, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1, for the period ending January 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William J. Maender, 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 and 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.



By:   /s/ William J. Maender
      ------------------------------------------------
         William J. Maender
         Chief Financial Officer


August 22, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Randal
B.  McDonald,  Jr.,  Chief  Financial  Officer of VTEX  Energy,  Inc.,  a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

     (1)  the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the year ended July
          31,  2006 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
          Company.


Dated: October 5, 2006             /s/ Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                       Name: Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
                                       Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to VTEX  Energy,  Inc.  and will be retained by VTEX  Energy,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2820

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Melissa R. Ortiz, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2000

Filed: February 10, 2000 

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Melissa R. Ortiz appeals her sentence for conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine. For reversal, Ortiz raises various challenges to the government's

failure to move for a sentencing departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 5K1.1, p.s. (1999), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).

We reject these contentions. Ortiz did not complain at sentencing about the lack

of a departure motion, the plea agreement preserved the government's discretion

whether to move for departure, and Ortiz made no substantial threshold showing the
-2-

government acted irrationally, in bad faith, or based on an unconstitutional motive. See

United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 617-18 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Romsey,

975 F.2d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Oransky, 908 F.2d 307, 309 (8th

Cir. 1990). As to Ortiz's sentencing-continuance argument, we note the district court

granted her motion for a continuance.

We also reject Ortiz's contention that she should receive a downward departure

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (1999) based on her postoffense rehabilitation, youth, minor role, and parental obligations--a departure she did

not seek at the time of her sentencing. Cf. United States v. Favara, 987 F.2d 538, 540

(8th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  491                                                                                   Trade Date:  10/04/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                                              Issue Date:   10/07/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementOctober 4, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QWL1     5.25%      10/15/24        100%          2.73%             Monthly                       YES          YES                         Callable at 100% beginning 10/15/08 and monthlythereafter.

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$11,475,000.00       $11,161,732.50       ABN AMRO Inc.        11/15/04              30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $175.562 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
#### James A. Butterfield, Appellant, v. James Duffy, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1286 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1286

   To provide for greater access to child care services for Federal 
                               employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2001

 Mrs. Carnahan (for herself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for greater access to child care services for Federal 
                               employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care Affordability for Federal 
Employees Act''.

SEC. 2. CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--An Executive agency that provides or proposes to 
provide child care services for Federal employees may use appropriated 
funds (otherwise available to such agency for salaries and expenses) to 
provide child care, in a Federal or leased facility, or through 
contract, for civilian employees of such agency.
    (b) Affordability.--Amounts used to provide such child care 
services with respect to any such facility or contractor shall be 
applied to improve the affordability of child care for lower income 
Federal employees using or seeking to use the child care services 
offered by such facility or contractor.
    (c) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, issue regulations necessary to carry out this section.
    (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Executive 
agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 105 of title 5, 
United States Code, but does not include the General Accounting Office.
                                 <all>
```
From: J Reyes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception Access

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:37:36 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.

Jessica Reyes

jwreyes73@yahoo.com
From: Carma725@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:01 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,

Carmella Steen

Farmington, MI 48334