alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1299 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 243
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1299

                          [Report No. 110-733]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the 
 intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 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. 3195) to restore the 
 intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the 
intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 
Labor now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3195 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 243

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1299

                          [Report No. 110-733]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the 
 intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 24, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
From: bethejones@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:45 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,

Beth Jones

Troy, OH 45373
Department of Defense Comments on1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene Dose-Response Assessment and Supplemental InformationComments submitted by: Chemical Material RiskManagement ProgamOrganization: Department of Defense Date Submitted: 5/23/2012*Comment categories: Science or methods (S); Editorial, grammar/spelling, clarifications needed (E); or Other (O). Also pleaseindicate if Major i.e. affects the outcome,conclusions or implementation of the assessment.CommentNo.SectionPagesCommentSuggested Action, Revision and References(if necessary)*Category1 1.1Compared to the first IASD draft oftrimethylbenzenes, EPA’s synthesis of thetoxicological data and integrated summary ofinformation was greatly improved, such that thereader was able to understand basic informationto assess each study.N/A S2 1.1, Table 1-2 1-3It doesn't seem mathematically possible for the% of lymphocytes to be 79.3 +/- 78% or 84 +/-78% in a group of 10 rats. Even if 7 rats have100% lymphocytes and 2 rats have 0%lymphocytes, the 10th rat must have93% lymphocytes to yield an average of 79.3%lymphocytes; in this group, the SD would only be41.9%Please verify the % lymphocytes for the 1230mg/m3 groups of rats.S3 1.1.3 1-10EPA’s consideration of possible “reversibility” ofthe neurologic effect (Korsak and Rydzynski1996) is adequately discussed and the rationalefor keeping this endpoint more convincing.N/A SWe apreciate EPA’s effort to address thisissue.4 1.1.3 1-11Compared to the first IASD draft of the TMBdocument the strengths and limitations of thedatabase are more clearly discussed.N/A S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

DUANE MONTGOMERY,

 Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:16-hc-02218-BR)

Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States 

Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Dodson, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Duane Montgomery appeals the district court's order finding by a preponderance 

of the evidence that he is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect for the 

treatment of which he is in need of custody for care and treatment in a suitable facility 

and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and 

treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (2012). Montgomery contends that the district court 

clearly erred in reaching this conclusion. We affirm.

In finding that Montgomery satisfied the criteria for commitment, the district court 

relied on two written forensic evaluations prepared by staff at FMC–Butner as well as the 

testimony of a third forensic psychologist. The unanimous conclusion of the medical 

personnel was that Montgomery suffered from a mental disease or defect for which he 

required treatment at a suitable facility. Montgomery presented no evidence to contradict 

these opinions. Based on Montgomery's medical history, the written evaluations, and the 

sworn testimony, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that 

he met the criteria for commitment under § 4245.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 20, 1997,
except for Note 11, as to which the date is April 14, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SGI International, included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996, filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.




                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 16, 1999
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                               CCFNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CEO 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 CCFNB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lance
O. Diehl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

Date: March 9, 2005               /s/ Lance O. Diehl
                                  ------------------
                                  Lance O. Diehl
                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                       85
From: Docs

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventative Care & Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:54:37 PM

To whom it may concern,

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.

Sincerely,

Joseph S. Cox
Exhibit 32





Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)





The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of StellarOne Corporation, respectively, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of StellarOne Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.





Date: November 12, 2010




/s/ O. R. Barham, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jeffrey W. FarrarExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 222 (Wednesday, November 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 72132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (234) Portable Electronic 
Devices (PEDs) and EUROCAE WG-99 Plenary #6

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Third RTCA Special Committee 234 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Third RTCA Special Committee 234 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 20-22 from 08:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., khofmann@rtca.org, (202) 
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 234. The agenda 
will include the following:

Wednesday, January 20, 2015

1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks
2. Introductions
3. Agenda Review
4. Meeting-Minutes Review
5. Status Report of Task-Group Leaders (TG #1-#4)
    a. TG-1--General Background, Regulations, App, etc
    b. TG-2--Front Door Guidance
    c. TG-3--Back Door Guidance
    d. TG-4--Continuous Airworthiness
6. Review of Completeness of previous WG-99/SC-234 tasks
7. Integration of outcome into Revised ED-130 and new RTCA document 
structure
8. DO-307 Update
9. Review of program schedule
10. Any other Business
11. Date and Place of Next Meeting
12. Adjourn

Thursday, January 21, 2015

1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

Friday, January 22, 2015

1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on November 10, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support 
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-29388 Filed 11-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
From: bschutsky@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:45:20 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,

Brian Schutsky

Acton, MA 01720
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 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),  the
undersigned officer of VTEX Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), in his Form 10-QSB for
the period  ended  January 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that to his knowledge:

     (1) the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date:  March 31, 2003

/s/  Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
----------------------------
Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer



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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Intrusion Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Paxton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|August 6, 2004 | /s/MICHAEL L. PAXTONMichael L. Paxton
Chief Financial Officer
|-------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
From: Lila Aurich

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support access to contraceptive services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:56:42 PM

Like other members of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) I strongly ask you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine relating to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law. Just as strongly I urge you to reject any exemptions for “religious

employers.” Many, many women will benefit from these essential preventive services

The proposed “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, in a situation where services should be based on medical need, not ideology or faith.

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.

Sincerely,

Lila Aurich
From: stapleschurchofchrist@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:09:31 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,

Barry Klein

Staples, MN 56479