alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: taevans@buckeye-express.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.

Sincerely,

William Evans

Maumee, OH 43537
From: Schwenk, David J - DWD

To: Schwenk, David J - DWD

Subject: Greetings 15/08/2011

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:31:18 PM

Greetings 15/08/2011

Good day to you my friend. I am Daniel Tsai

from Hong Kong. I want you to be my partner in a

business/investment project of $44.5Million. 50%

will be your share.

Please reply me back via my PRIVATE e-mail

address for more information

danieltsai11@yahoo.com.hk or danieltsai95@aol.com

When I get your reply, you will have more details

from me. Best Regards, Daniel Tsai
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN J. BYERS,

Appellant,

v.

ANTIQUERS AERODROME, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3171

[November 19, 2020]

Consolidated appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Economic 

Opportunity; L.T. Case No. 18-37 and DOAH L.T. Case No. 18-1732.

Robert L. Shearin, Esq. of Law Offices of Robert L. Shearin, Boca Raton, 

for appellant.

Keith F. Backer, Esq. and Jonathan A. Yellin, Esq. of Backer Aboud 

Poliakoff & Foelster, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 239.

#### Farmers Union Corp. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*Ralph A. Yeo*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox,*

*Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Meyer Rothwacks*for respondent.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: spkelley2007@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:25 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,

Sandra Kelley

Columbia, MD 21046
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1392 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 27, 2008.
Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound financial plan;
Whereas life insurance provides financial security for families by helping 
        surviving members meet immediate and long-term financial obligations and 
        objectives in the event of a premature death in their family;
Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens lack the adequate level 
        of life insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
        for their loved ones;
Whereas life insurance products protect against the uncertainties of life by 
        enabling individuals and families to manage the financial risks of 
        premature death, disability, and long-term care;
Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit from professional 
        insurance and financial planning advice, including an assessment of 
        their life insurance needs; and
Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have designated September 2008 
        as ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month'' as a means to encourage 
        consumers to--

    (1) become more aware of their life insurance needs;

    (2) seek professional advice regarding life insurance; and

    (3) take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their 
loved ones: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance 
        Awareness Month''; and
            (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, schools, 
        nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the citizens of the United 
        States to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
ROY LYNN FOREHAND,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, 

Florida Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

____________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0606

Opinion filed March 3, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Roy Lynn Forehand, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Cranford Company, Respondent, *v.*William R. Willcox et al., as Public Service Commissioners for the First District of the State of New York, Appellants.

*People ex rel. Cranford Co.*v. *Willcox,*153 App. Div. 759, modified.

(Argued February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 20, 1912, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to certify to the comptroller of the city of New York for payment the amount *744of an award made on arbitration of a claim for extra work alleged to have been performed under a contract with said city.

*Henry H. Whitman*and *George S. Coleman*for appellants.

*Edward M. Grout*and *James F. McKinney*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The questions raised by the appellants are very satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the Appellate Division with a single exception and that relates to the allowance of interest upon the award. We think the allowance of such interest was not justified either by the terms of the submission or by the character of the relator’s claim. There is no reference to the subject of interest in the agreement for submission to arbitration, nor is there anything in the language of the agreement from which an intent to submit the question of interest may be fairly implied. The character of the relator’s claim also negatives the suggestion that it is one upon which interest may be awarded either as a liquidated demand or one capable of liquidation by mere computation. It was for extra work and by the very terms of the contract the question was first to be determined whether the relator had done any extra work before the amount of its compensation therefor could be fixed by arbitration. Under these circumstances there was no liquidated claim until the amount was fixed by the award.

The order should, therefore, be modified by directing that the writ require the certification of the amount of the award, but without interest up to the time of the final award, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
From: carlarocks@a1dps.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:20 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,

Carla Spaulding

Agoura Hills, CA 91301
#### JAMES P. CONNER and WILLIAM C. CONNER, Executors, etc., of WILLIAM C. CONNER, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*MARTIN J. KEESE, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

*Practice-- increased costs in an action against a public officer*— *when not allowed in an action upon an indemnity*bond— *Code of Oiml Procedure, sec.*8258, *sub.*1.

An action, brought by a sheriff against a deputy and the sureties upon a bond given by such deputy to insure the faithful performance of the duties of his office, to recover for a breach of the conditions thereof, is not an action in which the defendants, if successful, are entitled to increased costs under subdivision 1 of section 3258 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeal from an order made at the New York circuit, denying a motion to vacate a certificate that the defendant was entitled to ■costs, and from an order of the Special Term, denying the plaintiff’s motion to readjust the costs by striking out $127.50.

*Henry*Thompson, for the appellants.

*George W,*Stephens, for the respondent.

Davis, P. J.:

This action was brought upon a bond of indemnity given by the ■defendant Martin J. Keese and the other defendants in the action, as sureties for the faithful performance of his duties as a deputy *125sheriff. The sheriff seeks to recover damages sustained by reason-of a breach of the bond.

At the trial the defendants succeeded. A certificate was givenhy the trial judge that the defendants were entitled to increased costs. A motion was made at the Special Term to vacate this certificate and to readjust the costs by striking out the sum of $127.50, which represents the increased costs. The motion was denied.

The action being upon a bond of indemnity, it was not within the provisions of section 3258 of the Code, subdivision 1. It was not an action *“*brought by reason of an act done by him by virtue of his office, or an alleged omission by him to do an act which it was his official duty to perform.” That section relates to actions brought against a public officer by a party alleged to have been injured by the official action or the omission to act of such officer directly affecting him or his property. The motion should therefore have been granted and the order should be reversed in both respects, as the defendant was not entitled to the certificate or to the increased: costs.

Order reversed and motion granted, without costs.

Beady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed and motion granted, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32(b) 

ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WWA Group, Inc. (“Registrant”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Digamber Naswa, chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Registrant.

         

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

November 15, 2005 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0401

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF:

A.S.D.,

 A Minor.

O R D E R

_________________

The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on September 22, 2020. Nothing 

further has been filed, and the opening brief is now overdue.

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant L.N.D. shall prepare, file and serve the opening 

brief on appeal no later than December 7, 2020. Failure to file the brief within that time 

will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellant L.N.D. and to all 

parties of record. 

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 6 2020

11/06/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0401
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
The Board of Directors
CUISINE SOLUTIONS, INC.:
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements,
(Nos. 33-60614 and 33-60616) on Form S-8 of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. of our
report dated August 30, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Cuisine Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated statement of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended, and related schedule, which report appears in the
June 30, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Cuisine Solutions, Inc.


                                                      GRANT THORNTON LLP

Vienna, Virginia
August 30, 2001
From: wintz5@usiwireless.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:14 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,

Terry Wintz

Minneapolis, MN 55406
<page>				       EXHIBIT 32.01


CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley  Cornerstone
Fund III L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, 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 Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		March 23, 2007
From: tpc1133@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please Reject Exemptions for Religious Employers

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:36:24 AM

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,

Patricia Davis Chang