alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: K5QPL@etex.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:48:29 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,

Willard Duffey, Sr

Ore City, TX 75683
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI  L.P.,  Series  5 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
December  31,  2003 and  September  30,  2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  and  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of
WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent  that such
     provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership  financial
     statements  to  refer  to the  auditing  standards  of the  Public  Company
     Accounting   Oversight  Board  for  the   Partnership's   annual  financial
     statements and except that the Report is a cumulative  report covering each
     of the quarters ended December 31 and September 30, 2003; and

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




/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
May 16, 2008
1 ING) Page 1 of 1
LEGAL. PROCESSING DIVISION hEG SHO3B 46-10) Se geno
PURLIGAUGD & REOULATIONT oe oan P02 204
BRANCH ,

|As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 29, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 8008791
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of

Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0153
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Urknowa 15
“e Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless

of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
a reality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
|   | (1)  the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d), as                  applicable, 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                  at the dates and for the periods                  indicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |   |   |
| Date:                 August 13, 2007 |   | /s/ Neal              D. Crispin     |   |
|                                       |   | Name: Neal              D. Crispin     |   |
|                                       |   | Title: Title: Chief              Executive Officer |   |
|                                       |   |   |   |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 13, 2022

No. 04-22-00019-CR

Sandra Jo SMALL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-20-0000066

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first and second motions for extension of time to file the 

brief, Appellant’s brief was due on May 11, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). After the twiceextended due date, Appellant filed a third motion, which sought a one-day extension of time to 

file the brief, and the brief. 

Appellant’s motion is granted; the brief is deemed timely filed.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of May, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 5 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
December  31,  2003 and  September 30, 2003 as filed  with  the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  and  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002,  I,  Thomas J.  Riha,  Senior  Vice-President  and Chief  Financial
Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general partner of the Partnership,  hereby
certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent  that such
     provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership  financial
     statements  to  refer  to the  auditing  standards  of the  Public  Company
     Accounting   Oversight  Board  for  the   Partnership's   annual  financial
     statements and except that the Report is a cumulative  report covering each
     of the quarters ended December 31 and September 30, 2003 and

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



/s/Thomas J. Riha
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
May 16, 2008
From: megenhardtl@usa.viscofan.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:24:25 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,

Larry Megenhardt

Catlin, IL 61817
***EXHIBIT 32(b)***

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of WWA Group, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, DigamberNaswa, do 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 and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: May 16, 2011

 

 

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

** **

 

 

 

----
No. 518.

#### Crowe, trading as William A. Crowe Co., *v.*Ragnar Benson, Inc.

*Vincent M. Casey*for petitioner.

*Samuel L. Goldstein*for respondent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         235,011
<SECURITIES>                                   115,398
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               707,510
<PP&E>                                         536,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,809,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          536,326
<BONDS>                                      1,185,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                     (73,333)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,809,170
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,076,812
<CGS>                                          765,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (506)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (247,308)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (248,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (248,716)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (4.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.63)



</TABLE>
#### Bernhard Anderson, Respondent, *v.*Arthur McMullen Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

*Anderson*v. *McMullen,*145 App. Div. 547, affirmed. .

(Argued January 9, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 11, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*E. Clyde Sherwood*and *Amos H. Stephens*for appellant.

*Bertrand L. Pettigrew*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
From: allie_ky_50@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:06 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,

Alene Scott

Mc Andrews, KY 41543
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 23, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1941

Lower Tribunal Nos. F12-27087 & F13-2506

________________

Carrie Jones,

Appellant,

vs.

Mark Inch, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes 

Simon, Judge.

Carrie Jones, in proper person. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee The State of Florida.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
From: tabmustang2000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:01:48 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,

Thomas Bosch

Hudsonville, MI 49426
From: gbrown@cedarville.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gerald Brown

Cedarville, OH 45314