alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of UCI
Medical Affiliates, Inc. ("UCI"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of
UCI on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of UCI. This written
statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided
to UCI and will be retained by UCI and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


December 22, 2006                       /s/ D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                       ------------------------------------
                                        D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                        President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer

                                        /s/ Jerry F. Wells, Jr., CPA
                                        Jerry F. Wells, Jr., CPA
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
From: fridayspad@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:39 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,

Dennis Patek

,
| **Finance Receivables (Details 2) - USD ($) $ in Millions**              | 3 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Receivables [Abstract]**                                               |           |   |
| Finance lease revenue (included in retail and wholesale finance revenue) | $ 106          | $ 104 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_ReceivablesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of sales-type lease revenue.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 270 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 6A -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482964/270-10-50-6AReference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 842 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 5 -Subparagraph (a)(1) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147479773/842-30-50-5
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_SalesTypeLeaseRevenue**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Title of Each Class of | Maximum Aggregate | Amount of |   |
|   | Securities Offered | Offering Price(1) | Registration Fee(2) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 1.500% PowerNotes®  Due September 15, 2020 | $1,388,000 | $139.77 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | TOTAL |   | $139.77 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |

|     |                                    |
|-----|------------------------------------|
| (1) | Excludes accrued interest, if any. |

|     |                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Calculated in accordance with Rule 457(r) under the Securities Act of 1933. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | CUSIP |   | Aggregate | Selling |   | Gross | Net | Coupon |   | Coupon | Coupon | Maturity | 1st Coupon |   | 1st |   | Survivor's |   | Product |   |   |
|   | Number |   | Principal | Price |   | Concession | Proceeds | Type |   | Rate | Frequency | Date | Date |   | Coupon |   | Option |   | Ranking |   |   |
|   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 14912HSU5 |   | $1,388,000.00 | 100% |   | 0.950% | $1,374,814.00 | Fixed |   | 1.500% | Semi- | 09/15/2020 | 03/15/2017 |   | $6.92 |   | Yes |   | Senior Unsecured |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Annual |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Notes |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
From: janetdmorrison@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:15 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,

Janet Morrison

Arcadia, CA 91007
Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLCCPAs and Business Advisors
 Phone (248) 203-0080
 Fax (248) 281-0940
 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175
 Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586
 www.maddoxungar.com
 
 
 January 20, 2010
 
 To the Board of Directors of
 Granto, Inc.
 Pasig City, the Philippines
 
 To Whom It May Concern:
 
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by Granto, Inc. of our report dated June 8, 2009, relating to the financial statements of Granto, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, as of and for the periods ending March
31, 2009 and 2008 and for the period from February 29, 2008 (inception) to March 31, 2009.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 /s/ Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC
 
 Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 143 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 143

 Urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2007

    Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of 
 Pennsylvania, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Snyder, 
 Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Klein of Florida, and Ms. Schwartz) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.

Whereas peace and stability inside the Middle East have a direct and immediate 
        impact on the national security of the United States and our allies 
        around the world;
Whereas diplomacy must be made a central component of United States policy in 
        the Middle East;
Whereas the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories has 
        substantially deteriorated since 2000;
Whereas it is directly in the national interest of the United States to reengage 
        both sides of this dispute in an urgent manner;
Whereas the creation of a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians will 
        reduce tension in the region and help repair America's image in the 
        international community;
Whereas a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute will have a positive 
        influence on the overall Arab-Israeli conflict and help reduce Iranian 
        influence in the region;
Whereas if the United States is unwilling to take a lead in facilitating real 
        sustained negotiations, powers hostile to the United States and our 
        interests may seek to fill the leadership vacuum; and
Whereas the United States must be proactive in this endeavor: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East 
Peace.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DESHAWN MCBETH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:08-cr-01162-PMD-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Deshawn McBeth appeals the district court’s judgmentrevoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months’ imprisonment. McBeth’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence, which is above the policy statement range but within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable. McBeth was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard).

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment revoking McBeth’s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month term of imprisonment. This court requires that counsel inform McBeth, in writing, of

23 the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McBeth requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McBeth. 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
February 26, 1963

No. 67478.

#### Dorf International, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25471-10470, etc.

C.D. 2375. (Rehearing denied, Abstract 67314.) Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
Case No. 14,756a.

#### UNITED STATES v. The CATHERINE.

[See Case No. 14.755.]
| Delaware                                       | 37-1105865                           |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification Number) |

|   |   |   | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)                  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)                 |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                   |

----

| c)     | Exhibits: |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|
|   |      | 99.1   | 2010 Results Press Release dated January 27, 2011 |
|   |      |   |   |
|   |      |   |   |

| Date:  January 27, 2011 |           By:  /s/ Davis G. Reese                                                           |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                       Davis G. Reese      |
|                              |                       Assistant Secretary |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1304

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  under the medicare program of oral drugs to reduce serum phosphate 
       levels in dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2001

   Mr. Kerry introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  under the medicare program of oral drugs to reduce serum phosphate 
       levels in dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF ORAL DRUGS TO REDUCE SERUM PHOSPHATE 
              LEVELS IN DIALYSIS PATIENTS WITH END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE.

    (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)), as amended by section 105(a) of the Medicare, 
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2763A-471), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public 
Law 106-554, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (V), by inserting ``and'' at the end; 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(W) an oral drug that--
                    ``(i) is approved by the Food and Drug 
                Administration;
                    ``(ii) may be dispensed only upon a prescription; 
                and
                    ``(iii) is furnished to a dialysis patient with 
                end-stage renal disease to prevent dietary substances 
                from being absorbed into the bloodstream which are 
                harmful and are not adequately removed by dialysis;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to drugs furnished on or after the date that is 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10

[PNC Bank Letterhead]



September 28, 2001



inTEST Corporation et al.
7 Esterbrook Lane
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Attention: Hugh T. Regan, Jr.Re:	Renewal of Expiration Date for Committed Line of Credit
Dear Mr. Regan:
We are writing to inform you that your committed line of credit has been renewed. The Expiration Date, as set forth in that certain Letter Agreement dated November 16, 2000, and in the Second Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note executed and delivered pursuant to that Letter Agreement, has been extended from September 30, 2001 to September 30, 2002, effective on October 1, 2001. All other terms and conditions of the Second Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note and the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect.
It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.
Very truly yours,
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Gary R. Martz     Gary R. Martz
     Assistant Vice President
No. 216.

#### Real Estate Corp., Inc., *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*N. E. Snyder*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Jones, Myron C. Baum*and *Arthur I. Gould*for respondent.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Angie Loecken

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: ERISA

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:46:57 PM

It is critical that the voices of all persons of conscience be heard,

noting in particular that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented and

that contraception should not be a mandated “preventive health

service.” Respect for conscience is foundational to a just society.

At a minimum a robust conscience protection should be granted, not only

for all religious employers, but also for all employers, insurers, and

policy issuers with moral, ethical, or religious objections. As it is,

the limitations contained in the regulations for religious employers

make the exemption virtually meaningless.

Angie Loecken

1209 East Baker Street

St. Joseph, MN 56374

aloecken@charter.net
No. 516.

#### Parker *v.*United States.

*Francis Heisler*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Richard W. Schmude*for the United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.