alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Bettie Sogor

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:27:16 AM

Dear HHS Administrator:

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.

Regards,

Bettie Sogor

-- 

Bettie Sogor 

BioBiz Navigator 

P.O. Box 5668 

Cleveland, OH 44101 

Mobile: 440-536-0094 

++++++++++++++ 

This communication, together with any attachments hereto or links contained 

herein, is intended for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may 

contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are 

not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, 

disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication

is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this communication in error, please 

notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete all copies 

of the original communication, along with any attachments hereto or links 

herein, from your system.
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:	November 13, 2009

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2,908,167
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,234,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185,610
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,283,656
<PP&E>                                         2,625,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,397,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,484,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,637,118
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       167,911
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,678,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,484,022
<SALES>                                        7,937,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,937,573
<CGS>                                          5,426,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,888,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (37,569)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             300,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,640,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,640,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,640,370)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.16)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Ann Massey, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Cover-All Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

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

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

Date: March 28, 2003

By:     /s/ Ann F. Massey
   ---------------------------
Name:  Ann F. Massey
Title: Chief Financial Officer
IV 

House Calendar No. 238 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1281 

[Report No. 110–719] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2008 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of June 19, 2008, providing 

6 for consideration or disposition of a measure making supVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:43 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1281.RH HR1281

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1281 RH 

1 plemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sep2 tember 30, 2008. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 238 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1281 

[Report No. 110

–719] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluJUNE 18, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 208, Misc.

#### Garnett *v.*Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: robindiversifab@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:48:58 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,

Robin Lopez-Tiana

Chino Hills, CA 91709
From: hollyg2@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:14 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,

Holly Giannola

Northville, MI 48168
1 

### Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:01 PM To: Frey, Nathan J. Cc: Langdon, Robin; Weatherhead, Darryl; Brown, Kelly; Mathias, Scott; Hemby, James; Scavo, Kimber; Elman, Barry; Cooperstein, Sharon; Smith, D arcie Subject: EPA Response to Summary of Interagency Comments Und er EO 12866 and 13563 --Ozone NAAQs RIA Attachments: EPA Response to 11-21-2014 SummaryofInteragencyComm entsUnderEO12866_13563 _OzoneNAAQsRIA_miscellaneous 11-24-2014.docx



### Nathan,

Attached please find EPA’s response to comments on the O3 NAAQS RIA received from OMB on Friday Novemb er 21, 2014. Please let me know if you have any questions on these materials.

Thanks, Erika
No. 114, Misc.

#### Macdonald *v.*Dunne, Judge, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: danielstephens@clearwire.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:12 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,

Daniel Stephens

Visalia, CA 93292
#### William H. Carr and another, Respondents, v. Sarah A. L. Palmer and others, Appellants.

Appeal withdrawn.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStructural Test Documentation and Results for the McDonnell Douglas All-Composite Wing Stub BoxThe results of a series of tests conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center to evaluate the behavior of an all-composite full-scale wing box are presented. The wing stub box is representative of a section of a commercial transport aircraft wing box and was designed and constructed by McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Company as part of the NASA Advanced Composites Technology (ACT) program. Tests were conducted with and without low-speed impact damage and repairs. The structure with nonvisible impact damage carried 140 percent of Design Limit Load prior to failure through an impact site.Document ID19970022698Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJegley, Dawn C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Bush, Harold G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1997Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110204NASA-TM-110204Accession Number97N23153Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 538-10-11-06Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970022698.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: forgy1@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please use your influence to help defeat RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:40 PM

I believe it is impossible to legislate morality because it is a matter of the heart. Please help those of us

who are responsible for our own lives, children and neighbors do what we feel is best for us. Do not

attempt to force your agenda on us.

Sincerely,

Gayland Yarbrough

Hereford, AZ 85615
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, J. Michael French., President and Chief Executive Officer of MDRNA, Inc. (“MDRNA”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of MDRNA on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MDRNA. 

 

Date:March 23, 2010 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MDRNA andwill be retained by MDRNA and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Thiscertification accompanies each periodic report pursuant to Section 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 MDRNA for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsVerification of Orthogrid Finite Element Modeling TechniquesThe stress analysis of orthogrid structures, specifically with I-beam sections, is regularly performed using finite elements. Various modeling techniques are often used to simplify the modeling process but still adequately capture the actual hardware behavior. The accuracy of such 'Oshort cutso' is sometimes in question. This report compares three modeling techniques to actual test results from a loaded orthogrid panel. The finite element models include a beam, shell, and mixed beam and shell element model. Results show that the shell element model performs the best, but that the simpler beam and beam and shell element models provide reasonable to conservative results for a stress analysis. When deflection and stiffness is critical, it is important to capture the effect of the orthogrid nodes in the model.Document ID19970001271Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSteeve, B. E.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:108519NASA-TM-108519Accession Number97N11105Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001271.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Horace Hamell, Administrator, etc., Respond *630ent, v. The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, Appellant.
# E **C** 

# / **R Incorporated Providing Environmental**  **Technical Support Since 1989**

1 **MEMORANDUM TO:**  Bruce Moore , EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FI G **FROM:** David Hendricks , EC/R, Inc. **DATE:** December 19 , 201 4 **SUBJECT:** Summary

of the September 25 , 2014 , Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to D iscuss the Proposed Reconsideration of Additional Provisions of the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution NSPS **I. INTRODUCTION**  The API requested this meeting with the EPA to discuss the comments AP I submitted on the proposed amendments to the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOO). This meeting summary will be available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ - OAR- 20 1 0 - 0 505 ). The proposed rule wa s published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2014 (7 9 FR 41752 ). **II. ATTENDEES**  The following is a list of participants in the meeting. **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency** David Cozzie Bruce Moore Chris Frantz Matthew Witosky **API and Member Organizations** Jenny Yang, ConocoPhillips Matt Todd, API John Wagner, API Becky Keogh, BHP Billiton Grover Campbell, Devon Energy Jim Cooper, Chesapeake Energy Manish Singh, Ox y Jeff Adams, BP2

Angela Zivkovich, Anadarko Petroleum Tom M onahan, XTO Jason Zapalac, Anadarko Petroleum Amanda San Miguel, Marathon Oil Kenyatta Miles, Shell Jim Sewell, Shell Shankar Ananthakrishna, Chevron **EC/R Incorporated** David Hendricks (b y phone) **III. SUMMARY OF**  **DISCUSSION** Bruce Moore opened the meeting by stating that the proposed rule is currently in the post proposal period and the EPA c an answer clarifying questions from the group, but c annot provide any responses to comments on the proposed rules. The API discussed each of the comments they submitted to the EPA on the proposal and further clarified their position. The topics discussed include the following:

 Storage vessel applicability issues related to §60.5365  Clarification of well completion and production related to §60.5375  Clarification of the standards applicable to new, modified and reconstructed storage vessels related to §60.5395  Exceptions to the equipment leak standards under §60.5401  Clarification of when control devices must be operational under §§60.5412(d)(3) and 60.5417(h)(1)(i)  D efinition of responsible official under §60.5430  Definition of low pressure gas well under §60.5430  Use of LEL meters to determine when to operate a separator  The point at which the production stage begins  Suitability

of electronic spark ignition for combu stion devices  Miscellaneous technical corrections The EPA thanked the attendees for providing this information and stated that they will review the submitted comments to respond to these issues.