alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: asullivan218@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:23:23 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,

Amy Sullivan

London, OH 43140
From: gps081596@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:24 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,

Gary Smith

Anderson, IN 46012
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

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


      The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any purposes.

      In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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, 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 Partnership.




March 30, 2004                                  /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
--------------                                  --------------------
     Date                                       Joseph M. Jayson
                                                Individual General Partner and
                                                Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          16,817
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                       533
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,014
<PP&E>                                           7,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,357
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,091
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,027<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<FN>
<F1>
Net income includes $6.4 million gain on sale of YachtWorld
</FN>


</TABLE>
From: steve.brown@navigators.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:44 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,

Steve Brown

Colorado Springs, CO 80920
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1426 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 11, 2008.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
            (1) Committee on standards of official conduct.--Mr. Scott of 
        Virginia.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1449 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 18, 2008.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6604) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act 
to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 6604 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Bbofore the First Division,

July 7, 1966

No. P66/153. —

#### Grand Basket Co. *v.*United States, protest 63/13117 (New York).

*794Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rush bags or baskets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: baschools@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:27 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Brian Schooley

Arlington, TX 76013
#### Manuel Cadenas, Respondent, v. Gustave Leve and another, Appellants.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1459 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1459

Congratulating Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons for their 
   outstanding achievements in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2008

   Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons for their 
   outstanding achievements in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

Whereas Carlos Boozer won the Gold Medal for his efforts as part of the United 
        States Men's Basketball team;
Whereas Carlos Boozer won the Bronze Medal in the 2004 Athens Summer Olympic 
        Games;
Whereas Carlos Boozer grew up in Juneau, Alaska, and attended Juneau Douglas 
        High School;
Whereas Carlos Boozer plays for the Utah Jazz, has become one of the most 
        talented NBA players, and has made the NBA All Star team on two 
        occasions;
Whereas Corey Cogdell won the Bronze Medal for her efforts as part of the United 
        States Women's Shooting team;
Whereas Corey Cogdell has achieved numerous accomplishments in her short 
        shooting career including winning the Bronze Medal at the 2007 Pan 
        American Games, the Bronze Medal at the 2007 World Cup Korea, and the 
        Bronze Medal at the 2007 National Championships;
Whereas Corey Cogdell, of Eagle River, Alaska, was the only member of the United 
        States Women's Trapshooting team;
Whereas Corey Cogdell won a four-way shootout for third place in the Women's 
        Trap competition;
Whereas Matt Emmons won the Silver Medal for his efforts as a member of the 
        United States Men's Shooting team;
Whereas Matt Emmons won the Gold Medal in the 2004 Athens Summer Olympics in the 
        50m rifle prone;
Whereas Matt Emmons attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks on a shooting 
        scholarship and graduated with honors in 2003;
Whereas Matt Emmons was a member of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Rifle 
        Team and led the University of Alaska Fairbanks to four straight team 
        NCAA titles and won four individual NCAA titles; and
Whereas Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons have proudly represented 
        the United States and the State of Alaska in the 2008 Beijing Summer 
        Olympics: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 
accomplishments of Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons and 
congratulates them on their Olympic achievements.
                                 <all>
```
2 

NESE 

offense was non-violent; most of the prior felony convictions relied upon for 

habitual criminal treatment were relatively old; and the prior convictions 

were of disparate natures, which Spoto asserts, "denotes a lack of specified 

habitual criminality." The district court has broad discretion to dismiss a 

count of habitual criminality. See NRS 207.010(2); O'Neill v. State, 123 

Nev. 9, 12, 153 P.3d 38, 40 (2007). Our review of the record reveals that 

the district court understood its sentencing authority and we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss 

the count. See Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 333, 996 P.2d 890, 893 

(2000); see also Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 

(1992) ("NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent crimes or 

the remoteness of convictions."). 

Lastly, Spoto asserts that his sentence of 5-18 years in prison 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it is excessive and 

disproportionate to the gravity of the underlying offense and his criminal 

history. We disagree. Spoto does not allege that the habitual criminal 

punishment statute is unconstitutional, his sentence is within the 

parameters of that statute, and we are not convinced that the sentence 

imposed is so disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and Spoto's 

criminal history as to shock the conscience. Therefore we conclude that 

the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see NRS 

207.010(1)(a); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality 

opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ,zirtCp 

1:11V 
opinion); Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996), and 

we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1 

Hardesty 

J. 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge 

Eichhorn & Hoo LLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1Spoto's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) 

and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not contain 1-inch margins on all four 

sides. We caution Spoto's counsel that future failure to comply with 

applicable rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 

3C(n). 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 30,
2005, on our audit of the financial statements of Cellcom I Corp. as of
September 30, 2004 and 2003, and for the years then ended, included in this
annual 10-KSB, in the Company's registration statement on Form S-8 (File No.
33-30985).


/s/ PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN
-------------------------------------
Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern
Certified Public Accountants and
Business Advisors
Las Vegas, Nevada

December 26, 2006


                                       23
No. 65963.

#### John A. Steer Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/4835 and 60/7326 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of general purpose electric motors and that said motors do not constitute entireties with other items on the invoices, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(V.D. 151)

#### W. Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 221; 69715.

(Decided February 27, 1969)

*Siegel, Mandell*& *Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*William D. Ruelcelshaus,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*1054Landis, Judge:

These cases come to me from *W. Kay Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*59 Cust. Ct. 159, C.D. 3104, adjudging the appraise-ments (valuation of merchandise) void and remanding the cases, 28 U.S.C. §2636 (d), to determine the proper and separate dutiable value of the merchandise consisting of a soup tureen and electric cord. Counsel have submitted the cases on the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED ARE) AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

That the merchandise involved in this matter is soup tureens with electric cords.

That the involved merchandise was held by the Court in C.D. 3104 to be subject to appraisement at separate values for the soup tureens and the cords.

That on or about the date of exportation, tureens and cords such as and similar to said merchandise were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States.

That the values of said merchandise including the costs of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were:

> Item Ho.

> 55/1 55/13 55/20

> Tureen with, cover_ to CO fcO to

> Metal wiring (part of tureen) H GO to to ^

> Cord_ O Or o *so*o o

That there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the captioned protest he deemed submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting the stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for valuing the soup tureen and electric cord, *Silvine Importers, Inc.*v. *United*States, 60 Cust. Ct. 977, V.D. 141, and that the export value of the respective articles under the following invoice specification is as follows:

> Soup tureen Invoice specification Electric cord

> 55/1 . 96 per unit . 09 per unit

> 55/13 .96 ” ” . 09 ” ”

> 55/20 .46 ” ” . 05 ” ”

Judgment will enter accordingly.