alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01

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 of Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark S. Thompson   
|Mark S. Thompson       
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 7, 2009
From: dropbocks2@netzero.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:17 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,

Jim Bock

Lakeland, FL 33810
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armando Bailon, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 975]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 21, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, e.g., People v Griffin,*207 AD2d 844; *People v Ramsay,*199 AD2d 428). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*677The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: tkennedy@hbu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:21:48 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,

Tom Kennedy

Houston, TX 77074
From: diaz4450@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:58 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,

Elia Diaz

Las Cruces, NM 88005
From: lana.naoum@lnpc.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:09 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,

Lana Naoum

Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133566 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133566 COA: 274838 Eaton CC: 04-020148-FH MELISSA FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 6, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

p0905 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2007

Clerk
II

Calendar No. 167

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1270

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 8th Avenue

and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, as the ‘‘Wayne Lyman Morse United

States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 30, 2001

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Oregon) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment

and Public Works

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

Reported by Mr. JEFFORDS, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed

at 8th Avenue and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, as

the ‘‘Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WAYNE LYMAN MORSE

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

5 The United States courthouse to be constructed at

6 8th Avenue and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, shall be
2

S 1270 RS

1 known and designated as the ‘‘Wayne Lyman Morse

2 United States Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

7 to be a reference to the Wayne Lyman Morse United

8 States Courthouse.

Calendar No. 167

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1270

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse to be

constructed at 8th Avenue and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, as the ‘‘Wayne Lyman MorseUnited States Courthouse’’.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

Reported without amendment
From: dirk.joan@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:37 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,

Joan Kramer

Ponca City, OK 74601
No. P67/7.

#### U.S. Asiatic Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/5025, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material- respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), and that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| RATES      EFFECTIVE for Variable Denomination Floating Rate Demand      Notesas of April 13, 2009: |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Edwin A. Barnes, Appellant, v. Harvey E. Light, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. ■ Opinion by

Haight, J.
EXHIBIT 99.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.
Date:	November 14, 2002

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  475                                                                   Trade Date:  08/30/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   09/02/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust 30, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QVU2  4.625%       09/15/13           100%              1.52%               Semi-Annually              YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,609,000.00         $1,584,543.20         ABN AMRO Inc.        03/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $149.866 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ricky Williams

Santa Rosa, CA 95403
## NO. 12-08-00480-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: JODY FORD MCCR EAR Y, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Jody Ford McCrea

ry h as fi l ed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he sta tes that he pleade d guilty to t he off

ense of robbery, a second degre e felony, but that the district attorne y failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. There fore , McCrea ry asse rts, his conviction is void and sh ou ld b e se t a sid e by wr it o f m a nd a mus . W e ha ve pr e vio us ly he ld that we ha ve no jurisd ic tio n to c on sid e r thi s c omp la int be c a us e it rela tes to postconviction relief in a felony c ase. See In r

e Mc Cre ar

y , No. 12-08-00343- CR, 2008 WL 4335168, a t *1 (Tex. App.–T yler 2008, orig

. p ro ce eding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (c iting Ate r v . Ei ght h Cou rt o f A pp e als , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ). The Te xas Court of Criminal Appea l s has exc lusive authority to grant postconviction re lief in a felony case . See Ater , 802 S.W.2d at 243. Acc ordingly, McCrea ry’s pe tition for writ of mandamus is dismiss ed

. BR IA N H OY LE J ustice Opinion delivere d Dec ember 17, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)