alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilson F. Wakefield, Respondent, *v.*Philip B. Gaynor, Defendant, and Edward V. Brophy et al., as Trustees of the Village of Port Chester, Appellants.

*Wakefield*v. Gaynor, 144 App. Div. 905, affirmed.

(Argued March 4, 1913;

decided March 18, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 8, 1911, affirming a judgment, in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to restrain the officials of the village of Port Chester from paying for work alleged to have been performed under a certain contract.

*Arthur I. Strang, Clinton T. Taylor*and *William A. Sawyer*for appellants.

*Frederick W. Sherman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32-1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 5 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: November 2, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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; and

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


/s/ Michael Prince
--------------------------
Michael Prince
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
March 13, 2006
No. 67484.

#### California Radio & Electronics Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/13272(B), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of “S” meters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Foreign Service, Inc., Gonset Division et al.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 183, C.D. 2300), the claim at 12% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for parts of radios was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of “YU” meters the same in all material respects as those the subject of said C.D. 2300 or volt-ohm-milliampere meters similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *G. L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), were held dutiable at 13% percent under the provision in said paragraph 353, as modified, *supra,*for other articles, wholly or in chief value of metal, having as an essential feature an electrical element or device.
Order filed January 14, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00906-CV

____________

SHELIAH DEVEREAUX AND KEVIN TAYLOR, Appellants

V.

PLAN B FINANCIAL LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1142998

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was due December 19, 2019. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. Unless appellants file a brief with this court on or 

before February 13, 2020, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
No. 252.

#### Clement *v.*Fisher.

Petitioner *pro se. Charles E. Brown*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 AEROCENTURY
        CORP.
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 
 In
        connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury
        Corp. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Neal D. Crispin, Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
        for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
        that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
        and for the periods indicated.
 
 This
        Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission.
  NEAL
                D.
                CRISPINDate: August
                14, 2006
              
              /s/ Neal
                D.
                CrispinTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
From: travelingpugh@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:08 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,

Frankie Pugh

Carrollton, TX 75006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Henry C. Lein, Appellant.

*People*v. *Lein,*152 App. Div. 376, affirmed.

(Argued December 12, 1912;

decided December 31, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 9, 1912, which affirmed a judgment rendered at a Trial Term upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree.

*John W. Ryan*for appellant.

*Wesley C. Dudley, District Attorney (Guy B. Moore*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Form of Section 906 Certification

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

		In connection with the Quarterly Report of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, James A. Duensing, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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.

 

 

 

 

				/s/  J.A. Duensing  
Date: August 5, 2002			James A. Duensing

						Principal Financial Officer
From: rbrooks@heartbeats.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:02:54 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,

Rindy Brooks

Newark, OH 43055
From: john_lesage@matrixdesigngroup.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:50 AM

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,

John LeSage

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
No. 229.

#### Gutierrez *v.*Waterman Steamship Corp.

*Harvey B. Nachman*for petitioner.

*Antonio M. Bird*for respondent.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.
November 3, 1965

No. 69610.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/17415.

C.D. 2554. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
#### William McElhinney and another, Appellants, v. Jonn P. M. Peck and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
From: philk@lunseth.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:01 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,

Philip Kraemer

Grand Forks, ND 58203
From: petelatona@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:59 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,

peter latona

Hayward, CA 94541
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 141 

Congratulating Miss Lauren Nelson for being crowned Miss America and 

thanking the participants in and supporters of the Miss America Competition for their contributions to young women’s lives and communities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2007 

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma (for himself, Mr. BOREN, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. SULLIVAN, 

and Ms. FALLIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Miss Lauren Nelson for being crowned Miss 

America and thanking the participants in and supporters 

of the Miss America Competition for their contributions 

to young women’s lives and communities. 

Whereas Miss Lauren Nelson of Lawton, Oklahoma, was 

named Miss America on January 29, 2007; 

Whereas Miss Nelson has worked to introduce children to the 

Internet’s promise while also warning about its perils, 

specifically online predators; 

Whereas Miss Nelson, a music theater major at the University of Central Oklahoma, sang the song ‘‘You’ll Be in 

My Heart’’ for the talent competition, and has performed 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 141 IH 

in musicals ranging from ‘‘Fiddler on the Roof’’ to ‘‘Bye, 

Bye Birdie’’; 

Whereas Miss Nelson’s love of music has taken her to sing 

in New York City and Branson, Missouri, and has led 

her to the All-Region Honor Choir and Oklahoma’s AllState Women’s Chorus; 

Whereas Miss Nelson has been recognized in previous pageants, including Miss Teen Oklahoma and Miss Oklahoma; 

Whereas Miss Nelson has been recognized for her scholarship 

as well, having been a member of the National Honor Society and a recipient of the Renaissance Academic award; 

Whereas this is the first time since 1960 that a State has 

won consecutive Miss America titles; and 

Whereas Miss Nelson’s win ties Oklahoma with California 

and Ohio as the States with the most Miss Americas, 

with six recipients per State: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates Miss Lauren Nelson for being 

3 crowned Miss America; 

4 (2) thanks the participants in and supporters of 

5 the Miss America Competition for their contribu6 tions to young women’s lives and communities; and 

7 (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent8 atives to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution 

9 to Miss Lauren Nelson and to the Miss America Or10 ganization. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
From: dale.s.hill

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:40:43 AM

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.
No. 59680.

#### The Singer Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protest 256217-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the protest was called for trial, counsel for the defendant called the court’s attention to certain statements made by certain customs officers in the papers accompanying the protest and entry when forwarded to the court by the collector. Based upon those statements, the defendant conceded the error of the collector’s classification and the correctness of plaintiff’s claim. The claim of the plaintiff was, therefore, sustained.